High Speed Trains Coming to Midwest.

[Tempest]

More "improvements" from light rail:

Quote:
Will light rail reduce traffic congestion in San Antonio?
No. City-wide, light rail will reduce automobile miles driven by less than 0.4% by the year 2025. To put this in perspective, total traffic removed from roadways as a result of combined light rail ridership over 25 years is less than a single year's increase in traffic. Light rail will remove essentially no traffic from the Loop, where most traffic growth is expected to occur. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that 98% of employment growth (through 2025) in S.A. will occur outside the central business district. Furthermore, since light rail will run in existing streets and will preempt traffic signals, it will increase congestion around operating trains as will its 20+ years of construction in existing streets. Only 25% of light rail passengers in the U.S. are former automobile drivers. Only former automobile drivers who ride light rail are contributing to reduced traffic congestion and air pollution.


Quote:
Has light rail been a success in Dallas?
No. Dallas taxpayers were told that light rail offered the best hope for reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and revitalizing downtown Dallas. It has failed on all three counts. Dallas underestimated their construction costs by more than 60%, inflation adjusted ($17.8 million per mile estimate; $45 million per mile actual). Subsequently, rather than build a 160 mile system as promised, only 20 miles opened at the end of 13 years and only 53 total miles are now planned to be built when the system is complete. Of course, taxpayers were taxed at the level that was to build the 160 mile system. DART overestimated light rail ridership by at least 355% even though it subsidizes fares by almost 88%. In 1997, it was only carrying 43 million and is projected to carry only 125 million when the system is complete. Traffic congestion has risen 35% since the light rail election, an amount 10% greater than the national average increase and greater than any other Texas city. The EPA has placed Dallas on the list of dirtiest cities in the U.S. Downtown Dallas, the core of the light rail system, rather than being revitalized, has the second highest office vacancy rate (32%) in the entire U.S.

http://www.texaspolicy.com/press_releases_single.php?report_id=306

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
$4.7 billion for ~16 miles of track = $294 MILLION dollars per mile...


The warmspring expansion (1/2 to 2/3 of the way to Milpitas) cost only 890 Million. The cost you mentioned about, $4.7billion for 16 miles, is the subway going under downtown San Jose then curl up to Santa Clara Caltrain station. So if you add another 1/2 to 1/3 of the 890 million, you are closer to $1.5 billion which makes a lot more sense.

Quote:
South County lacks adequate public transportation services right now. Extending BART to San Jose will not change that. Extending BART to San Jose will create a financial drain on the VTA that will likely result in reduced public transportation services for South County.


This woman is talking about not expanding the BART into Milpitas / San Jose (up north) but expand the south county (to Gilroy) instead. It is like saying "Why fix the traffic in Washington DC when you can spend the same amount of money in Alaska and get much better result?"

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
More "improvements" from light rail:


Agree that building new light rail is ineffective and expensive, but...

We are not talking about building new light rail here, they are already built, operational, and carrying people around. What you need is just connect it between Fremont and Milpitas so they can link together.

Fremont to Warm Spring is 890 million, then from Warm Spring where the station is (Fremont Central Park) to Milpitas is 10 miles along a train track.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s...35,0.11055&z=13

Now you have a whole lot of additional riders for the investment that you paid so many years ago.

The light rail probably should have never been build, but since it is already here, it is too wasteful not to connect it to the rest of the bay area via BART.

 

[crinkles]

i think public transport should be a priority of any government. it irks me when they try to run these things as profitable businesses and scale down services if the profit isn't there! makes no sense. even if it cost money to the taxpayer, it would be good if it WORKED well!

FWIW i love taking trains!

 

[Gary Allan]

There's a freedom quotient involved, crinkles. There was a study here in the Phila area in the late 70's that showed that people would exchange up to 60% of their equivalent hourly wage to drive instead of taking public transit (parking/fuel/etc). That's not 60% of their paycheck ..just that they would sacrifice money for time saved and the choices afforded.

That was for commuters from outside the metro areas.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
it irks me when they try to run these things as profitable businesses and scale down services if the profit isn't there! makes no sense.

So paying tens of billions for <1% of commuters makes sense??

 

[javacontour]

And that would square with my usage of light rail. Here in St. Louis we have the MetroLink that runs from Scott AFB to Lambert, with a second line that meets this one in the middle and goes to the Galleria and a bit further south to Sunnen.

There really is no bus stop close to my home, so by the time I get into my car, I just drive to the commuter lot and park.

I take the train to 8th and Pine where it stops right under the building I spend 1/2 my time working. (I split an on-site gig at AT&T with another engineer, and then cover general territory the days I'm not on-site.)

It saves me a bit of time as I don't have to drive into downtown and find a place to park, and I'm 10-20 minutes from my car depending on which lot is most convenient for parking given what I'm doing in a day. So if I should need my car, it's a short train ride away.

It saves me a bit of money, but I take the train because it saves time.

I tried 10 or so years ago to use public transit to commute. They had a try transit for a week deal, and at that time, there was a bus stop about a block from my home. So I tried it. It took me over 90 minutes to cover the same distance it took to drive in 45. I took a bus, to the Metro, Metro back to a bus, and it was miserable.

After the first couple of days, I figured my time and time with my family was more important than any money I might save with public transit.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
it irks me when they try to run these things as profitable businesses and scale down services if the profit isn't there! makes no sense.

So paying tens of billions for div>
Its the New Math...

 

[Kestas]

Some time ago, a survey was done to query people on whether they wanted a mass transit system in their metro area. An overwhelming number of people were in favor of such a system. Once they dug deeper into the query, they found that few people would actually use it. It turns out that most people basically wanted it so 'other' people would use it and free up the freeway for themselves! An interesting comment on human nature and the "me first" type of thinking!

 

[Bill in Utah]

What I've always said for years is if you take Public transit the following should happen for you.

1. Every 6 months you get a free month pass.

2. Automatic every other year free state tags for your vehicle.

3. Major discount on auto insurance (since the vehicle is less likely to get into a claim sitting)

4. Your work place understands you are using public transit and may be late here and there. (and *may* do some work on the system)

I've seen public transit work pretty well here on some runs. There are buses and the light rail system are packed during rush here.

Commuter rail is another thing.. I think only 2k people take it to and from. A lot of diesel fuel going up the exhaust there.

Bill

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Some time ago, a survey was done to query people on whether they wanted a mass transit system in their metro area. An overwhelming number of people were in favor of such a system. Once they dug deeper into the query, they found that few people would actually use it. It turns out that most people basically wanted it so 'other' people would use it and free up the freeway for themselves! An interesting comment on human nature and the "me first" type of thinking!


This is the same thing here. I probably wouldn't use it, but if it free up the commute route that I'm using, I'd gladly pay my part for it.

The reason hybrid sells so well and toll road that charges $5 each route works so well (in So Cal) in California is because of the traffic. $3.5 to $4 per gallon of gas didn't deter people from moving to 50 miles away into Livermore and Stockton, the traffic jam does, and it shows in the $300k-$600k home price difference.

 

[PandaBear]

BTW, just to let you know. My wife's company have such a huge problem with parking, that if you can proof that you are carpooling with co-worker, every day the passenger can get $4 payout for not using the parking space. So a carpool of 2 co-workers literally pay for the fuel cost and get to use the carpool lane.

Apple, Cisco, Yahoo, Intel runs bus services for free from various Metro areas into their HQ every day, so their workers don't come in stressed and can work on the bus.

When I used to carpool between San Francisco and Livermore, I had 2 passengers and each of them paid me 100% of the fuel cost, so the higher the gas price, the more I made. They were glad to do it so they don't have to own a car, pay for parking, tickets, and stuck in traffic.

You also get to cross the bridge for free (normally cost $4 per round trip) if you are carpooling, last year a news wrote about an unemployed college student made a few bucks everyday offering to be your passenger so you can cross the bridge via carpool lane.

People who never get stuck in 2-3 hours per day commute couldn't understand how a 15 miles extension of BART that cost a few billion and carry 320k passengers per day is considered reasonable.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
it irks me when they try to run these things as profitable businesses and scale down services if the profit isn't there! makes no sense.

So paying tens of billions for div>


Please explain? Got a link? (from anything that's not associated with some reactionary anarchist militia or the like)

Freedom with a profit motive (wait- check that, sorta reverse it- say that you're an enslaver due to not letting someone privately shake you down while hurting the species and the nation- you're hurting it for its own good!!) Feed the greed for the good of independence of the population!! (cheers imagined here).

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
(from anything that's not associated with some reactionary anarchist militia or the like)


Aaaarrrggghhh! *Stop doing that*!

Not many things would make an anarchist happier than ubiquitous public transit.

Anarchism does NOT mean "no government", nor does it mean "no organization" or "no social structure". Quite the opposite: it means "no rulers" or, better yet "no coersive authority"; and there is a HUGE difference between a governing body directly accountable to, and in service of, the voting populace and a governing body lording *over* the voting populace. We'd *all* prefer the former, no?

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
[Anarchism does NOT mean "no government", nor does it mean "no organization" or "no social structure". Quite the opposite: it means "no rulers" or, better yet "no coersive authority"; and there is a HUGE difference between a governing body directly accountable to, and in service of, the voting populace and a governing body lording *over* the voting populace. We'd *all* prefer the former, no?


We could try running BITOG without coercive authority. How do you think that will go down?

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
We could try running BITOG without coercive authority. How do you think that will go down?

I think it would go down, indeed.

There are many forums that run well without any authority: They use peer moderation (or "karma" in forum admin lingo), and users can choose which level of "karma" to display. Slashdot, for example, shows me posts modded at +1 (my choosing) and above, meaning all of the -5 posts from trolls and ne'er-do-wells remain unseen.

To get back on track (pun intended), I think the decision has to be made whether or not high speed public transit is a useful public service; and if so, whether it could be constructed with reasonable means. Police and fire departments are not meritorious in a fiscal sense: They outright cost money, but have been deemed warranted by their unquestionable public importance. Schools and libraries and such are also not evaluated based on profitability. *If* - and I certainly don't know enough about this to have formed a remotely intelligent opinion on the subject - high speed choo-choo's will mitigate against urban congestion and the resulting productivity and environmental impact to a degree that the nation/ state/ region sees more benefit than burden, then perhaps it should be pursued, assuming it is viable.

On the other hand, convenient, cheap, high speed rail would probably encourage further urban sprawl. I can picture *everyone* moving out of the corroded rust belt cities (further corroding them) out to a house in the hills, and commuting 400 miles to work and back (25 minutes each way), which would also wipe out any environmental benefits of high speed rail or any mass transit. All of the people who work in Ohio would live in Florida!

I could see this being a very, very useful project in more densely populated nations with fewer cars and more expensive gas. In the U.S. and Canada? Mebbe not so much.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
(from anything that's not associated with some reactionary anarchist militia or the like)


Aaaarrrggghhh! *Stop doing that*!

Not many things would make an anarchist happier than ubiquitous public transit.

Anarchism does NOT mean "no government", nor does it mean "no organization" or "no social structure". Quite the opposite: it means "no rulers" or, better yet "no coersive authority"; and there is a HUGE difference between a governing body directly accountable to, and in service of, the voting populace and a governing body lording *over* the voting populace. We'd *all* prefer the former, no?


Well, first let's dispense with your definition of anarchism and focus on those who wish to benefit in the midst of true anarchy and hope to lead us as fast as they can in that direction.

We're on a course (and may very well be unable to avoid it) to that end. Some want it now.

 

[sciphi]

Between cities, yes, high-speed rail would be a good thing. Sit down and relax, let the train do the work. Optimize the number of stops between convenience and speed.

For more local routes, carpooling or using existing mass transit if available is decent.

And for <3 mile commutes, nothing beats a bike.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
And for div>


Except when it rains of course.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Well, first let's dispense with your definition of anarchism and focus on those who wish to benefit in the midst of true anarchy and hope to lead us as fast as they can in that direction.


It's not *my* definition, Gary. I am very, very acutely aware of the true meaning; and judging from my experience reading many of your posts, which are often from the same perspective as mine, so are you! I think I posted a link for the political compass test in another thread recently and a few of the folks here took it and posted the images of their results. The bottom perimeter of the spectral square? Anarchism. The folks who ended up around Ghandi and the Dalai Lama in the lower left? You betcha - that's where it is.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: I am honestly not trying to further politicize this hapless thread; I am merely trying to quickly make a point about the (mis)usage of a political word. I like reading about trains and I don't want you to make it stop.

You are confusing the word "anarchy", whose meaning simply means the opposite of monarchy, and "chaos" or "really kee-rappy scenario". I must have a mori complex, as I find myself correcting people on this half a dozen times a day - Even more if I actually leave the house!

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
We're on a course (and may very well be unable to avoid it) to that end. Some want it now.


To what end? (I am confused now.) Direct democracy or chaos?