Sounds like another self supporting, profit making government enterprise.
High Speed Trains Coming to Midwest.
- Thread starter CivicFan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Sounds like another self supporting, profit making government enterprise.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read enough about this business. Is this funding for R & D for a(n eventual) gov't owned, gov't run public transit? Or is it destined for R & D that will better enable private enterprise to get these things going? The article referenced in the first post did not seem to indicate one way or the other.
Sounds like another self supporting, profit making government enterprise.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read enough about this business. Is this funding for R & D for a(n eventual) gov't owned, gov't run public transit? Or is it destined for R & D that will better enable private enterprise to get these things going? The article referenced in the first post did not seem to indicate one way or the other.
Quote:
Please explain? Got a link?
Quote:
Even during peak travel hours light rail carries comparatively few riders compared to freeway lanes, though data is not generally available. In Portland, for example, inbound (toward downtown) light rail volume averages approximately 1,100 per hour during the 6:00 a..m. to 9:00 a.m. peak period. By comparison, each lane of the adjacent Banfield Freeway (Interstate 84) carries approximately 2,600 people per hour --- nearly 2.5 times the volume of the light rail line. In the outbound direction, each freeway lane carries 1,500 persons hourly, 28 times the light rail averages of 55 passengers during the same period (Figure #1). Overall, during the morning peak period, the freeway carries more than 10 times the volume of the light rail line.(1)
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt-pk.htm
Quote:
Weyrich also claims success in Portland, Dallas and Denver. Federal data show that Portland light rail carries just three-quarters of a percent of regional passenger travel. That's not much of a return for something that cost nearly half the region's transport budget.
At that, Portland's light rail carries a larger share of regional travel than any other light-rail system in the country. Denver's light rail carries less than a quarter of a percent of regional travel, Dallas just a tenth of a percent.
These lines actually increase congestion since they often occupy lanes that could otherwise be open to cars.
Rail boosters argue that one rail line has the capacity of an eight-lane freeway. But it's use, not capacity, that counts. Light rail is so slow and inconvenient that no light-rail system in the country carries more people per mile than two-thirds of a freeway lane. Since a typical light-rail mile costs as much to build as a five- to 10-lane freeway, rail is simply not cost-effective.
If Seattle builds light rail, it will probably follow in the tracks of San Jose, Calif., whose light-rail cars carry fewer people than San Francisco cable cars. Partly because its light-rail lines cost more to operate than the buses they replaced, San Jose's transit agency is suffering a fiscal crisis, forcing it to shut down many bus routes. Yet it is stubbornly building more light-rail lines that it has no money to operate.
After looking at federal census and transportation data, only someone who is deluding himself, or trying to delude you, would say, as Weyrich does, that "light rail will help keep the highways moving."
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_000021.htm
Quote:
from anything that's not associated with some reactionary anarchist militia or the like
Ah Gary, the old trick of trying to discredit the messenger when you can't counter the facts... Nice try.
Please explain? Got a link?
Quote:
Even during peak travel hours light rail carries comparatively few riders compared to freeway lanes, though data is not generally available. In Portland, for example, inbound (toward downtown) light rail volume averages approximately 1,100 per hour during the 6:00 a..m. to 9:00 a.m. peak period. By comparison, each lane of the adjacent Banfield Freeway (Interstate 84) carries approximately 2,600 people per hour --- nearly 2.5 times the volume of the light rail line. In the outbound direction, each freeway lane carries 1,500 persons hourly, 28 times the light rail averages of 55 passengers during the same period (Figure #1). Overall, during the morning peak period, the freeway carries more than 10 times the volume of the light rail line.(1)
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt-pk.htm
Quote:
Weyrich also claims success in Portland, Dallas and Denver. Federal data show that Portland light rail carries just three-quarters of a percent of regional passenger travel. That's not much of a return for something that cost nearly half the region's transport budget.
At that, Portland's light rail carries a larger share of regional travel than any other light-rail system in the country. Denver's light rail carries less than a quarter of a percent of regional travel, Dallas just a tenth of a percent.
These lines actually increase congestion since they often occupy lanes that could otherwise be open to cars.
Rail boosters argue that one rail line has the capacity of an eight-lane freeway. But it's use, not capacity, that counts. Light rail is so slow and inconvenient that no light-rail system in the country carries more people per mile than two-thirds of a freeway lane. Since a typical light-rail mile costs as much to build as a five- to 10-lane freeway, rail is simply not cost-effective.
If Seattle builds light rail, it will probably follow in the tracks of San Jose, Calif., whose light-rail cars carry fewer people than San Francisco cable cars. Partly because its light-rail lines cost more to operate than the buses they replaced, San Jose's transit agency is suffering a fiscal crisis, forcing it to shut down many bus routes. Yet it is stubbornly building more light-rail lines that it has no money to operate.
After looking at federal census and transportation data, only someone who is deluding himself, or trying to delude you, would say, as Weyrich does, that "light rail will help keep the highways moving."
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_000021.htm
Quote:
from anything that's not associated with some reactionary anarchist militia or the like
Ah Gary, the old trick of trying to discredit the messenger when you can't counter the facts... Nice try.
Mass transit also tends to use the same petroleum per passenger-mile as individual vehicles. Put two people in each car, and you win.
Quoting a US government publication:
http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2008/08/energy-per-passenger-mile
Quoting a US government publication:
http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2008/08/energy-per-passenger-mile
In a way I have to agree with Tempest that light rail is the least efficient form of public transit, both in fiscal and traffic utilization. It share public road and therefore slow down traffic, but it still cost like medium to high speed rail system.
In San Jose, one thing I do notice right now is a lot of new apartment complex rising up right next to the light rail station. It is as if the urban planning is starting to follow the previous transit plan (or you can call it a cover up). At the moment they are still inefficient, because each light rail is only about 1/8 full, but they are not "empty".
It is all part of urban planning when you start developing a new area. Much of the light rail runs along the former landfill of Milpitas, North San Jose, where the first 25 years of the time was zoned for dot com business parks with low employee density. With the apartment complex taking over the area there seems to be more riders now (compare to 8 years ago when I first started in the area).
There is no way you can compare freeway lane traffic volume to any public transit, because the traffic is so bad the freeway speed is usually around 25-60mph during traffic hours.
In San Jose, one thing I do notice right now is a lot of new apartment complex rising up right next to the light rail station. It is as if the urban planning is starting to follow the previous transit plan (or you can call it a cover up). At the moment they are still inefficient, because each light rail is only about 1/8 full, but they are not "empty".
It is all part of urban planning when you start developing a new area. Much of the light rail runs along the former landfill of Milpitas, North San Jose, where the first 25 years of the time was zoned for dot com business parks with low employee density. With the apartment complex taking over the area there seems to be more riders now (compare to 8 years ago when I first started in the area).
There is no way you can compare freeway lane traffic volume to any public transit, because the traffic is so bad the freeway speed is usually around 25-60mph during traffic hours.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Mass transit is a problem because people only really need it for a few hours total out of every day, and dedicated hardware would be wasted in the off hours.
Sort of like electricity infrastructure...but they make sure that the lights turn on for nearly every person every time thy flick the switch.
Mass transit is a problem because people only really need it for a few hours total out of every day, and dedicated hardware would be wasted in the off hours.
Sort of like electricity infrastructure...but they make sure that the lights turn on for nearly every person every time thy flick the switch.
Nice idea expect they dont have any track to hold that type of speed....
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Ah Gary, the old trick of trying to discredit the messenger when you can't counter the facts... Nice try.
Parrots can mimic anyone ..what do you have to say?
..but beyond just giving you a hard time, your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.
It's like saying that obese people choose fat laden food in unchecked quantities 2:1 over leaner members of the species and using the statistic to promote the finer aspects and benefits of fast food.
Give us the Tempest-speak view in a "explain it to me, please" manner ..not reciting the profiteer/anti-government party line.
Ah Gary, the old trick of trying to discredit the messenger when you can't counter the facts... Nice try.
Parrots can mimic anyone ..what do you have to say?
..but beyond just giving you a hard time, your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.
It's like saying that obese people choose fat laden food in unchecked quantities 2:1 over leaner members of the species and using the statistic to promote the finer aspects and benefits of fast food.
Give us the Tempest-speak view in a "explain it to me, please" manner ..not reciting the profiteer/anti-government party line.
Tempest does not speak, he quote from other links, which is pretty easy since there are always links that are against everything.
I was surprised that he actually link an opinion about how a newspaper from a different geographical area than the high speed rail project, and how it think the money should be spend in ITS COUNTY rather than the high speed rail, is a convincing one.
His links about effectiveness on light rail is spot on, however.
I was surprised that he actually link an opinion about how a newspaper from a different geographical area than the high speed rail project, and how it think the money should be spend in ITS COUNTY rather than the high speed rail, is a convincing one.
His links about effectiveness on light rail is spot on, however.
The discussion here is interesting - I switched to public transit for my daily commute back in summer 2007 after I figured out how much it could save me ($4000 a year). It's less stressful, it's only marginally slower and I walk more now than every before - a direct improvement for my heart health and longevity. All in all, it's just fine.
But the realization that I've had about the transit system is that it suffers two "design" flaws:
- it's intended (consciously or unconsciously) as a "way to get around for people that don't have or can't afford cars".
- it's priced cheap because it's considered to be part of the social welfare system.
With those two "defects", it's very hard to get people out of their cars. Most people who own a car bear a cost between $500 and $1500 a month to own, insure and operate the vehicle. With bus pricing at 10% of that level, it's affordable to ride but the ride's not very nice. Double the pricing and you can afford routes and transit service levels delivering a quick, efficient and pleasant way to get around when you don't need a trunk-full of stuff going with you.
What's this got to do with rail, you ask? Well, Vancouver's transit system includes computerized rail "Skytrain" service. It's not LRT because it operates on its own grade, not sharing the streets. The cost per rider is about half of the driver-operated LRT systems and the system actually makes money even at the artificially low rates they charge. It's busy during the day and packed at rush hour when the four-car trains run at 3 minute intervals.
But the realization that I've had about the transit system is that it suffers two "design" flaws:
- it's intended (consciously or unconsciously) as a "way to get around for people that don't have or can't afford cars".
- it's priced cheap because it's considered to be part of the social welfare system.
With those two "defects", it's very hard to get people out of their cars. Most people who own a car bear a cost between $500 and $1500 a month to own, insure and operate the vehicle. With bus pricing at 10% of that level, it's affordable to ride but the ride's not very nice. Double the pricing and you can afford routes and transit service levels delivering a quick, efficient and pleasant way to get around when you don't need a trunk-full of stuff going with you.
What's this got to do with rail, you ask? Well, Vancouver's transit system includes computerized rail "Skytrain" service. It's not LRT because it operates on its own grade, not sharing the streets. The cost per rider is about half of the driver-operated LRT systems and the system actually makes money even at the artificially low rates they charge. It's busy during the day and packed at rush hour when the four-car trains run at 3 minute intervals.
Last edited:
Mass transit is also a great way to improve your immunity to various diseases. I'd use it more if it were fast. By bus/subway, it takes me an hour to get from work to the city core. By car it takes 20 min.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Mass transit is also a great way to improve your immunity to various diseases. I'd use it more if it were fast.
Mass transit provides a great way to smell other people and to be exposed to their filth. City buses are commonly used as toilets and make for convenient sleeping accommodations while parked at the lot overnight. Half of all city buses reek of urine and I have seen the occasional turd.
Mass transit offers excellent opportunities for biological and chemical weapon attacks. The potential to infect or contaminate a large number of people is great.
Mass transit is also a great way to improve your immunity to various diseases. I'd use it more if it were fast.
Mass transit provides a great way to smell other people and to be exposed to their filth. City buses are commonly used as toilets and make for convenient sleeping accommodations while parked at the lot overnight. Half of all city buses reek of urine and I have seen the occasional turd.
Mass transit offers excellent opportunities for biological and chemical weapon attacks. The potential to infect or contaminate a large number of people is great.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
PS: Mass transit also provides the opportunity of conveniently tracking everyone (think biometrics, RF ID tagging etc). Furthermore, accidents happen. Just ask Jean-Charles de Menezes, who was mowed down by London Metro Police in 2005. Incidents like that one are bound to increase with growing paranoia in crowded locations.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Mass transit is also a great way to improve your immunity to various diseases. I'd use it more if it were fast.
Mass transit provides a great way to smell other people and to be exposed to their filth. City buses are commonly used as toilets and make for convenient sleeping accommodations while parked at the lot overnight. Half of all city buses reek of urine and I have seen the occasional turd.
Mass transit offers excellent opportunities for biological and chemical weapon attacks. The potential to infect or contaminate a large number of people is great.
You're making my point for me - the buses are nasty because they're not used by people that just won't put up with it. If they were properly funded, then the poor security and weak management of the current system would be replaced by good security and better management and they'd be usable without wearing a hazmat suit.
At least the ones I ride are in better shape than that - they run from a good neighborhood through good neighborhoods to the downtown business district. They're fine.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Mass transit is also a great way to improve your immunity to various diseases. I'd use it more if it were fast.
Mass transit provides a great way to smell other people and to be exposed to their filth. City buses are commonly used as toilets and make for convenient sleeping accommodations while parked at the lot overnight. Half of all city buses reek of urine and I have seen the occasional turd.
Mass transit offers excellent opportunities for biological and chemical weapon attacks. The potential to infect or contaminate a large number of people is great.
You're making my point for me - the buses are nasty because they're not used by people that just won't put up with it. If they were properly funded, then the poor security and weak management of the current system would be replaced by good security and better management and they'd be usable without wearing a hazmat suit.
At least the ones I ride are in better shape than that - they run from a good neighborhood through good neighborhoods to the downtown business district. They're fine.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
PS: Mass transit also provides the opportunity of conveniently tracking everyone (think biometrics, RF ID tagging etc).
And riding in a car with GPS and more computers than the space shuttle doesn't?
PS: Mass transit also provides the opportunity of conveniently tracking everyone (think biometrics, RF ID tagging etc).
And riding in a car with GPS and more computers than the space shuttle doesn't?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Originally Posted By: jaj
Originally Posted By: moribundman
PS: Mass transit also provides the opportunity of conveniently tracking everyone (think biometrics, RF ID tagging etc).
And riding in a car with GPS and more computers than the space shuttle doesn't?
I didn't know that as a pedestrian you carry your car in your purse (man-bag?) with you at all times.
PS: My car does't have (an integrated) GPS or a black box.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
PS: Mass transit also provides the opportunity of conveniently tracking everyone (think biometrics, RF ID tagging etc).
And riding in a car with GPS and more computers than the space shuttle doesn't?
I didn't know that as a pedestrian you carry your car in your purse (man-bag?) with you at all times.
PS: My car does't have (an integrated) GPS or a black box.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Originally Posted By: jaj
You're making my point for me - the buses are nasty because they're not used by people that just won't put up with it.
That's right. Each time I take the bus downtown I'm totally grossed out by the experience. The more crowded the bus, the worse. Our city buses are crammed at rush hour. Packing into a bus more people than there are seats should be illegal.
You're making my point for me - the buses are nasty because they're not used by people that just won't put up with it.
That's right. Each time I take the bus downtown I'm totally grossed out by the experience. The more crowded the bus, the worse. Our city buses are crammed at rush hour. Packing into a bus more people than there are seats should be illegal.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Packing into a bus more people than there are seats should be illegal.
You better not go to Asia then, a lot of the subway cars have literally no seats (less than 5%). No wonder they make a killing in public transit over there.
IMO the problem with public transit in the US is low population density, and when you get high density here, it is a slum.
Packing into a bus more people than there are seats should be illegal.
You better not go to Asia then, a lot of the subway cars have literally no seats (less than 5%). No wonder they make a killing in public transit over there.
IMO the problem with public transit in the US is low population density, and when you get high density here, it is a slum.
Quote:
your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.
So we should obviously take choice away from people...so they can "benefit" from over priced mass transit...
your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.
So we should obviously take choice away from people...so they can "benefit" from over priced mass transit...
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.
So we should obviously take choice away from people...so they can "benefit" from over priced mass transit...
It would be nice if we can make the clogged freeways more utilized, but I think we tried quite a few already:
1) carpool lane
2) toll road
3) inter metro buses
4) carpool/vanpool voucher
5) active toll truck patrol (to fix flat tire on the spot and unblock traffic)
6) flexible work hour
7) 4 day school schedule (state university and community college)
8) telecommute
What is left but public transit? Buying up properties along the freeway to expand it? That's going to cost more than $4.6 billion per 16 miles. Houses here cost $400-600k during recession and $700-900k during the bubble. How many houses can you fit along 16 miles?
Quote:
your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.
So we should obviously take choice away from people...so they can "benefit" from over priced mass transit...
It would be nice if we can make the clogged freeways more utilized, but I think we tried quite a few already:
1) carpool lane
2) toll road
3) inter metro buses
4) carpool/vanpool voucher
5) active toll truck patrol (to fix flat tire on the spot and unblock traffic)
6) flexible work hour
7) 4 day school schedule (state university and community college)
8) telecommute
What is left but public transit? Buying up properties along the freeway to expand it? That's going to cost more than $4.6 billion per 16 miles. Houses here cost $400-600k during recession and $700-900k during the bubble. How many houses can you fit along 16 miles?
- Status