More anti-transit BS! From Heartland Instittue

[daveklepper]

It isn't obvious Donclark, but a lesser speed would mean a greater njumber of cars. Why, because of the terrific reduction in STOPPING DISTANCE! "Bumber to bumper traffic" usually means 15 miles ano hour with cars about 12 feet apart. At 22 miles per hour cars space themselves about 1.5 car lengths apart. At 30 miles an hour, and in agreement with your calculations, about four car lengths apart, at 60 miles an hour about 12 car lengths apart. So 22 mph is the optimum speed if all you want is to get the maximum number of private cars passed a given point safely.

[Anonymous]

Most people use rail transit to get to work or to an event downtown or across town a distance of up to 30 miles, most do not use the transit systems to shop for a HDTV a mile or two from home....

If you were standing by a freeway lane of traffic, and if the traffic kept a safe distance of two seconds behind every vehicle, only 30 cars would pass that point you are standing at in a minute if the traffic was flowing at 60 mph..... 30 cars per minute equal 1800 cars per hour.....per lane.....at 60 mph..... Lesser speed would equal a lesser number of cars.....

Any number anyone quotes as higher presumes tailgating, a very unsafe practice.....

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsfkline

I E-mailed the guy [e-mail] and sent some nasty words. The way that was written shows he knows nothing about Light rail. I say we all do the same

I hope your words were more informational[8D] than nasty[:(!]. Nasty [:(!] words don't convince they just polarize opinion[V]

[bnsfkline]

I E-mailed the guy [e-mail] and sent some nasty words. The way that was written shows he knows nothing about Light rail. I say we all do the same

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper
[Again, and this point must be emphasized: Transit advocates are not anti-car. They (we) are the ones that want to give people choices.

You may not be one of them, but there are transit advocates who are extremely anti car. They advocate artifical barriers to the use of the automobile (regulatory, financial and physical) and fight even minor improvements to the road system.

[daveklepper]

60 mph is not the most efficient way to move people on a single lane. From what I dimly remember from Ballsbaugh's course at MIT in 1952, 40 miles an hour is more efficient, you can get a car to pass a given point every three seconds with safe stopping distances. That gives you 1200 cars per hour, and high occupancy lane use would give you 4800, close to my 5000. With normal single occupancy, or the usual average of 1.4 people per car, then you are more correct and the figure would drop to on 1680 past a given point. I should have state high occupancy lane and I apologize for not having done so.

I'd like to address the point of running the nearly empty streetcar at 11pm. The expenses per passenger mile for different transit systems are available on the NET via the APTA website, and not remembering the address, I usually access it through the Light Railway Transport Association, www.lrta.org. I think you will be impressed to see how operating expenses per passenger mile are generally lower for most rail modes on most systems than most bus modes on the same systems. And what is given are everages, the nearly empty light rail car or bus is averaged with the jambed rush hour vehicle. And don't forget that the operating expense includes keeping up all that physical plant, where the bus line gets everything but the bus shelter and the garage for free. Yet rail comes out ahead in cost per mile. Not a lot, but significant. Also, most transit managers agree that if reduction of highway congestion is the main goal, and most light rail starts in the USA have that particular goal in mind, then rail beats bus all over the place. People are just more likely to drive to station and park and use a streetcar, light rail car or train, or commuter train to downtown than use a bus, even if the bus has priority and reserved lanes. Mitigating this general evaluation is one interesting case: Metro of Seattle replaced diesel buses with trackless trolleys (trolleybuses) in Seattle on one important line and immediately noticed a real jump in patornage, mostly by college students. This is an all-street stop at every other corner line without traffic light preemption. But there aren't enough trolleybus lines in the USA to generalize. (Yet?)

The high capacity heavy rail lines of New York and other major cities are often compared with the Lincoln Tunnel exclusive bus lanes, which do handle 50,000-60,000 people per hour. But of course every 40 or 50 or 60 people require one driver! Think of the labor saving if normal rapid transit practice were used and 2,000 had one motorman and one conductor, or for a commuter train one engineer and two conductors! And the infrastructure of a commuter rail tunel is probably less than that for a tunnel for diesel buses because of the tremendous ventilation requirements the bus tunnel requires, a clear case for electric bus operation.

Again, and this point must be emphasized: Transit advocates are not anti-car. They (we) are the ones that want to give people choices.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

For DSchmidt. Nothing that I wrote dieagrees with anything you wrote. I agree that not every area needs rail transit. Also note that I made the effort to show the bus has a place too. But, again, the reason for the rail transit revival is that is a less expensive and environmentally friendlier way of bringing people to and from their work place in many situations. You don't need to have 20000 per hour to use light rail to justify it. Typically, we see figures of 20,000 - 36,000 per day. If we assume all going to work go during one rush hour, that comes out to approximately 8,000 - 16,000 for the busiest hour, and you would need two highway lanes or even four to handle the traffic smoothly instead of the one light rsil track.

I've written before that 85-90% of the electric railway mileage didn't make sense in the automobile age. But that leaves 10-15% that should have stayed, including Broadway-42nd St. and 42nd Crosstown in NY, Canal in New Orleans, Michigan-Gratiot and Woodward in Detreoiit, Euclid in Cleveland, much of Capitol Transit in DC

Yes, a number of areas would be better off today if their rail transit had not been dismantled. Now the public is paying huge $ to rebuild them.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
[A minor quibble - single passenger autos on 2 second headways at 60 mph = 1800 vehicles per hour. 5000/hour would be some trick! (unless you're figuring 3 people per vehicle - where in the US is this the norm??)

I have not worked in freeway operations for many years, but I remember that assuming the capacity of a freeway lane is 3000 veh/hr is a good but conservative estimate.

At a assumed occupancy of 1.4 (probably slightly low for rush hour in most really congested areas) persons per vehicle, this is 4200 people per hour .

I would say that the 5000 figure is at least approachable.

[oltmannd]

The article ignores what should be the real comparison. What would Portland look like if they had done differently?- e.g. built more freeways or done nothing vs light rail.

The comparison of Portland before and after the trolleys is rather meaningless - it's two distinct points in time.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

1. Adding capacity in congested areas, today, usually moves the choke point from one place to another and does not usually materially reduce commuting TIME.

2. Adding capacity by adding lanes gives you an additional 5,000 people past a given point on one lane each hour. If it is a dedicated bus lane, with reasonably spaced stops and some bypass provision, you can get 12,000 people past the point. If it is a light rail track, easily 20,000. If it is a non-stop effient access and exit bus or light rail line, 50,000 is easy. If it is a heavy rail, like the Pennsylvania Station or Park Avenue tunnels and cut, or a subway line or other heavy rapid transit line, then 100,000 people past the point each hour is a possibility. In congested areas, the important thing is to add capacity for the investment you make. The cost differential between owning an auto and subsidizing transit is inconsequential compared to the costs of adding lanes in congested areas. It is not only the big USA cities that have congestion today, but even places like Akron and Memphis and Charlotte and.... This is the reason for the very real trolley car (OK, let us be "politically correct" and use the term Light Rail) revival. Al these "Conservative Think Tanks" ignore this basic issue. Marc Hemphill addressed this issue some time back by pointing out that without subsidized, mostly rail, public transit, New York City simply wouldn't work. The businesses would be elsewhere and mostly in foreign countries to boot! But this is also becoming true of small cities and large towns as well. In places like Denver and Salt Lake City, what has been found is that if you have a congested corridor, so congested that the average auto commuter fumes daily over the delays on the way to his job, and you add good light rail, then 10% - 40% of the drivers will switch to the light rail line, and the remaining drivers now have a pleasent drive to work instead of a horror show.

Downtown local distributer streetcars replacing buses are a different matter. They add charm and convenience to the city. Portland has both. MAX took people off the highways and will do more in the future. Streetcar makes living and working in Portland in a greater pleasure, giving the option of streetcar ride from one eating or shopping place or office to another instead of a crowded bus or walking. That is why it is a damn shame that LaGuardia (O'Dwyer implemented the agreement forced by LaGuardia) forced Slaughter Huff to replace the Broadway-42nd Street and 42nd Street crosstown streetcars in New York in 1946 with (mostly GM, some Mack) buses. Patronage dropped by a third, some switching to added capacity on the subway locals, some walked, and some just didn't make the trips anymore. San Francisco has long known the value of heritage type local streetcars, now Portland has an expanding modern version, Dallas' museum operation has become a real transit plus as part of the system and supplimenting light rail, and New Orleans is really on its way to restoring the whole major streetcar network, going from one historic line to four in less than a decade, a fifth being planned.

In Zurich, all local public tranportation is FREE. I think the Swiss know something Americans should learn.

A minor quibble - single passenger autos on 2 second headways at 60 mph = 1800 vehicles per hour. 5000/hour would be some trick! (unless you're figuring 3 people per vehicle - where in the US is this the norm??)

[daveklepper]

For DSchmidt. Nothing that I wrote dieagrees with anything you wrote. I agree that not every area needs rail transit. Also note that I made the effort to show the bus has a place too. But, again, the reason for the rail transit revival is that is a less expensive and environmentally friendlier way of bringing people to and from their work place in many situations. You don't need to have 20000 per hour to use light rail to justify it. Typically, we see figures of 20,000 - 36,000 per day. If we assume all going to work go during one rush hour, that comes out to approximately 8,000 - 16,000 for the busiest hour, and you would need two highway lanes or even four to handle the traffic smoothly instead of the one light rsil track.

I've written before that 85-90% of the electric railway mileage didn't make sense in the automobile age. But that leaves 10-15% that should have stayed, including Broadway-42nd St. and 42nd Crosstown in NY, Canal in New Orleans, Michigan-Gratiot and Woodward in Detreoiit, Euclid in Cleveland, much of Capitol Transit in DC

[Junctionfan]

I might be wrong but when was the last time you heard poverty and Swiss in the same sentence? I don't think that there are too many bad paying jobs in Switzerland. Think of the high priced companies like Rolex and some of the major chocolate companies. The Swiss Bank is an international place of secret bank accounts.

Small countries like that are easy to upkeep when there are a lot of people employed and with high paying jobs, paying for transit is a small price to pay.

[TH&B]

The problem with the heartland articals is that they seem so against public transt especialy rail that they themselves are suspicius to me and therefore I'd dismiss their coments.

You have to compare advantages to disadvantages of each to make a fair coment. I don't know Portland but cities NEED varied options for transit.

ps; You know what it is the Swiss know that the USA don't ? .... fat bank accounts ! Maybe that is what we should all have like the Swiss, fat bank accounts !

[DSchmitt]

daveklepper: I agree that mass trainsit can be useful and in some cases a necessary componet of the transporation system for many cities. Yes New York wouldn' work without it and many much smaller cities can benefit too.

However, just because a transit system is capable of carrying 20,000 people an hour doesn't mean that 20,000 auto passengers an hour will find it worthwhile or in some cases even possible to use the transit instead of their cars.

Real trips aren't transit station to transit station. Outside the cities, most transit riders use the auto for part for their trip. For people who use the commuter bus from my town to the city its nearly 100%.

The purpose of the transportation system is to serve the people. Forcing people to make unwanted life style changes for some mythical common good is not serving the people and is not democratic.

It is also difficult to carry things on a train or bus.

Few transit systems run any where near capacity outside of the morning and evening "rush hour", but it cost as much to run a trolley at 11 PM (with 10 passangers) as it does at 5 PM (with 100 passengers)

[Junctionfan]

Another institute for the thinking impaired. Look out government; competition is getting heavy!

[daveklepper]

1. Adding capacity in congested areas, today, usually moves the choke point from one place to another and does not usually materially reduce commuting TIME.

2. Adding capacity by adding lanes gives you an additional 5,000 people past a given point on one lane each hour. If it is a dedicated bus lane, with reasonably spaced stops and some bypass provision, you can get 12,000 people past the point. If it is a light rail track, easily 20,000. If it is a non-stop effient access and exit bus or light rail line, 50,000 is easy. If it is a heavy rail, like the Pennsylvania Station or Park Avenue tunnels and cut, or a subway line or other heavy rapid transit line, then 100,000 people past the point each hour is a possibility. In congested areas, the important thing is to add capacity for the investment you make. The cost differential between owning an auto and subsidizing transit is inconsequential compared to the costs of adding lanes in congested areas. It is not only the big USA cities that have congestion today, but even places like Akron and Memphis and Charlotte and.... This is the reason for the very real trolley car (OK, let us be "politically correct" and use the term Light Rail) revival. Al these "Conservative Think Tanks" ignore this basic issue. Marc Hemphill addressed this issue some time back by pointing out that without subsidized, mostly rail, public transit, New York City simply wouldn't work. The businesses would be elsewhere and mostly in foreign countries to boot! But this is also becoming true of small cities and large towns as well. In places like Denver and Salt Lake City, what has been found is that if you have a congested corridor, so congested that the average auto commuter fumes daily over the delays on the way to his job, and you add good light rail, then 10% - 40% of the drivers will switch to the light rail line, and the remaining drivers now have a pleasent drive to work instead of a horror show.

Downtown local distributer streetcars replacing buses are a different matter. They add charm and convenience to the city. Portland has both. MAX took people off the highways and will do more in the future. Streetcar makes living and working in Portland in a greater pleasure, giving the option of streetcar ride from one eating or shopping place or office to another instead of a crowded bus or walking. That is why it is a damn shame that LaGuardia (O'Dwyer implemented the agreement forced by LaGuardia) forced Slaughter Huff to replace the Broadway-42nd Street and 42nd Street crosstown streetcars in New York in 1946 with (mostly GM, some Mack) buses. Patronage dropped by a third, some switching to added capacity on the subway locals, some walked, and some just didn't make the trips anymore. San Francisco has long known the value of heritage type local streetcars, now Portland has an expanding modern version, Dallas' museum operation has become a real transit plus as part of the system and supplimenting light rail, and New Orleans is really on its way to restoring the whole major streetcar network, going from one historic line to four in less than a decade, a fifth being planned.

In Zurich, all local public tranportation is FREE. I think the Swiss know something Americans should learn.

[Anonymous]

Well Portland has two big rivers,Willmette and Columbia river,,Water Taxis could work

[DSchmitt]

This is the web site of the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. They are not against mass transit.

http://www.vtpi.org/

But I found a report on their site which places the cost of the auto at $1.20 US per vehicle mile. This includes the car, maintenance, fuel costs, highway costs, air polution costs, environmental costs, policing costs, accident costs, delay, etc. Assuning 1.4 passengers (including the driver) per vehicle this is 86 cents per passenger mile.

The majority of these costs are paid directly by the owner, and the owner shares in the indirect (society) costs with every one else.

Another report places the combined capitol + operating cost for all rail (heavy, communter, light) at 1.55 US per passenger mile of which $1.33 US is subsidized. The user only pays 22 cents of the costs directly.

The report I found comparing the cost of rail to the auto all used the $1.20 figure for the auto and the operating costs only for rail. It ignored the capital costs for the rail.

Mass trainst is a necessary, along with other alternatives, to satisify transportation needs in many areas, but it must be honestly evaluated and the users should directly pay a fair share of the costs.


I am not familar with what is proposed for Portland, but it appears to me is that what the Heartland Institute is really against is the government trying to force the people into a mold that will make the transit system work, instead of making a transportation system to serve the people.

[Overmod]

Maybe so, but what about O'Toole's points?

Slow, expensive transit that doesn't go where people want isn't exactly a magic bullet, whether or not it involves rails. I think there is a case to be made for light rail in Portland, and I'd like to see it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kissmycaboose7

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9860

Geez, A coma is less boring!

[Anonymous]

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9860