I decided to create a general thread about government influence on transportation anyways. Many try to make the claim that inter-city and Intra-city passenger rail died because of natural market forces this is simply not true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uimzBYv-TM
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSFMany try to make the claim that inter-city and Intra-city passenger rail died because of natural market forces this is simply not true
The causes of the decline are fun to argue, but rather irrelevant when it comes to what we should be doing now,
That said, O'toole's biggest sin is that he is a cherry-picker.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ontheBNSFI decided to create a general thread about government influence on transportation
Because of technical problems I cannot hear your You Tube presentation. However, in my case you are preaching to the choir.
My own point would be that intercity rail transportation is very much with us in the form of Amtrak. Some dislike Amtrak but it is hard to deny that Amtrak is here. As far as intra city rail transportation, you and I wish it had not been ended but I think we are in a small minority on this forum. It was generally ended many years ago. Actually today we have renewed interest in light rail on a dedicated transit way. A few places have even reinstalled street cars. New Orleans recently added its Canal Street line and Memphis has added a street car line. Is there any reason to hope other American cities may do the same?
John WR ontheBNSFI decided to create a general thread about government influence on transportation Because of technical problems I cannot hear your You Tube presentation. However, in my case you are preaching to the choir. My own point would be that intercity rail transportation is very much with us in the form of Amtrak. Some dislike Amtrak but it is hard to deny that Amtrak is here. As far as intra city rail transportation, you and I wish it had not been ended but I think we are in a small minority on this forum. It was generally ended many years ago. Actually today we have renewed interest in light rail on a dedicated transit way. A few places have even reinstalled street cars. New Orleans recently added its Canal Street line and Memphis has added a street car line. Is there any reason to hope other American cities may do the same?
As for the youtube video trying turning up the volume or using headphones sorry about that I had technical issues. I would also imagine their would be incentives to create high speed rail. That is my opinion. As for intracity rail such systems in my view would still exist if they wasn't there wasn't government intervention though I do think some lines into remote areas would have been converted to buses.
PS. I did a little net surfing about Randal O'Toole. He seems to be committed to the idea that with public transportation you can get something for nothing. No doubt many will buy in to this pleasant delusion.
John WR ontheBNSFI decided to create a general thread about government influence on transportation PS. I did a little net surfing about Randal O'Toole. He seems to be committed to the idea that with public transportation you can get something for nothing. No doubt many will buy in to this pleasant delusion.
I wanted to point out Randal O'toole because for lack of a better word he is a tool. The Cato Institute only supports free markets to the extent that it supports the business interests of Oil, tar, and real estate companies. The Koch's are really just corporate welfare queens. That aside people need to be told the truth about O'toole so that people don't listen to him too much. People like him are becoming louder unfortunately. He also misleads people about rail subsidies he makes the seem huge when in reality they are miniscule by comparison to roads. The per passenger mile or per passenger isn't a good measurement because it indefinitely favors the system with the highest amount of users even if it is technically costing more money (case in point roads). The farebox recovery seems to the most objective way to measure this.
ontheBNSFI wanted to point out Randal O'toole
Randall O'Toole seems to be part of a cottage industry of people who earn there living writing from and extreme right or extreme left perspective. Typically, they find a local issue that is big enough to get some national attention. Then they find a few statistics (which may actually be spurious) so support their extreme view. Then they right a couple of columns and move on to the next issue.
O'Toole's big point is that it is a lot cheaper to put a bus on on existing road than it is to build a dedicated roadway for any kind of vehicle. He's right. In fact, the more congested a place is the more a dedicated roadway will cost. And the more a dedicated roadway is needed.
But the fact that cities in Texas are considering light rail to my mind indicates that a lot of peopel are seeing the need for it.
John WRAs far as intra city rail transportation, you and I wish it had not been ended but I think we are in a small minority on this forum. It was generally ended many years ago.
I don't wish it hadn't been ended - but I don't run around saying "we wuz robbed!" There enough righteous indignation in the world.
John WR Randall O'Toole seems to be part of a cottage industry of people who earn there living writing from and extreme right or extreme left perspective. Typically, they find a local issue that is big enough to get some national attention. Then they find a few statistics (which may actually be spurious) so support their extreme view. Then they right a couple of columns and move on to the next issue. O'Toole's big point is that it is a lot cheaper to put a bus on on existing road than it is to build a dedicated roadway for any kind of vehicle. He's right. In fact, the more congested a place is the more a dedicated roadway will cost. And the more a dedicated roadway is needed. But the fact that cities in Texas are considering light rail to my mind indicates that a lot of peopel are seeing the need for it.
He's a cherry-picker. Tail wags the dog. He starts with his conclusion, then picks facts to fit. Ignores the ones that don't fit.
Usually takes the narrow view that the way things are are the roughly the way they'll be regardless of the path taken. There is a tautology to his arguments. That is, we can't build transit to move people who's lives are arranged around roads. He's right. But they weren't there before the roads, so it's a chicken and egg deal.
oltmanndThat is, we can't build transit to move people who's lives are arranged around roads. He's right. But they weren't there before the roads, so it's a chicken and egg deal.
He also seems to ignore the fact that in many areas we can't build more roads to move people whose lives are arranged around roads because we don't have the space to do it.
oltmannd don't wish it [streetcar transportation] hadn't been ended - but I don't run around saying "we wuz robbed!" There enough righteous indignation in the world.
As an American Citizen I have a Constitutional Right to my RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION no matter how ridiculous it is. It is far, far better to curse the darkness than to light a candle.
The resurgence of light rail results in most cases from extreme auto congestion and in a few cases just developing a neighborhood or area. Light rail is the most proven way of coaxing some drivers from their cars to public transit. Once the huge investment is made, if ridership is high enough, usually around 25,000/day or more, even with capitol costs being paid off, operating light rail is less expensive than bus rapid transit or bus on the street. But the traffic density has to be there, or the economics favor bus.
John WRHe also seems to ignore the fact that in many areas we can't build more roads to move people whose lives are arranged around roads because we don't have the space to do it.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded"
daveklepperBut the traffic density has to be there, or the economics favor bus.
For lives arranged around cars and roads, the traffic density is very hard to come by. There are a gazillion O/D pairs and few lanes. If you build a transit line, the traffic density will "appear" as people reorganize their lives around the transit line. An area that's maxed out it's highway capacity can only continue to grow if you apply transit - typically rail transit. A bus route is like dating - they can "break it off" at at moment' notice. A rail line is like a marriage. There's a real economic commitment - and divorce is expensive.
daveklepperOnce the huge investment is made, if ridership is high enough, usually around 25,000/day or more, even with capitol costs being paid off, operating light rail is less expensive than bus rapid transit or bus on the street. But the traffic density has to be there, or the economics favor bus.
I think the real issue here is a dedicated right of way. A bus on the road is a local bus and will only move with the traffic. If you have a dedicated right of way you can use it for a bus or a light rail vehicle.
One advantage of a bus way is that when you get out of the congested area where you can make reasonable time on the roads the bus route can move to the roads and continue. However, as has been pointed out, a railway represents a stronger commitment by government. Where I live New Jersey Transit can abandon sections of a bus route by simply giving 10 days' notice and it does. I've lost bus transportation that was very important to me that way. A rail way is a much better way of seeing that government lives up to its promises.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.