Bonaventure10 Its great to have choices like you have in NY/NJ and Chicago. Part of that is that at one time all of the transit infrastructure was for profit private business enterprises,IRT,Erie,PRR .Burlington RR they all tried to make a few dimes in the mass transit business. Now transit is a gov service like roads and to some electorates welfare to help those less fortunate who cant afford a car. In many citys that I have been in NOT having car could be a sign of instability and thus be a reason for not hiring someone.
Its great to have choices like you have in NY/NJ and Chicago. Part of that is that at one time all of the transit infrastructure was for profit private business enterprises,IRT,Erie,PRR .Burlington RR they all tried to make a few dimes in the mass transit business. Now transit is a gov service like roads and to some electorates welfare to help those less fortunate who cant afford a car. In many citys that I have been in NOT having car could be a sign of instability and thus be a reason for not hiring someone.
There are a lot of people who live in Manhattan who would disagree with you. Owning a car there is optional. In medium and large cities with well developed transit systems business people prefer to ride the trains to work rather than fight the traffic and deal with the expense and hassle of parking.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Bonaventure10Actually1 light rail line can replace several bus lines. The original purpose of rapid transit was to consolidate several slower trolley and bus lines into one line with feeder buses.
Bonadventure,
You certainly make a very valid point. But there is another reality. In my case (I live in northern New Jersey and I've lived in New Jersey longer than my transit agency has existed) that reality is New Jersey Transit.
New Jersey Transit simply does what it wants to do. It many cases that not only makes sense but it does provide good to excellent service. I've used NJT for years and over all I am happy with it. But there are cases where NJT makes no sense al all, at least no sense that I can figure out. The obvious example is hurricane Sandy when NJT management choose to ignore weather reports that were common knowledge and follow its own intuition. The result is millions of dollars in damage that might have been avoided.
There are other examples too and many of them have to do with routes. In some areas we have many transportation routes. Where I live, for example, if I want to go to Newark I have a choice: My local bus, the 72 between Paterson and Newark which runs 2 blocks from my house, the easiest and longest. A "GO" bus, somewhat more distant but faster and with the same fare. The "GO" bus will also take me directly to Newark airport. The train; The Upper Montclair station of the NJT's Montclair Boonton line is a mile and a quarter away, a long but not impossible walk or I can drive. Finally, 3 miles away the Newark Lighrail which offers more frequent service than the trains but is almost as fast. But these methods all operate independently of each other so moving from one to another is difficult. There are connections; however the connections are haphazard and not what they should be.
The Lightrail ends at Grove Street in the south end of my town and has a large parking lot. The "GO" bus and my number 72 as well as the number 11 and 28 bus could be reconfigured to serve that parking lot along with some other routes and some more rationalization could take place to better serve people. NJT just doesn't do it; I don't know why. If the Lighrail were extended just a couple of blocks it would reach the rail line but that too has never happened. Again I don't know why. Except NJT just won't do it.
At the same time I have many transit options other places have none at all. A close friend who is on the same bus line suffered a traumatic brain injury and went to Kessler Hospital in West Orange for cognitive therapy. He not drive; in New Jersey if you have a TBI you lose your right to drive until your neurologist clears you and the cognitive therapy needed to be completed first. But while Kessler is in the same country we live in and it is a large hospital NJT has no bus service to it. None at all. My friend was stuck scrounging rides from friends because he could not get to the hospital by bus. Again, there is an obvious need here but NJT just won't be bothered to do anything about it.
I wish I knew whoat to do about it.
John
For once we agree.... that light rail needs it own right of way. A grade separated right of way at that.
The old trolley suburbs like Shaker Hts and Brookline where built and planned at the same time as the trolley systems where built with private right of ways. City's like Houston have had heck to pay with light rail accidents almost every week. As far as downtown trolleys sooner or later they have to go up above ground or put them underground like Pittsburgh did in the 1980s. Cincy,s streetcar could be a core of a much larger system to come but it does not go to the university or anywhere for that matter...The old subway could revitalize some old neighborhoods but having biked the right of way above the subway things have gotten way worse then Cleveland in some parts. You cant build a streetcar and expect magic to happen. Can we take old black and hispanic neighborhoods where there is a history of fatherless children and 0% homeownership (all section 8s) and turn it around by putting in a rail system that gets them to where the jobs are that they are qualified for? Which for many is not downtown but service jobs in the burbs such as nursing homes and the wal marts? Can rail be part of the war on poverty that Johnson started 45 years ago? The Great Society?
Light rail will be faster than buses on routes where the light rail has its own right of way. Building a new light rail route in a street where it would share the route with existing auto traffic would not be any faster than the bus route it replaces and as such would be a waste of money.
:Lets face the facts in most city's and now in first string suburbs the majority of residents are black or Hispanic. New Light Rail Systems in order to get funding have to attract new riders. Those new riders is to get people out of there cars. Most Transit Dependent folks are people who live in the inner city and thus are black and or Hispanic. FTA requirements to not cannibalize existing bus routes requires planners to design systems that link suburbs with park and rides which serve only suburban white residents. Not only that it only gets 2 rides a day out of them 5 days a week. Those who depend on transit for shopping and day care and looking for employment and just getting around are left on slow buses. and those folks just happen to be inner city black and Hispanic. See LA bus riders union. This plays one social economic group against another in a political tug of war that can turn violent at any time. If people in S LA where not locked in by freeways and the people of Detroit were not locked in by poor transit there would be no Hell nights and watts riots
Actually1 light rail line can replace several bus lines. The original purpose of rapid transit was to consolidate several slower trolley and bus lines into one line with feeder buses. DC and Cleveland did this as they eliminated there streetcars in the 1950s to replace with rapid transit. Problem is that the rapid systems would take years to build and many folks left for the burbs
You can get Federal money to replace a bus line with light rail if you can prove that this will increase transit ridership, which ofen can be proven. But one bus line rarely supports the density that makes the conversion worthwhile.
It depends on the city. In Chicago iat least through the early 1980's, executives who worked in the Loop often used suburban rail to commute, particularly on the CNW lines. Some on the North line even had a private parlor car. Most commuters were solidly middle class. But that is heavy suburban rail to the central city. There is no "light rail" here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1My company, with nearly 18,000 employees, had approximately 700 executives and managers. Approximately 210 of them worked downtown Dallas. Only seven of these managers or 3.3 per cent used public transit. The company had a low cost DART pass program, but most of the employees did not use it. They could afford to drive, and they did so, although car pooling increased in popularity as fuel costs increased. Very few of them took advantage of the public transit discount. I rode public transit to and from work for 37 of the 39 years that I was employed by corporate America. I was a rarity, especially in the south and west.
I've lived in the northeast most of my life, Sam, and I have used public transit to get to work. Like you, I am one of very few. For several years I was chairman of my union's transit committee and tried to drum up interest in using transit. My own experience is:
Low wage employees who cannot afford a car do use transit. But most of them wanted a car and saved money for a car. A fair number were unmarried and lived with their parents so even with limited salaries they would buy a car after working a while. And once they had a car there was no way they would use transit.
Some moderate income employees who were not management would use transit but most did not. These employees had cars but still used transit to commute. And about the same proportion of management employees in local offices also used transit. I think--I have no statistics--perhaps 10 per cent of moderate income and management employees used transit. So there are a few of us. The number may be increasing.
In my own case it meant my wife and I could share one car. Over many years we've saved a bundle of money by not having two cars and the associated insurance and other fees.
In 2007 I asked Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) to give me information regarding who used its services and when. Surprisingly, DART sent me Excel spreadsheets for every one of its routes, showing the schedules, load factors, etc. Here are few insights that I gleamed from the information.
Forty five per cent of DART's bus riders did not have an alternative. It was take the bus, walk, ride a bicycle, ask a friend for a ride, pay for a cab, etc. And 23 per cent of the light rail passengers did not have an alternative.
A significant percentage of public transit users in DFW don't have a realistic alternative to taking the bus or train. In many instances they probably cannot afford a car or a better transportation option.
The heaviest system load factors occurred during the morning and evening rush hours. For example, the average load factor on the Trinity Railway Express during the rush hours was 83 per cent. Overall, it was 33 per cent. And it dropped to 10 per cent in the early morning and late evening hours. The patterns for the buses and light rail lines were similar. Although the data is getting long in the tooth, the patterns probably have not changed significantly.
DART does not classify its customers demographically. However, the load factors for the buses and light rail serving low income communities was higher than the load factors for the more affluent communities. With the increase cost of fuel, it appears more middle income people are using the light rail system and express buses for commuting as well as to attend special events, i.e. State Fair of Texas, sporting events at the American Airlines Arena, etc.
Most of the people in Dallas who use pubic transit are middle to low income. Of course, there are exceptions. I go to Dallas two or three times a month, and I usually ride DART whilst I am there. Most of the riders on the buses and trains that I ride appear to be lower income.
My company, with nearly 18,000 employees, had approximately 700 executives and managers. About 210 of them worked downtown Dallas. Only seven of these managers or 3.3 per cent used public transit. The company had a subsidized DART pass program, but most of the employees did not use it. They could afford to drive, and they did so, although car pooling increased in popularity as fuel costs increased. Very few of them took advantage of the public transit discount. I rode public transit to and from work for 37 of the 39 years that I was employed by corporate America. I was a rarity, especially in the south and west.
henry6 And most of the money for these purchases are from the US Government and states.
And most of the money for these purchases are from the US Government and states.
Not necessarily! Austin's Capital Metro is implementing two rapid bus routes in 2014. The cost of the system will be $47.6 million. Eighty per cent of the funding is coming from the federal government. On the other hand, the Austin and Western rail line, which hoists the Leander to Austin Red Line commuter rail service, was upgraded without any federal or state money.
Light rail enthusiasts in Austin want the taxpayers to support a bond issue to help build a light rail line from Bergstrom International Airport to downtown and the University of Texas. The estimated cost of the light rail line is in the neighborhood of $48 million per mile.
The cost of Capital Metro's rapid bus system, which will run approximately 20 miles, including equipment, will be approximately the cost of one mile of light rail in Austin. Inside of 20 miles rapid bus technology, in many instances, is a better choice.
Bonaventure10This Policy Hurts transit dependent minorities who live in the "old" Citys and only benefits 9-5 suburbanites who in most city's in the US who just happen to be white.
I just don't see that, Bonaventure.
First of all, for transit dependent people who ride buses to be "hurt" the transportation they now have would have to be taken away. To provide new rail transit for more affluent people does not make them worse off.
Second of all, the newer light rail I've seen in New Jersey, the Hudson-Bergen line and the extension to Newark light rail along with the shuttle between Newark Broad Street and Penn Stations as well as the River Line from Trenton to Camden have plenty of members of minority groups riding as well as white people. I don't know about incomes though. But all people in the areas served ride these light rails. I speak from personal experience riding them.
Finally, the lines themselves become an agent of change and open up communities to more people from diverse groups.
So it seems to me that some people from all groups benefit and no one is harmed.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Many US cities seem to find the money for newer, often larger buses for routes where buses work best. Chicago does, for one, in spite of obvious and chronic problems with the CTA.
Our light rail LYNX operates seven days a week. Weekday service operates from 5:26 a.m. to 1:26 a.m. and service is available every 10 minutes during weekday rush hour and every 15 minutes during non-peak hours.
Hardly sounds like a "Policy that Hurts transit dependent minorities who live in the "old" Citys and only benefits 9-5 suburbanites who in most city's in the US who just happen to be white". As a frequent rider of Lynx, I can tell you that the riders are not all white, and not all wealthy suburbanites.
This is your second attempt to start this thread. I think you are just looking for a racial problem where none exists.
This Policy Hurts transit dependent minorities who live in the "old" Citys and only benefits 9-5 suburbanites who in most city's in the US who just happen to be white. That streetcars are being installed not to help the people who live close to downtown but to benefit tourism and promote gentrification. Its frustrating to ride overcrowded buses in places like Baltimore and Detroit. The current FTA policys say that light rail has to bring people out of there cars in order to be built. That is social engineering...Fine but those who are already behaving and cant or wont afford a car get stuck on the old stinking buses.Lets face facts here a majority of poor people in the city have been black and Hispanic and are transit dependent. Those that need transit improvements the most are not getting it with this FTA policy and that policy needs to be changed. Faster Transit like any form of rapid transit means more time to look for work and more time to get things done. The original name of FTA was UMTA or urban mass transit adminstration. Somewhere they forgot about us city folk
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.