Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Railway Man"][quote user="Bucyrus"] For me, the issue is about how much bang I get for my buck, rather than who ends up getting the buck.The mission statement/justification for streetcars given in an earlier post is:  "Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts.  Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments."Buses do the same thing for a lot less money.  Sixty to seventy years ago, as the system of rubber tires and roads matured, transportation officials realized the flexibility of the road/tire system rendered obsolete the system of streetcars running on their own dedicated railroad track.  Roads were multiple use and tires could go anywhere the transportation demand took them.  What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?[/quote]If I could be helpful, this is like asking if you're getting bang for your buck when public school systems should include athletics or art classes, or history, calculus, or advanced science for that matter.  The public has a very different perception of bus vs. trolley and reducing the service down to "an enclosed, air-conditioned space with or without a seat that moves a person from point A to point B on a regular set schedule" underestimates the complexity of the service and does not capture the entire set of values that's at work here.  There's not much question that the public often prefers rail transportation over bus transportation and while one might be cheaper than the other, the public has an opportunity to vote and can pick whichever one they prefer more, and pay the price accordingly.  We don't have a command-and-control government or economy, and public expenditures have no requirement to justify themselves against any set of measures other than the ones the public concocts.  It's fair and useful to assert in public discourse that the bus service is just as good, and cheaper, than a fixed-rail trolley service, but it appears that a majority of the public doesn't agree, in most of the cases.   That doesn't mean I think you should stop asserting your position, but I hope you're not easily frustrated. Professionally, others I work with have had great success helping city and regional governments establish trolley lines, based on the substantial economic impact trolley lines have on city sales and property tax receipts, and employment taxes.  The public likes riding the things, for whatever reason.  The public also likes to vote for bonds for professional sports stadiums, art museums, greenbelts, and all sorts of other things that make me scratch my head.   RWM [/quote]Your comparison to public school systems spending money on less than essential things is apt, but these transit proposals seem to be of a far larger scale.  Although the two examples do have in common the public sector's gusto for spending other people's money.  I agree that there is not a built in requirement that government expenditures be justified.  In the end, it is only a matter of what the public wants collectively.  When you say that the majority of the public agrees with bringing back the streetcars or LRT for that matter, I am not sure what you mean by majority.  I would say it may be over 50% of the public, but I don't think the opposition has lost the argument because of being overwhelmed by public support of rail transit, at least not yet.  But granted, a lot of people do want these new rail transit options.  Certainly the ones who pay little if anything toward them are on the bandwagon.   Predictably, railfans are mostly for them.  They must see kindred spirits in the likes of transportation officials who make the pitch, "Trains engender a sense of nostalgia, buses typically do not."  And of course transit riders will prefer a brand spanking new train to a run down bus system any day.  But there are a lot of people who do pay the tab and many of them would find it impossible to realize any utility whatsoever from many of these new rail systems.  Even if they wanted to use them, and if it made economic sense for them to do so, the logistics of their business or commute make it impossible.  At the same time, it is obvious that the highway system needs improvement, and highway users are skeptical of the state diverting finite funds to exotic rail transit while arguing that it is the best way to decongest the highways.While it is true that the public gets what they want, the public's desire for these rail transit options is not just something the public has swerved into.  Instead, rail transit is being hard sold by politicians who seem to be packaging it as something other than transportation.  This ought to raise anyone's suspicion.  You mentioned that moving a person from point A to point B does not capture the entire set of values that's at work here.  I could not possibly agree more, but we might disagree about what is actually at work here.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag