Update:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/146935.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Pheobe,
While the ridership has been higher then officially projected (a very conservative estimate to meet the FTA "cost benefit" analysis requirements) many of us who work with CATS on a regular basis always felt that ridership was going to be much higer. (I am one of the two Matthews' reps on the MTC)
As for parking- most all of the lots were planned to be larger, (several much larger) but got cut in the FTA's "value engineering" process. Basically they said, "if you are using a consertive ridership estimate to meet our requirements, then why are you asking to fund these big lots". The FTA required that they be reduced, or they would not pay.
That's also the reason that the platforms were cut short- 2 car lengths- what we applied to fund was three car length platforms. Again the FTA disapproved, so they were cut. We will be seeking 3 car platforms on the NE line- we will see what they say then.
Remember the FTA's job is to make the administration look good (no matter who is in office) not necessarly fund transportation improvements. The current FTA is really not supportive of rail investments in sunbelt cities. If we were to accept a BRT proposal for the SE, they have basically said they would fund it at 80% - tomorrow- they are desperate to get a big BRT on the ground.
gardendance wrote:no, not really, but if it's not to transport people then what do you think its real objective is?
Public carriage is almost always subsidized by the Federal Government. To have new Federal dollars start floating around in a region or community is economically beneficial, because through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort. So, while public rail and bus systems tout the TRANSPORTATION benefits of their offerings, there are those that relish a FREE FEDERAL HANDOUT THAT MIRACULOUSLY GROWS. Wouldn't you thrill at a $20 bill on your kitchen table that miraculously became TWO $20 bills, even THREE such bills?
Matthewsaggie:
Kind of makes you wonder which component of BRT systems is the big political donor, doesn't it?
K. P. Harrier wrote: gardendance wrote:no, not really, but if it's not to transport people then what do you think its real objective is?Public carriage is almost always subsidized by the Federal Government. To have new Federal dollars start floating around in a region or community is economically beneficial, because through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort. So, while public rail and bus systems tout the TRANSPORTATION benefits of their offerings, there are those that relish a FREE FEDERAL HANDOUT THAT MIRACULOUSLY GROWS. Wouldn't you thrill at a $20 bill on your kitchen table that miraculously became TWO $20 bills, even THREE such bills?
I'm completely puzzled by your economic theory.
Puzzled?
You just need to listen to Fox and Rush more often.
Under the new Democratically controlled Congress, the government's goal is to collect all the money and give it to the lazy people. In order to justify taking all of OUR money, they are forced to provide at least a few services, so they come up with cockamamie schemes like mass transit where they just move a few people around at a cost that exceeds what it would cost to just buy each them a car, so that the feds will shower us with our own money.
Did I miss anything?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: K. P. Harrier wrote: through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort. I'm completely puzzled by your economic theory.
K. P. Harrier wrote: through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort.
through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort.
K. P. Harrier can certainly answer for himself, but what I think he refers to is the phenomenon where one deposits $10 in the bank, the bank then loans it to someone who uses it to pay someone else for goods or services, who in turn deposits the $10 in the bank, and the cycle repeats.
At its worst this is a pyramid fraud scheme, at its best it's the grease on the gears that make our economy run.
Phoebe Vet wrote: You just need to listen to Fox and Rush more often.
Phoebe Vet, are you offering this as your own opinion, or is it how you feel is Fox's and Rush's opinion?
Sarcasm
Fox is to news what WWE is to the sport of wrestling.
For every $10 deposited in the banking system, the banks can lend 10 times the initial deposit with a fractional reserve requirement of 20 per cent. The fractional reserve requirement is the amount the banks are required to keep on hand.
Of the initial $10 deposit, only $2 must be kept on hand. The other $8 can be loaned. The recipient of the $8 loan usually spends it. The receiver of the $8 eventually deposits in his or her bank. That bank keeps $1.60 and lends out $6.40. The process repeats itself. And it keeps repeating itself until the initial deposit has expanded to $100 in loans and deposits.
This is how the banking system creates money. It is a critical economic process. Without it our economy could not function. It is not a pyramid scheme.
The fractional deposit reserve requirement is one way the Federal Reserve can control the money supply. If there is too much money in the economy, which can fuel inflation, the Fed can raise the deposit requirement, thereby decreasing the amount of money in circulation.
As an aside, DART is considering requiring its patrons to pay for parking at its light rail parking lots. It seems that the majority of the citizenry, who do not use DART, is not happy about subsidizing transit patron parking.
I am not up on the current Federal Reserve mandates, but Samantha has explained sufficiently well the phenomena I spoke about.
So, does it make sense, then, that the carriage of people in public transit may NOT be the underlying motive for municipalities and districts to pursue transit funding handouts? If carriage was the main objective, there would be an abundance of parking!
Samantha explained the dynamics that drive a healthy economy.
I fail to see how that supports your theory that mass transit projects are planned to keep money in circulation rather than to transport people.
While transporting people around a medium or large size city does enable them to spend their money in a more diverse range of places, it is not more money than they would have spent anyway, and the Federal money spent on building the new system usually goes to an out of town contractor who specializes in such projects.
Mass transit projects are usually built because of traffic density problems and electric systems like light rail are often motivated by air quality issues.
The inadequate parking is a result of disagreements over how many people will use the future system and from where they will come to get to it.
The Lynx station closest to my home has more than 1100 parking spaces in a 4 level ramp. During planning and construction, the consultants said it wouldn't be enough, but the NIMBYs said it was going to sit empty. Conflicting studies resulted in it being smaller than originally planned but larger than the naysayers thought we needed. It is full by 7:30 AM and the nearby shopping center is waging a constant battle to keep commuters from parking there.
If you drive through the lot at midday, you will see that 75% of the cars parked there have SOUTH Carolina plates. We don't need a bigger ramp, we need to extend the line into South Carolina.
Phoebe Vet wrote: ...you will see that 75% of the cars parked there have SOUTH Carolina plates. We don't need a bigger ramp, we need to extend the line into South Carolina.
...you will see that 75% of the cars parked there have SOUTH Carolina plates. We don't need a bigger ramp, we need to extend the line into South Carolina.
DART has a similar problem. Many people who live in cities outside of the DART service area have discovered public transit. They have been piling onto the trains at the end of the line, e.g. Plano, Garland, etc.
It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing. Ironically, since they get on the trains at the end of the line, they get the seats. The folks who pay the tab through their sales tax frequently get an opportunity to stand.
Samantha:
Charlotte is right on the state border. A huge percentage of the people who work in city center live in South Carolina. Many were already using Cats because there is a park and ride for the express bus to city center at the state line. I'm not sure why Lynx didn't end there. The RR right of way on which the Blue Line is built goes right past it.
The Blue Line takes about 2,000 rush hour cars a day in each direction off I-77.
Phoebe Vet wrote: I'm not sure why Lynx didn't end there. The RR right of way on which the Blue Line is built goes right past it.The Blue Line takes about 2,000 rush hour cars a day in each direction off I-77.
I'm not sure why Lynx didn't end there. The RR right of way on which the Blue Line is built goes right past it.
Two reasons-
1) Pineville was very concerned about what the concept of Transit Oriented Development would do to their downtown, as CATS wanted all of the towns to adopt TOD goals (all the rest did). I assume you live near Pineville- you might stop in and talk to Mike Rose, the Town Administrator sometime about it. 2) Because bridging I-485 would have added so much cost that we would no longer meet the FTA funding financial funding guidelines. ($/per new rider) It was actually a blessing in disguise financially when Pineville backed down.
The park and ride of which I spoke is right off I-77 next to Carowinds. The path would not have gone through Pineville. It is on the line that goes over to the Westinghouse warehouse district. It would, however, have required that bridge.
I am familiar with the NIMBY capitol of the world AKA Pineville. I assumed there was a reason that the county caved so easily when Pineville balked.
I know it's not going to happen, but I still think the Blue Line should go to Rock Hill in the south, and Kannapolis to the north.
I think that if you look at the CATS website, the recent Rock Hill "Major Investment Study" is linked there. If not you can google it. It calls for a connection to the Linx, and I think Pineville is coming around, too, but no one knows where the money will come from.
On the northeast Bruton Smith was making some noise recently about going to the Speedway (almost to Concord) , and those of is in this area know what he can do. (ie his new dragstrip) On the other hand Kanapolis may be a bit of a stretch for a LRT line.
Well, that gives me something to dream about. I'd love to be able to take the Blue Line to the Track.
Now if you want to make my 10 year old granddaughter's day tell me where I can get an HO model of that S-70 low floor tram. We already have a subway on the layout and she is absolutely in love with the light rail. She begs to go somewhere on it constantly.
I have found Seimens models, but not the S-70
Samantha wrote: DART has a similar problem. Many people who live in cities outside of the DART service area have discovered public transit. They have been piling onto the trains at the end of the line, e.g. Plano, Garland, etc. It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing.
It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing.
You mention nothing of the fact that those outside the DART service area probably formerly drove the entire distance. Isn't there some advantage now that they only drive part way? Couldn't DART run a few short trips if the carpetbagger are actually scaring away the locals?
That's similar to New Jersey's reluctance at first even to build a storage yard in Morrisville PA, there were some who wanted it built in Trenton, even though that would have required backup moves from the Trenton station. And they have yet to put a passenger station at the Morrisville yard, even though most trains originate and terminate there. I'm not sure what benefit accrues to New Jersey to have those trains run empty from Morrisville while those Pennsylvanians drive to the Trenton or Hamilton train stations. Also similar to the old days when trains ran empty from New Brunswick station to the Jersey Ave yard, several times commented in John Kneiling's Professional Iconoclast column in Trains.
Also since it's a sales tax don't those who live outside the service area pay based the taxable items they buy within the service area, regardless of whether they use DART or not? And one assumes they're commuting to jobs in Dallas. Don't they then contribute to Dallas's economy, or do you consider outside jobholders to be a drain on the local economy?
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: DART has a similar problem. Many people who live in cities outside of the DART service area have discovered public transit. They have been piling onto the trains at the end of the line, e.g. Plano, Garland, etc. It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing.Couldn't DART run a few short trips if the carpetbagger are actually scaring away the locals?Also since it's a sales tax don't those who live outside the service area pay based the taxable items they buy within the service area, regardless of whether they use DART or not? And one assumes they're commuting to jobs in Dallas. Don't they then contribute to Dallas's economy, or do you consider outside jobholders to be a drain on the local economy?
Couldn't DART run a few short trips if the carpetbagger are actually scaring away the locals?
DART's light rail trains operate end point to end point. The light rail system is not set-up to run less than the length of the system, except for the trains headed to the train shed. The point I was highlighting is that people who live outside of the service area are taking the seats of the people who live in the service area. And it is the people in the service area who pay the lion's share of the cost of the light rail system. Indeed, they foot the lion's share of all of DART's services.
Most of the commuters, who use the light rail system, or any of DART's services for that matter, work in the service area. Many although not all of them go downtown Dallas since that is where the trains go. Many of them eat in service area restaurants, have a drink after work at one of the local watering holes, and may pick-up a few items at the equivalent of a convenience store. These transactions attract sales tax. But their purchases in the service area are minimal compared to the services that they purchase at their local malls, restaurants, entertainment venues, service providers, car dealers, etc.
Most workers in Dallas go to work, do their job, and then go back to their suburban homes. Some of them return to suburban homes in the service area, i.e. Richardson, Plano, etc. But many of them go to suburbs that do not belong to the service area. They contribute to the success of their employer, but they don't pay a lot of taxes in the service area.
The bulk of the sales taxes are paid by the service area residents. Moreover, it is the service area dwellers who pay the property taxes to help build the access infrastructure that makes getting to and from DART's facilities possible. Moreover, while everyone in the service area pays to support DART's services, less than two to three per cent use the system. This is true even after the run-up in ridership that has taken place recently.
Many of the outsiders come from communities that said "No" to DART. I know their reaction because I was very active in getting the DART referendum passed. They believed that public transit would never work in North Texas. Now they are singing a different tune. They want to opt into the system. And many of their residents are driving to the end points for a highly subsidized ride to town.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha explained the dynamics that drive a healthy economy.I fail to see how that supports your theory that mass transit projects are planned to keep money in circulation rather than to transport people.
Those that promote a project have various motives. Some people's motives are humanitarian, some are profit in some way, others political advancement, or whatever.
Since insufficient parking is a widespread reoccurring problem in transit all over the country, one has to wonder WHY a solution hasn't been found by now. But, if a community in a subtle way benefits MORE from the expanding money phenomena than from transportation itself, then, there is little motive to fix transit problems.
Public transit is a political beast. The public that rides has little incentive to personally effect changes, just complain to usually deaf ears. However, those that see direct benefits to themselves of money ‘expanding' near their wallets have incentive to keep those benefits coming, year after year after year.
Perhaps a way of seeing SHIFTED MOTIVE is to ponder the situation if NO federal funds where granted. An area would thus NOT have, say, $50 million annually pumped into it, which $50 million would NOT magically become $200 million. No new money nor its expansion would happen year after year after year.
In reality, though, money does come, and expand
So, in that light, what city official would even care about a $1 million parking expansion? They ARE, however, very interested in keeping the magical $200 million coming annually!
The only other thing that seems to get the attention of political leaders are radical action groups.
Harrier:
Your argument is not convincing.
Here in Charlotte, the Feds declined to participate in one of the rail lines Cats planned, and they are building it anyway even without any federal money.
I might buy your argument if the feds paid the whole thing, but that is never the case. Local communities and states have to jump through a lot of hoops to raise the local portion of the funds.
Mass transit programs are built to move people. Which system is chosen (LRT,BRT, or bus) may be influenced by federal participation or lack thereof, but they are going to build SOMETHING to move the people anyway.
Samantha wrote: DART's light rail trains operate end point to end point. The light rail system is not set-up to run less than the length of the system, except for the trains headed to the train shed. The point I was highlighting is that people who live outside of the service area are taking the seats of the people who live in the service area. And it is the people in the service area who pay the lion's share of the cost of the light rail system. Indeed, they foot the lion's share of all of DART's services.
Please explain what is it about the set up that makes it so difficult to run less than the lenght? Don't they have adequate cross overs and signals? I can understand something like Philadelphia, once the streetcar gets past 40th St or 36th St it's physically impossible to turn around before the terminal just west of 13th St, or San Francisco, once you get into the Market St subway I don't think there are any crossovers, but except for a tunnel under the expressway, isn't DART a surface private or reserved right of way line with double ended equipment? Why can't they short turn a trip?
Samantha wrote:Many of the outsiders come from communities that said "No" to DART. I know their reaction because I was very active in getting the DART referendum passed. They believed that public transit would never work in North Texas. Now they are singing a different tune. They want to opt into the system. And many of their residents are driving to the end points for a highly subsidized ride to town.
And why is singing a different tune a bad thing? Blessed are those who see and believe, even if those who did not see and yet believed are more blessed. Give those gummints who now sing a different tune an opportunity to contribute, get creative with how you distribute your subsidized monthly passes, maybe via the welfare departments or employers, so you have some assurance that deserving residents can get them. Or raise the price of monthly passes, but offer a discount if the buyer prooves residency, or has it mailed to a local address.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: Please explain what is it about the set up that makes it so difficult to run less than the lenght? Don't they have adequate cross overs and signals? Samantha wrote:And why is singing a different tune a bad thing?
Samantha wrote:
Please explain what is it about the set up that makes it so difficult to run less than the lenght? Don't they have adequate cross overs and signals?
And why is singing a different tune a bad thing?
The DART track and signal system could accommodate less than end point to end point trains. Unfortunately, DART does not have the equipment to do it. All of the equipment, except the cars that out of service for maintenance, are needed to support current operations. If they ran short trip trains, the end point to end point trains would be jammed even more for the same reason that they are jammed now. People from outside the service area are driving to one of the end points and hopping on the trains. I am told that the rush hour trains are chockers before they leave the end point stations.
DART is expanding its light rail carrying capacity, primarily by increasing the length of the train configuration. Each train will have three sections, one of which will be low floor, as compared to the two section configuration today. But the reconfiguration of the fleet will not be complete to 2010.
Like many transit planners, DART is faced with a dilemma. If it orders additional equipment to handle the increase in passengers, it may find itself with under used cars if the price of gasoline drops and the newbie's go back to driving. Today the price of gasoline in Texas dropped below $3.50 a gallon.
People who crash the party are usually resented by those who went through the birthing pains of putting it together. They did not pay their dues. The same thing applies in Georgetown and Round Rock, which are just north of Austin. Because of changing conditions, they want to joint Capital Metro, although they said no when they had the chance.
DART and Capitol Metro are considering ways to let the newbie's join the party. But they are going to have to pay. One idea being floated in the DART area is to require the late comers to pay to DART what they would have paid if they had joined on day one. It would be a lot of money, and I suspect the local tax payers would squawk loudly. Capital Metro's view is a bit different. It laid out a plan whereby Georgetown and Round Rock, as well as several other cities, could opt into the system, but they would have to pay the out-of-pocket cost of extending the express bus system to their communities. This would require a sizeable payment to Capitol Metro, a hefty fare for Georgetown and Round Rock passengers, or a combination thereof. Ironically, DART or Capitol Metro will not make the decision. These decisions are made by the Texas Legislature.
People in the DART service cities have been paying an extra one per cent in sales tax for more than 15 years, and only now are some of them getting light rail service. Understandably they resent the late comers who have paid nothing for the system and want what amounts to a reduced fare ride to town.
Are the trains crowded from say on the red line from tyler or spring valley or on the blue line morrell, cedars, victory to the end of the lines? If not why can't DART drop one car at one of these points or somewhere else and couple it onto the next train going back? Maybe there are not reversing lines yet and it would require an extra operator at each location. Thankfully FRA rules do not apply for brake tests. I've observed European outfits do it less than two minutes. Passengers in europe quickly adapt to a destination car.
Actually, short turns could be done as a means of giving riders all along the line a chance at a seat. This works like a zone express service from the boonies. If there is only one downtown stop; then it's on a first come basis. Passengers are concentrated with less frequent service from a set of stop zone stations.
Given the high number of passengers driving or busing in to the end of the line from outside the taxing districts for Dallas and Charlotte, that one station could be a single zone. The next zone would begin at the next-to-last station and may pick up from a number of stations before the beginning of the next zone; and so forth. Trains would stop to discharge passengers at any stop.
As for equipment, the shorter runs permit faster cycling of equipment that effectively increases fleet capacity.
Most suburbs around Chicago have resident and non-resident parking permits with different rates. This is one way to cut down on the free ride non-residents otherwise would get.
Outsiders' use raises farebox revenue and reduces the level of operating support from the taxing district.
Samantha wrote:The DART track and signal system could accommodate less than end point to end point trains. Unfortunately, DART does not have the equipment to do it...I am told that the rush hour trains are chockers before they leave the end point stations.
The DART track and signal system could accommodate less than end point to end point trains. Unfortunately, DART does not have the equipment to do it...
I am told that the rush hour trains are chockers before they leave the end point stations.
So the problem seems to be a lack of rolling stock, not a lack of ability to short turn trains. And if it's true that the trains are full when leaving the terminal then short turn wouldn't help.
HarveyK400 wrote: Given the high number of passengers driving or busing in to the end of the line from outside the taxing districts for Dallas and Charlotte, that one station could be a single zone.
Given the high number of passengers driving or busing in to the end of the line from outside the taxing districts for Dallas and Charlotte, that one station could be a single zone.
Maybe an issue for another thread, how do self service honor systems handle multiple zones? All the ones I've ridden - NJ Transit, Baltimore, Buffalo, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacremento, Portland - were one zone for the line's entire length.
HarveyK400 wrote: Most suburbs around Chicago have resident and non-resident parking permits with different rates. This is one way to cut down on the free ride non-residents otherwise would get.
thanks, that reminds me, this thread's "not enough parking". So in addition to increasing fares and then offering discounts with proof of residence, Dallas could also do the parking permits. Are these out of towners getting free parking now? Is there a free transfer between feeder bus and light rail?
Samantha, you're a bean counter, right? I think your theme here is that the out of towners are getting an unfair advantage. Would it be better for Dallas if they returned to driving the entire distance?
A bit more difficult to do, and probably not too beneficial, but maybe they can add temporary tracks about 1000 feet to a temporary platform with no parking, so at least more of the seats get occupied by local passengers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.