Light Rail really working in America?

[henry6]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

henry6

These are the things that jump out at me: 

Sam1

Phoebe Vet

http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/news_events_11682.html 

• Repairing existing systems is just as important as building new systems, especially rail systems.  Definitely...rail, highway, even waterways and airports!  This is a given
•  
• Light rail is a good fit in some situations but clearly not in all or even the majority of systems. This is also a broad statement which really says nothing but ventures a (an unfounded) conclusion ...each situation has to be researched, there is no blanket answer and we know it.
• "Paint is cheap, rails systems are extremely expensive." Yes paint is cheap and rail systems are expensive.  But since when does a can of paint carry 150 passengers any distance at any speed; even coupled up or mu'd the paint can doesn't provide transit service.  Comparing apples to oranges on a chip chart here!
• Bus Rapid Transit is a better fit for many communities. Again unfounded based on information given.  . 

And apparently this is a paper geared toward states like Texas where oil is King and fuel and environment are of no concern.  The statement about Austin area rail rapid transit being not a good choice over bus rapid transit is not supported.  And despite all the research, surveys, and marketing analysis, there has been an enormous over use of rail transit and trains in comparison to pre use speculations, i.e. it has been more successfull than predicted passenger use had been predicted.  This last factor indicates to me that our (rail) transit  and train use studies are somehow flawed by this underestimating of passenger use. 

The comments were delivered by Peter Rogoff, Director of the Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, at a transit conference in Boston.  Texas was not mentioned anywhere in his remarks.  Presumably Mr. Rogoff has the facts to conclude that "rails systems are extremely expensive".  His reference to paint was not that a can of paint can be used to transport anyone, but rather that in many instances the emphasis needs to be on repairing existing systems as opposed to building new ones.

Mr. Rogoff ‘s department has provided federal oversight for the construction of most of the light rail systems in the U.S., since his department is responsible for determining which ones get federal funding.  The only system that has been built without significant federal funding, to the best of my knowledge, is Austin's commuter rail system.

Numerous studies have shown that light rail, as well as commuter rail, is very expensive, especially if it has to be built from scratch.  The numbers have been presented in a number of forums.  They don't need to be repeated here.

Passenger use is not the only metric for determining the effectiveness of light rail or commuter rail.  There is the ugly fact of cost.  Getting better passenger use than expected is easy.  Just low ball the estimated number of riders you expect.  This budget trick is as old as budgeting.  Oh, another way to get high passenger use is to allow significant numbers of people to use the system for free or at greatly reduced fares, as has been the case in Austin.

With respect to Austin, you might want to keep the following figures in mind.  The cost to implement the commuter rail system from Leander to Austin was approximately $120 million, excluding the cost of the equipment, or roughly $4 million a mile.  The cost of the equipment added another $6 million to the tab.  The CFO of Capital Metro estimates that the operating costs for the commuter rail system could consume 60 per cent of the agencies operating resources.  This is for a system that will carry less than one per cent of Capital Metro's riders.  The estimated cost to implement rapid bus technology on Lamar Blvd, which is a major thoroughfare in Austin, is in the neighborhood of $1 million per mile, plus the cost of the buses, which the last time I looked were estimated to cost approximately $650,000 for an articulated coach.  The estimated cost to build the proposed light rail line from Bergstrom International Airport to downtown Austin and on to the University of Texas campus is $47 million a mile.  This excludes the cost of the equipment.  Is this specific enough for you?

[Phoebe Vet]

BRT still uses diesel fuel.

Unless it is in a dedicated busway, it doesn't solve any traffic problems, and in fact hinders traffic with it's frequent stops.

If it IS in a dedicated busway then station, road, and bridge construction and maintenance Become part of the cost and much of the cost benefit illusion vanishes.  Cost comparisons of rail vs bus always include rail & ROW costs, and the roads that the buses use are invisible in a different budget.

Light Rail vehicles last longer than a buses.

While it varies by city, here in Charlotte, one two car train with one driver can move more than 400 people per trip.  That would take 10 or more buses, each with a driver.

[henry6]

These are the things that jump out at me: 

Sam1

Phoebe Vet

http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/news_events_11682.html 

• Repairing existing systems is just as important as building new systems, especially rail systems.  Definitely...rail, highway, even waterways and airports!  This is a given
•  
• Light rail is a good fit in some situations but clearly not in all or even the majority of systems. This is also a broad statement which really says nothing but ventures a (an unfounded) conclusion ...each situation has to be researched, there is no blanket answer and we know it.
• "Paint is cheap, rails systems are extremely expensive." Yes paint is cheap and rail systems are expensive.  But since when does a can of paint carry 150 passengers any distance at any speed; even coupled up or mu'd the paint can doesn't provide transit service.  Comparing apples to oranges on a chip chart here!
• Bus Rapid Transit is a better fit for many communities. Again unfounded based on information given.  . 

And apparently this is a paper geared toward states like Texas where oil is King and fuel and environment are of no concern.  The statement about Austin area rail rapid transit being not a good choice over bus rapid transit is not supported.  And despite all the research, surveys, and marketing analysis, there has been an enormous over use of rail transit and trains in comparison to pre use speculations, i.e. it has been more successfull than predicted passenger use had been predicted.  This last factor indicates to me that our (rail) transit  and train use studies are somehow flawed by this underestimating of passenger use. 

[Anonymous]

Phoebe Vet

http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/news_events_11682.html 

This reference is well worth the read.  Several points jumped out at me:

• Repairing existing systems is just as important as building new systems, especially rail systems. 
• Light rail is a good fit in some situations but clearly not in all or even the majority of systems.
• "Paint is cheap, rails systems are extremely expensive."
• Bus Rapid Transit is a better fit for many communities.

Capital Metro (Austin) has put a lot of eggs in the Leander to Austin commuter rail project basket.  It is likely to be a millstone around the necks of Austin's taxpayers for generations.  In retrospect, the community would have gotten a lot more bang for its buck if they had gone with Bus Rapid Transit.

The major challenge for transit systems, as well as intercity passenger rail, will be funding.  The United States is mired in debt.  Like it or not we are likely to have an experience similar to Greece.  And it will not be pleasant.  The federal debt is expected to reach 140 per cent of Gross Domestic Product by 2020.  Whether the federal government will be able to find the money to help fund transit as well as intercity passenger rail is problematic. 

[Phoebe Vet]

 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/news_events_11682.html 

 

[awwrailroad]

As an eleven year Train Operator for San Diego Trolley, I found this all very good reading. Trolley shares the right-of-way with with the SDIY (SDIV, SDAE/SP, SDA/SP). Freight trains run from midnite to 4 a.m. on both the Orange Line east to El Cajon, and the 100 year old ROW of the Blue Line south of 12th and Imperial station to the Mexican Border. Four days a week I operate the 1000 series (U-2) cars in 3 car consists. First part of my day is in rush hour service with a train out of the Border every 7.5 minutes. The first two trains are 4 car consists up to the City College station.

I have ridden the Gold Line in L.A. and like the system.

I can answer most questions about the San Diego System and may be a bit biased as to the success of Light Rail at least in this part of the country.

[Phoebe Vet]

From the Census data comparing the top 100 cities in the USA:

Charlotte 

Commuters who drive alone: 79 percent (ranked 57th)

Commuters who use public transit: 2.3 percent (ranked 42nd)

Change in commuters who use public transit, 2000-2008: 109 percent (ranked 3rd)

[henry6]

Commuting from suburb to inner city is as old as, well, NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago.  Major rail lines were built just to accomodate the need to bring goods and services (i.e., commuter rail) or picked up those needs and services along longer haul lines.  Commutes today in the NYC market can be over 100 miles for some either via highway or rail service.  There are communal vans...a group buys a van and pays a driver...from Wilkes Barre/Scranton to NYC daily along with regular bus service. But the NYCity rail commuter services started the moment rail was laid inland to the shore of the North River in the 1830's and 40's.  As time went on the commute was not from Newark but from as far away as Trenton, Bay Head, Washington and Branchville, NJ,  the Delaware River Valley of PA; up the Hudson as far as Poughkeepsie, NY; northeast into CT as far as New Haven and Waterbury; and to the far eastern reaches of the North and South Shores of Long Island.  One of the unremarked paramaters was set back in the 1960's (I think) when a judge stated a two hour commute was not unreasonable for a person on unemployment in a Long Island case. Thus the commuter pattern was reset for some.  All metorpolitan areas actually went through similar periods of growth and spread; the interstate highway and other road building boom of the 50's through 80's helped while taking away the commuter rail passenger. Today not only is there a resurgence in the need and use of commuter rail (despite numbers being down because of the economy) in the older metropolitan areas and a realization that it is needed in areas where it either had not been before or has been so long gone it has been forgotten. And as we learn about and deal with pollution, congestion, lack of land, and all the other attending problems of metropolitan areas, the more we find rail as a logical and long range economical answer to moving people again.

 

[Phoebe Vet]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

In 1950 the population INSIDE THE BALTIMORE CITY LIMITS was 1.2 millon, today it is less than 700,000. Block after block is boarded up and once beautiful homes are slum lord rentals or vacant.

Hundres of thousdands of people drive every day from the suburbs, some as far as 40-50 miles, to work in or near the city - what a waste of fuel and time - BUT, high taxes, high crime, bad shools and poor quality services have run the middle class out of the cities.

Only the unemployable poor and the very rich in the best old neighborhoods remain - everyone else lives in the "counties".

Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit.

Then there would be a reason to take back the neighborhoods in the city and live a good quality urban life (hopefully keeping some of them from moving out here).

Sheldon

North Carolina does have a solution.  A law that keeps the cities from decaying.  It's a good law, but people are constantly trying to get it repealed.  The law allows cities to involuntarily annex contiguous areas when they reach a certain population density.  The result is cities get bigger and maintain their tax base.

When my house was built in 1978 it was 5 miles outside the city of Charlotte in the Town of Pineville.  Now it is about a half mile inside the city. To give you a comparison, the Atlanta Metro Area is much larger than the Charlotte Metro Area, but the City of Charlotte is larger than the City of Atlanta because Atlanta does not have the ability to annex it's suburbs.

[blue streak 1]

RanLoot

 Phoenix just broke a record by having 1.21 million rides in April, or about 55,000 daily trips for a network that just opened in December 2008. The original forecast was for 26,000 daily trips...

RanLoot: Thanks for the reminder haven't been following Phoenix. Having spent many days in Phoenix the real indication there will be this summer. The heat is brutal at times. Many outfits basically shut down in the summer. If their ridership stays well above the original forecasts then I will say it is a great success much like Charlotte.

[RanLoot]

 Phoenix just broke a record by having 1.21 million rides in April, or about 55,000 daily trips for a network that just opened in December 2008. The original forecast was for 26,000 daily trips...

LightRailNetwork.com started a "Train Business Directory" in Phoenix and because of its success, the company is now in 13 cities in the Western U.S....

 If you give people a place to go, they will ride...

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

HarveyK400

Interesting concept for taxation - off hand, it seems like a good incentive.  However, it surely would be met by a firestorm of angry suburbanites, residential and business and likely not gain sufficient political support.

Not necessarily, how about we base the rate on an average of the current suburban values, then they would still be paying about the same, but those with quality properies in the city would pay less, giving them incentive to stay and take care of their properties.

Those who are poor/lower income homeowners, especailly in the city, who's taxes would in theory go up, could and should be given some sort of income based break/exemption, with added incentives to improve the condition of their property. Then if they sell and "move up", the new owner is in the new system, unless he qualifies for an income based break. 

Landlords (which I am by the way, but not of inner city or low quality properties) should be given just a short window to bring their properties up to some reasonable condition/value or loose any excemption based on the old value.

So obviously something like this would have to be phased in over a period of time. But it surely would be more fair and provide a more balanced revenue in addition to being an incentive against spraw and for urban renewal since new construction in the burbs would be taxed at the same rate as established properties in the city or exsisting denser suburbs.

Then build the mass transit.

Sheldon

[HarveyK400]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

...

I live in rural northern Maryland and many people drive from as far away as southern PA to work in the Baltimore metro area. Until this type of thinking changes, and people are willing to live near there jobs, I do not see any hope for improving this situation.

BUT, I do agree that the problems, both now and future are real.

In 1950 the population INSIDE THE BALTIMORE CITY LIMITS was 1.2 millon, today it is less than 700,000. Block after block is boarded up and once beautiful homes are slum lord rentals or vacant.

Hundres of thousdands of people drive every day from the suburbs, some as far as 40-50 miles, to work in or near the city - what a waste of fuel and time - BUT, high taxes, high crime, bad shools and poor quality services have run the middle class out of the cities.

Only the unemployable poor and the very rich in the best old neighborhoods remain - everyone else lives in the "counties".

Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit. Investing in mass transit first will not fix these problems or bring people back in closer to their jobs.

I suggest a regional property tax, not based on value, but based on size, features and use, and shared by all jurisdictions in the region. This way, a 2500 sq ft home on 1 acre would be taxed the same in the city or in the suburbs. AND, by not having it linked to value, there would be more incentive to maintain urban properties rather than allow demolition by neglect or slum lord rental conversion. Fair is fair, the taxes on similar homes in the same region would be the same, and the city would share the revenue with the counties to provide effective roads, schools, mass transit, etc,etc.

Then there would be a reason to take back the neighborhoods in the city and live a good quality urban life (hopefully keeping some of them from moving out here).

Sheldon

But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and a gun who plays with little trains.

 

Interesting concept for taxation - off hand, it seems like a good incentive.  However, it surely would be met by a firestorm of angry suburbanites, residential and business and likely not gain sufficient political support.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

henry6

Strictly to the question of success of light rail: what is the reason that new lines in LA, etc. along with realigned patterns like NJT's MidTown Direct commuter services, even Amtrak's Downeaster Service, have all surpassed ridership predictions in a quicker time than was anticipated?  We spend millions and millions of dollars on surveys and anticpatory preparation to find we have understimated the use.  I just listed three different services I know off the top of my head.  I know there are others as well as those which have fallen flat.  But there are more overachievers than underachievers in public transportation.

Henry, to me, common sense says well planned mass transit in places like LA, Boston, New York, etc is a no brainer, of course it will be used and be effective.

There are a lot of other cities in the country - many with dramaticly different demographics than places like LA. LA and Baltimore are like night and day. We use the the DC metro when we get the urge to see the sites there, it works well - but for the daily lives of most people I know, they could not build enough routes and connectors to "transitize" the Baltimore suburbs, and as stated, the working people have vertually all moved out of the city.

And again, in LA I get it. But they have not yet printed enough money to get me to live in a place like that, or even visit it on a regular basis.

Sheldon 

[henry6]

Strictly to the question of success of light rail: what is the reason that new lines in LA, etc. along with realigned patterns like NJT's MidTown Direct commuter services, even Amtrak's Downeaster Service, have all surpassed ridership predictions in a quicker time than was anticipated?  We spend millions and millions of dollars on surveys and anticpatory preparation to find we have understimated the use.  I just listed three different services I know off the top of my head.  I know there are others as well as those which have fallen flat.  But there are more overachievers than underachievers in public transportation.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

jockellis

However, as it costs the US government four times the pump price to maintain the oil flow into America, Americans using mass transit would save not only themselves money by taking the train where possible, but they would save the government money on what we are spending in the Mideast. We would also quit sending our wealth to people who hate us.

Our failed foreign policy since WWII is another very large and complex topic, but I do understand.

Fact is though, we spend most of that money to keep the oil flowing to Europe, not to here. While some mideast oil comes here, it is more about keeping the global price stable than what oil actually goes where.

I don't buy Shell or Exxon, so I don't send the mideast a dime. I buy mostly from the companies who are selling home sourced products.

I live in rural northern Maryland and many people drive from as far away as southern PA to work in the Baltimore metro area. Until this type of thinking changes, and people are willing to live near there jobs, I do not see any hope for improving this situation.

BUT, I do agree that the problems, both now and future are real.

In 1950 the population INSIDE THE BALTIMORE CITY LIMITS was 1.2 millon, today it is less than 700,000. Block after block is boarded up and once beautiful homes are slum lord rentals or vacant.

Hundres of thousdands of people drive every day from the suburbs, some as far as 40-50 miles, to work in or near the city - what a waste of fuel and time - BUT, high taxes, high crime, bad shools and poor quality services have run the middle class out of the cities.

Only the unemployable poor and the very rich in the best old neighborhoods remain - everyone else lives in the "counties".

Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit. Investing in mass transit first will not fix these problems or bring people back in closer to their jobs.

I suggest a regional property tax, not based on value, but based on size, features and use, and shared by all jurisdictions in the region. This way, a 2500 sq ft home on 1 acre would be taxed the same in the city or in the suburbs. AND, by not having it linked to value, there would be more incentive to maintain urban properties rather than allow demolition by neglect or slum lord rental conversion. Fair is fair, the taxes on similar homes in the same region would be the same, and the city would share the revenue with the counties to provide effective roads, schools, mass transit, etc,etc.

Then there would be a reason to take back the neighborhoods in the city and live a good quality urban life (hopefully keeping some of them from moving out here).

Sheldon

But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and a gun who plays with little trains.

[YoHo1975]

You can bet that the people living in those urban areas are paying a far larger percentage of their money to transit systems in the form of local taxes and the fare box. Taxes work the same way that democracy in general works. Usually(but not always) the majority rules and the majority live in urban areas generally and so they will have their transit paid for. This is simply the way of life. If you choose a rural environment, you must accept that you will be paying for services you will not use. My experience is with Transit Is Chicago, Portland Or, and San Diego. I can tell you right now that the Light Rail and transit lines in those cities contribute significantly to the livability of those cities. San Diego, needs an improvement in their commuter rail systems. More trains and better weekend service. To put it bluntly, O'tool is A'tool and I'm glad he was properly chastised in that senate hearing. One question on defining New versus Old. Is not a large portion of the San Diego system actually based on existing Southern Pacific lines and didn't those lines have some sort of commuter or transit service on them in the past? In other words, does being the "grandaddy of LR" have any specific meaning?

[HarveyK400]

Ridership forecasting uses the same process for all modes in alternatives analysis - that is, you can't measure HRT by apples and LRT by oranges to get any meaningful result. 

Different models, many proprietary, are used in many cities; but all have commonalities and produce approximately the same results.  The trick is for the contracting entity to understand the biases in the forecast models and skewing in results for which they are paying.

Empirical data is used from around the country as well as the subject area.  Extrapolating data entails tedious data entry; but the calculations go faster than the time it takes for a foot-thick printout.  There were and are areas with a high level of variance that can be explained in part by analysis of factors such as crime and race.  In the 70's, suburban rail commuting to the Chicago Loop was a higher percentage (83%) than for City residents taking any mode to the Loop (~75%).  Given the gentrification and loss of City population, the City proportion may have risen.  Travel to the Loop for non-work purposes is quite different, and much of the road and transit travel through Downtown goes to non-CBD destinations.   

[Phoebe Vet]

jockellis

For instance, MARTA in Atlanta is said to stand for Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta. That was finally brought out into the open by a MARTA official a few years ago. The name had been used since Atlanta bought the bus system from Atlanta Transit and started on rail construction.

Really?   Does the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority know that?

 

[jockellis]

Harvey, where were they thinking about putting in light rail? At that point in time, all the interurbans except yours in Chicago, had been shut down. Most of them were gone before WWII and the rest, about 1950 when America was getting into cars. For NU to try to extrapolate Chicago's transit ridership into that of other places would be rather hard. Another problem is politics. For instance, MARTA in Atlanta is said to stand for Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta. That was finally brought out into the open by a MARTA official a few years ago. The name had been used since Atlanta bought the bus system from Atlanta Transit and started on rail construction. Atlanta is a very different town now than it was when rail construction began. Speaking of projecting ridership, it seems to be now that consultants are a bit conservative rather than optimistic. I read that Charlotte opened with way more passengers than expected and way more than the system was ready for.

[BT CPSO 266]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Very few of us NEED air travel, it is a convienence, not a neccessity. And it too should PAY its own way.

 

See that is the main problem. 

There is a necessity to commute between & in cities or else the economy stalls. It is more of a need to grow and move more efficiently issue. Few see, but there is a transportation model shift looming for those living the metropolitan areas. You want to end urban sprawl well then it needs to replaced with smart growth with an effective mass transit system, combining light rail, bus, eventually personal rapid transit tied into the airport & intercity rail systems. Urban folk can expect to do more if not most of their commuting by mass transit in coming decades if we are smart. Build the options in the urban areas, and save the cars & oil for those who need it more, like for those living in rural areas of the country. 53% of the country lives in cities and as much as people hate to hear the truth we have to cater to those urban centers to keep the nation moving and that means financial aid to build new transit systems to meet future needs.

[HarveyK400]

jockellis

In 1989, projecting ridership for trolleys/light rail was in its infancy. As the Free Congress Foundation pointed out it one of its books, no one had projected ridership in about 70 years....

I'd hazard the guess that light rail-specific ridership projection was little more than an adaption of modal split and trip distribution modeling being developed in response to the planning requirements in the Interstate legislation.  Northwestern University and the Chicago Area Transportation Study were leaders in this area in the 60's and 70's in evaluating highway and transit improvement use (ridership).  At that time I was an intern at CATS calculating and coding highway and transit networks under the direction of engineers coming out of the NU program.   Keys were time and money costs.  Amenities, relative comfort, are factored in by calibrating empirical ridership data from similar modes.  Light rail existed in Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco before 1989; but I wonder how that year may relate to San Diego and Portland?

The CTA O'Hare extension is the prime example of an early transit improvement coming out of an alternatives analysis process, as well as the doomed downtown subway and LRT plans, the Metra North Central Service to Antioch, and more recent STAR Line and Southeast Service proposals. The Congress and Dan Ryan lines were justified on the basis of relocating the L, a necessity in the case of the former; and opposed by the community in the latter.

If no one had projected ridership in 70 years, something must have been done between 1890 when electric railways became practical and 1910, the significance of which approximate time escapes me.

I really wonder about the scholarship of the Free Congress Foundation.

[jockellis]

Sheldon, you hit on a lot of points there. I have a brother in law who does the same type of carpentry as you and have heard how dirty a job it is. I doubt if other 5 p.m. riders would want you on the trolley with them even if the line went in front of the house you worked on or would hold your equipment. Same as the riders of the north MARTA line in Atlanta like to see runners in the Peachtree Road Race get on board to go home after the race. You just cannot imagine the smell! But just as Superman in the old TV shows never went to Washington to try to clean up that government mess, Trolleys/light rail won't fix all America's ills. However, as it costs the US government four times the pump price to maintain the oil flow into America, Americans using mass transit would save not only themselves money by taking the train where possible, but they would save the government money on what we are spending in the Mideast. We would also quit sending our wealth to people who hate us.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

jockellis

I doubt if they would have much in common. It is a fact that no form of transportation pays it way. Government has to pay and pay and pay.

Where exactly does government get this money? From us the people of course. So we pay, either at the pump, the fare box or to the tax man.

The question is not who pays, but rather are we getting what we need and want at a reasonable price?

Roads are paid for by a series of direct and indirect taxes, we ALL need them in some form to some degree, we all pay. Some of us use them more directly and pay more through fuel taxes, truck/car registrations, etc, in addition to basic general fund taxes. Some don't own cars but still pay those basic general fund taxes AND pay indirectly with almost every dollar we spend - everything we touch travels on a truck at some point, a truck that paid fuel taxes.

Mass transit (be it buses or rail) on the other hand, is only used by some, and by virtue of design and location is only useful to some, and only some desire to use it. So by what sense of fairness should we all pay? Even more so, why should those of use who live no where near any mass transit, and already fund our own transportation by buying cars and paying registrations and fuel taxes, also subsidize the transportation of those who live dozens or hundreds of miles from us?

You may want to live in an urban setting and walk or ride the bus/trolley for most of your needs - I do not. I do not live is "suburbia" either. I live in a rural setting - no light rail is headed my way, nor could it ever go even half the places I need to travel to on a weekly basis - nor could it transport the tools of my trade to my place of work - I am a carpenter.

But somehow you think its fair for me to pay substantially higher taxes so a city 50 miles for me can have a fancy light rail/subway/trolley system?

I think my taxes are already too high and buy too much for other people who in one way or another are not pulling their weight, or paying their fair share, or being responsible for their own lives.

As a railfan and person who understands rail technology, I see the possible benfits of mass transit in urban areas, but until more people, productive people, return to LIVE, WORK and PLAY in uban areas, increasing the local tax base in those urban areas, I see no reason to hold others at gun point to fund such systems.

You want it, you live there and pay the taxes to support it. Personally the cities could all be crime free, beautiful utopias, I would still not live there. I can only hope others would and stop the building of more vinyl and cardboard McMansions (my carpentry profession is restoring 100 year old houses, not building this new crap) in what was once pristine farm land. And, thereby stop the constant expansion of the suburban highway structure.

Here's what I would like to see:

An end to suburban spraw - change the property tax laws to end urban "demolition by neglect" and eliminate the tax advantage of "fleeing the city".

More incentives to get even more freight off highways and on the backs of flat cars. The gradual outlawing of these rediculously long truck trailers that clog up streets do to lack of maneuverablity.

The elimination of most welfare - corporate and personal, and an end to the subsidizing of bad behavior - corporate and personal.

A return to the right to defend one's self, family and PROPERTY from those who would take or distory it.

If you can manage some of this list, I might think mass transit was actually important.

And while we are on this transportation thing, I don't think governments should subsidize the airline industry either. Nor should they be allowed to charge one person $300 and another person $60 for the same trip. Very few of us NEED air travel, it is a convienence, not a neccessity. And it too should PAY its own way.

 

 

But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and gun who plays with little trains.

Sheldon

 

[jockellis]

In 1989, projecting ridership for trolleys/light rail was in its infancy. As the Free Congress Foundation pointed out it one of its books, no one had projected ridership in about 70 years. As to operating costs, I'd like to see plans drawn up by a railroad which had to make money as opposed to plans drawn up by a consulting firm which got paid a percentage of the project's cost. I doubt if they would have much in common. It is a fact that no form of transportation pays it way. Government has to pay and pay and pay. But people like Randal would have you believe roads do pay their way. Wrong! No Interstate Highway funds were ever set to be allocated to maintenance. If you ask O'Toole if trolleys work, he'd say no. But ask a shopkeeper in a trendy section of a downtown where people ride the trolley in for the nightlife and he'd say it was working well. Former Atlanta Falcon coach Jerry Glanville told me recently that when he was coaching at Portland State University and living there, his wife only took her car out of their apartment's garage about once a month. Portland's city government would say that for her, the trolley was working very well.

[Metro Red Line]

BT CPSO 266

I am for light rail systems, but I continue to read how so many believe they are not worth the investment and are not helping to improve transit. I have read that light rail in Houston, and LA are not really working. Can anyone speak about the matter.

 

 

Hi, I'm from Los Angeles. "Not really working?" Where did you read that from? The Reason Foundation? [lol]

 Here's some facts for ya:

* The Los Angeles Metro Blue Line, which opened 20 years ago, is the #2 highest-ridden light rail line in North America (Behind Boston's MBTA Green Line), carrying some 77,000 riders daily. It is almost at capacity.

* There are two other light rail lines here (Green Line and Gold Line), which do not have the ridership levels of the Blue Line, but just this past November, the Gold Line got extended into East Los Angeles, which added 6 miles and several thousand more riders.

* As I write this, another light rail line, from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, known as the Exposition Line, is being built. It will open either late this year or 2011. Recently, Metro, our transit agency, approved the 2nd and final phase of the line to be built to Santa Monica.

* Another LRT corridor has been approved in late 2009, linking the Exposition Line with the Green Line and serving Los Angeles International Airport.

* A future extension of the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley past its current Pasadena terminus is also planned, as well as an extension of the existing Gold Line to serve the South Bay area.

* A "regional connector" in the form of an LRT subway underneath Downtown Los Angeles is being planned at the moment, which will physically connect the Blue, Gold and Exposition lines and provide more routing possibilities (meaning single-ride trips, eliminating transfers). 

* In 2008, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure R, a sales tax increase that would fund future light rail construction (as well as a subway extension to the Westside). In this economy, the fact that voters would approve of a sales tax increase (and in CA, sales tax increases need a 2/3rds majority to pass) says a lot.

2010 marks the 20th year of LRT in Los Angeles. A lot has been done in the past two decades and there's a lot more in the works and on the drawing board. There are currently 62 miles of LRT lines in operation, with 8 more currently under construction.

 Some light rail lines in the US exist initially as starter systems: They're not very long and they don't carry a lot of people, but each time it's extended, ridership multiplies exponentially, even more when another line/branch connects to it.

[Metro Red Line]

Haha, East Coast bias at work! :)

 San Diego is the undisputed granddad of modern LRT systems because like most North American cities, it did not depend on its old streetcar infrastructure but started anew with a totally new system.

Your other examples are all cities that retained parts of their old streetcar infrastructure and simply modernized it with new equipment. However, being that most cities dismantled their own systems, those are the exceptions and not the rule.

 

[schlimm]

CMStPnP

DART Rail from Plano is pretty heavily used.   Where they are running into problems now is too much LRV's downtown leading to delays.    So they are working on another route through downtown and better scheduling to fix that. 

 

Sounds like a real success story.

[CMStPnP]

DART Rail from Plano is pretty heavily used.   Where they are running into problems now is too much LRV's downtown leading to delays.    So they are working on another route through downtown and better scheduling to fix that.     I don't know how anyone can say DART Rail is not a success it's carrying riders well beyond what was planned, IMO.     DART Bus lines on the other hand are inefficient in several areas.