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)
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/news_events_11682.html
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes.
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.
BRT can also run on compressed natural gas, which is the game plan for Austin's rapid technology buses. They can also be hybrids. Moreover, given the developing technology, totally electric buses are just around the corner. When I was in Denver last week, I rode the electric buses that operate on the 16th street transit mall. They are very comfortable. They are not ready for longer routes, but they will be in the not too distant future.
Electric rail systems get their electric energy from electric power companies. Approximately 50 per cent of the power in the U.S. is generated by coal, including the power generated by Duke Energy in the Charlotte area. I don't know where the Charlotte Transit System gets the power for its light rail system, but I suspect that it is from Duke. Coal is the dirtiest power generation fuel and emits more pollution than any other major generating fuel. Admittedly, it does not acerbate our oil important problem, but it creates its own set of problems.
The buses will run in dedicated bus lanes. The operators will be able to control the traffic lights at key points along the route, thereby reducing the amount of down time that would otherwise be incurred. The buses will stop only at designated passenger stations, where passengers will buy their tickets in advance, just like they do for the commuter rail system, and board the buses through quick access doors. They will run on 6 to 8 minute intervals during rush hours and 15 to 20 minute intervals during off peak hours.
The cost to implement rapid bus technology as compared to commuter and light rail in the Austin area is shown in my response to Henry6's comments. The cost includes the stations, lane construction, traffic signals, etc. It also includes the cost of the equipment.
The Leander to Austin commuter rail system runs on the Austin & Western, which is a freight railroad owned by Capital Metro. If the railroad did not exist, the community could never have afforded commuter rail. The "shared" cost advantage attributed to rapid bus technology, i.e. being able to share city streets, also applies to most commuter and light rail systems. Moreover, many light rail systems, including Dallas, were able to use abandoned rail lines or run on the rights of ways of freight railroad. Had this not been the case, Dallas could not have afforded the light rail system.
Light rail vehicles do last longer than buses, which mean that they are not able to take advantage of developing technologies as rapidly as buses. In other words, one have made the decision to go with light rail, a transit agency is locked into it for a very long period of time.
Several studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation, as well as the Texas Transportation Institute, have shown that implementing rapid bus technology can be considerably cheaper than commuter rail or light rail. This is one of the reasons the Mass Transit Agency is taking a hard look at the various proposals for light rail.
The key point Mr. Rogoff made is that light rail is not always the optimum solution for transit and, in fact, may be the best solution in only a relatively small number of cases.
I am aware that Duke has coal plants, in fact they are currently fighting over a new one that they want to put on line, but here in Charlotte they have two nuclear facilities and hydro.
Dedicated bus lanes and bus rapid transit work well where there is already a substantial user base for public transportaton, and the greatly improved bus service can be expected to add 15-25% ridership, taking some cars off roads and reducing traffic congestion, with the additional reduction from removing the buses themselves.
But rail is the only widely proven transit that can swing a substantial number of private auto commuters to use public transportation, where a ridership base can be built from essentially nothing. There have been experiments with bus rapid transit attempting to do this job, but they have not been really successful.
Once the investment is made, because of labor and maintenance costs and vehicle repalcement costs, even including right of way, the operating cost per passenger mile is about 50-60% that of bus transportation.
daveklepper Dedicated bus lanes and bus rapid transit work well where there is already a substantial user base for public transportaton, and the greatly improved bus service can be expected to add 15-25% ridership, taking some cars off roads and reducing traffic congestion, with the additional reduction from removing the buses themselves. But rail is the only widely proven transit that can swing a substantial number of private auto commuters to use public transportation, where a ridership base can be built from essentially nothing. There have been experiments with bus rapid transit attempting to do this job, but they have not been really successful. Once the investment is made, because of labor and maintenance costs and vehicle repalcement costs, even including right of way, the operating cost per passenger mile is about 50-60% that of bus transportation.
I don't believe that the lower operating costs (arguable) for a $47 million per mile light rail line in Austin, Texas would offset the higher operating costs (arguable) and more frequent equipment replacement costs of a rapid technology bus line (<$1 million per mile). How did you arrive at your numbers?
According to one report that I read, the DOT is pushing communities contemplating light rail, as well as commuter rail, to consider alternatives, including rapid bus technology. Their thrust is based on a concern about the cost of building and operating rail lines, especially in medium size communities.
Buses have a distinct advantage over rail systems. If the population shifts, as it has in most Texas cities, the buses can easily follow the population changes. But once a rail line has been tacked down, because of the large capital investment, it is very difficult to move it.
Rail is a good solution for Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. because most suburban development occurred along the existing rail lines that emanated from those cities. But in Texas, where I live, as well as most other places in the country, especially the southeast and the southwest, suburban growth developed helter-skelter. It took place in many instances off Interstate Highways or along roads built specifically for the developments. Accordingly, we don't have the population concentrations in most areas that make rail the best solution. The car, augmented by buses, is the best solution in most cities in the southeast and southwest.
The Leander to Austin commuter rail service, which I ride several days a week, rolls through large areas where there are few people, although there are heaps of cattle. Whether these areas will fill in with potential riders remains to be seen.
Given the cost of the rail line (operating and capital), I think one plausible scenario is that the service will be abandoned. Of course, it is far too early to tell, but it has placed a crunch on Capital Metro's finances, and abandonment could be one way out of the conundrum. The manager under whom the project was developed has retired (some say that he was forced out). Neither of the two candidates vying to replace him have had any extensive commuter or light rail experience.
But Sam, the lession learned in many cities and metropolitan areas has been that when planning new services today they have drawn lines over many rapid transit or interurban lines that bus companies eliminated in the 30's, 40's and 50's. And often the bus companies are gone today, too. A lot of changes were made because of shifting poplulations and socially demographic shifts within areas, too. And, in any given business and often in factories, there is a given lifespan before abandonement or major change. Here in the east I can point to a giant food processing and bakery operation built in the late 50's as the eternal factory only to be abandoned by the late 70's; another is the number of auto manufacturing facilities which are just giant hulks of abandoned properties like Ford in Mahwah, NJ, GM in Linden, NJ and Terrytown, NY..the list is almost endless. So. There seems to be a given lifespan in anything man builds. Should we, therefore, build nothing because it will lose its usefulness and value or accept the lifespan as part of the financial risk?
daveklepperDedicated bus lanes and bus rapid transit work well where there is already a substantial user base for public transportaton, and the greatly improved bus service can be expected to add 15-25% ridership, taking some cars off roads and reducing traffic congestion, with the additional reduction from removing the buses themselves. But rail is the only widely proven transit that can swing a substantial number of private auto commuters to use public transportation, where a ridership base can be built from essentially nothing. There have been experiments with bus rapid transit attempting to do this job, but they have not been really successful. Once the investment is made, because of labor and maintenance costs and vehicle repalcement costs, even including right of way, the operating cost per passenger mile is about 50-60% that of bus transportation.
YoHo1975daveklepper Dedicated bus lanes and bus rapid transit work well where there is already a substantial user base for public transportaton, and the greatly improved bus service can be expected to add 15-25% ridership, taking some cars off roads and reducing traffic congestion, with the additional reduction from removing the buses themselves. But rail is the only widely proven transit that can swing a substantial number of private auto commuters to use public transportation, where a ridership base can be built from essentially nothing. There have been experiments with bus rapid transit attempting to do this job, but they have not been really successful. Once the investment is made, because of labor and maintenance costs and vehicle repalcement costs, even including right of way, the operating cost per passenger mile is about 50-60% that of bus transportation. This follows on with a comment I was going to make. The problem with BRT is the word BUS. In the public's mind, bus equates to "low rent" cheap, slow, dirty. You can give all the reasons that's not true, outline the advantages of BRT, but the odds that you will change the perception of busses is exceedingly low. Light Rail on the other hand is viewed as good, environmental, modern, hip. That is why it draws new users. People perceive Light rail as good and will flock to it. As for electric busses. San Francisco and Seattle have had them for years. The run off of overhead wire just like Light Rail. One last comment about the spread of suburbs. The City of Portland solved the issue of sprawl by dictating how it could go and then developing along the Light Rail corridor. The businesses in Hillsboro and so forth embraced the transit and supported it. It's a little thing called Urban Planning. Now, that's probably a little too far to the left for the average Texan, (j/k) ut the fact remains, that step one is to establish a solid long range plan and build to it.
The problem with BRT is the word BUS. In the public's mind, bus equates to "low rent" cheap, slow, dirty.
You can give all the reasons that's not true, outline the advantages of BRT, but the odds that you will change the perception of busses is exceedingly low. Light Rail on the other hand is viewed as good, environmental, modern, hip. That is why it draws new users. People perceive Light rail as good and will flock to it.
As for electric busses. San Francisco and Seattle have had them for years. The run off of overhead wire just like Light Rail.
One last comment about the spread of suburbs. The City of Portland solved the issue of sprawl by dictating how it could go and then developing along the Light Rail corridor. The businesses in Hillsboro and so forth embraced the transit and supported it.
It's a little thing called Urban Planning. Now, that's probably a little too far to the left for the average Texan, (j/k) ut the fact remains, that step one is to establish a solid long range plan and build to it.
BRT (buses) may be a dirty word, but once the taxpayers see the difference in cost, they may get to like the bus. Although heaps of people claim that riders will shun buses in favor of light or commuter rail, they don't seem to have any hard data to support their views.
The electric buses in Denver are powered by batteries. No overhead wires! I visit San Francisco four or five times a year. And I ride the trolley buses. So do a lot of other people. The #49 and #30 buses are chockers most of the day.
Contrary to popular belief, Texas is not berift of urban planning. Outside of Houston, most of Texas's major cities have well developed urban plans. However, they are not as restrictive as those on the east and west coasts. As a result, according to Thomas Sowell, Economist, Hoover Institute, housing is much more affordable in Texas than it is on either coast.
The key point made by Mr. Rogoff, as well as yours truly, is that light rail is not an optimum transit solution in every community. In fact, according to Rogoff, it is a good fit in a relatively few situations. Texas has four cities where light rail or commuter rail is a potentially good fit: Austin Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Dallas has a well developed light rail and commuter rail system, albeit a very expensive system. Houston has a short light rail system, and it is looking to develop a commuter rail system. Austin has the Leander to Austin commuter rail system. It is lightly patronized. San Antonio has said no thanks to light rail and is concentrating on rapid bus technology.
This is another discussion that underscores geographical and social differences. I remember when my son was a teenager the thought of riding a bus rather beneath him. And in doing market research about intercity travel how the train was looked upon favorably while riding the bus was rampent with undesirables both aboard the bus and at the terminals, a mode of travel to be avoided for sure. But the closer to larger metropolitan areas the choice between bus and train becomes more a matter of convenience rather than a social decision. What I am trying to say to everyone here is that there are so many social differences and choices that are determined by geography or location that we can't come to a real and total answer. To beat each other up on ideology is non productive. I can see where a busway might work and where a rail systedm will work simply because that is what the local society will either dictate or accept.
A big advantage to LRT compared with BRT in the more northern parts of the USA (and here in Canada) is that it remains rapid even when it snows. Worn tires and ice do not make for a good combination.
Another aspect to BRT is whether it is implemented completely. It will be very tempting for the penny pinchers to save construction by pushing the buses onto regular streets for part of the route, especially in the most difficult and congested areas. Or they will just add a stop here, and another one for those folks, and....... soon it is not so rapid any more.
Others have alluded to planning. For some reason, many city planning departments seem to think the world will end in about 5 years and don't look further ahead than that. Old rights-of-way get broken up, nor is there any thought to guiding new development in a way that will leave a potential corridor available. This has resulted today in sometimes major costs for land acquisition, or forcing a less than ideal alignment or direction for a new line. Obviously that can impact the success.
If you have a seat there is perhaps not a big difference in comfort between buses and light rail. But I know which I prefer if I have to stand in a crowded vehicle, and that is definitely not the bus.
John
I apologize to you. I was not addressing the particular Austin situation nor Texas in general. I was looking at what I see on APTA surverys of all North American transit systems, and most have made the greater investment to use electric operation, with a huge reduction in maintenance costs, and most serve populations with greater density than Austin, provide more frequent service, meaning far greater utilizaton of fixed expense rights of way and even of rolling stock. It may be that the cost per passenger mile is actually greater than it would be for a bus for the Austin system. You might be able to compare figures. And I agree rail should be applied selectively, not in all cases. But in most cases in North America, light rail has exceeded expectations. But there are, of course, exceptions.
A real strange case is the Washington Metro. It costs more to carry pasengers on buses then on rail in DC. But the bus fares are much less on the theory that bus passengers are poorer and that the mostly suburban rail passengers can afford to pay more. But this social engineering is now responsible for a big deficit and what is more, it encourages the use of the more costly bus service when it would cost less to METRO to have the pssengers use the rial service where the stations do exist!
And let me be clear, I'm not saying BRT wouldn't be better in certain scenarios. I'm suggesting that from a political standpoint, LRT is always going to be preferable (or no public transmit enhancement.). Because it appears better.
As for battery driven electric buses. Sounds great, how much is it going to cost to dispose of the batteries? Battery electrics have their own environmental costs. At least trolley buses do not introduce a new pollutant into the situation. Having said that, I've ridden Santa Barbra's small electric buses and I think they're perfect and I would think that for shuttling people around a revitalized down town, they would make sense in numerous urban and even suburban areas where Trolley and LRT would not.
I would think that a medium-size city downtown may do better with BRT with a dispersed population and activities. LRT may work better where population and activities are concentrated along a corridor such as a valley. A convenient lightly used railway may be available to for LRT; but an abandoned railway would work as well for either BRT or LRT.
The larger the city, the more likely that strong travel corridors will be established where higher-capacity LRT, HRT, and regional rail would offer greater operating efficiency than BRT; and even be a step toward full metro, rapid transit, service. The presumes that the transit route would pass conveniently into or through the downtown area.
At least one forumist commented on the the flexibility of bus service meeting instability in development; but I've read that permanent systems have been shown overall to stabilize the community and attract development around it. There are exceptions; but those may be due to particular significant forces such as deteriorating housing and declining employment.
Commuter rail can exploit and integrate with existing railways as long as latent capacity exists to expand. This also depends on whether a station can be developed within walking distance of the existing downtown and planned future expansion. The need for a shuttle to reach the downtown area becomes highly problematic unless the central area is really huge with dispersed specialized and inter-connected areas as is the case with London, Tokyo, and New York.
The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) will need to slash is budget by millions and lay off 300 to 600 employees. Agency revenues, which are heavily dependent on sales tax receipts, are falling far short of the cost of providing bus and light rail service in the DART service area.
Interestingly, all of the cuts, at least initially, will fall on the light rail system. The bus system, which carries approximately 60,000 passengers per day, compared to approximately 30,000 carried by the light rail system, will not be trimmed. In addition, the agency will attempt to get TXDOT to take over the operation of the HOV lanes. Finally, plans to expand the light rail system beyond the 2013 boundaries are being placed on hold.
The cuts are falling on the light rail system because of its disproportionately high costs. In other words, it contains the low hanging fruit or waste. In additional, because of the high capital investment required by light rail, canceling the post 2013 expansion plans will result in significant savings.
DART pointed out that whilst the intervals between light rail trains will be extended, meaning fewer trains per period, the use of larger trains with greater capacity should aleviate any additional standing or discomfort on the trains.
DART's plans include the use of rapid bus technology along Preston Road, as well as several other routes, were light rail is not practicable. Given the cost advantage of rapid bus technology, it will be interesting to see if it substitutes rapid bus technology for some of the planned light rail extensions.
Sam:
The plan in Charlotte was always mixed use. The original plan was for a trolley through City Center, the Blue Line to be light rail, the Red Line to be commuter rail, and the Silver Line to be BRT in dedicated bus-ways, which are already partially constructed.
The people who live along the Silver Line are still demanding light rail. CATS has told them if they can get the money for light rail they will lay the tracks in the bus-way, but they are continuing to work toward BRT.
However, the decline in sales tax revenue has put even that plan in jeopardy.
Two days ago the county approved a 25 cent fare increase across the board.
Sam1 The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) will need to slash is budget by millions and lay off 300 to 600 employees. Agency revenues, which are heavily dependent on sales tax receipts, are falling far short of the cost of providing bus and light rail service in the DART service area. Interestingly, all of the cuts, at least initially, will fall on the light rail system. The bus system, which carries approximately 60,000 passengers per day, compared to approximately 30,000 carried by the light rail system, will not be trimmed. In addition, the agency will attempt to get TXDOT to take over the operation of the HOV lanes. Finally, plans to expand the light rail system beyond the 2013 boundaries are being placed on hold. The cuts are falling on the light rail system because of its disproportionately high costs. In other words, it contains the low hanging fruit or waste. In additional, because of the high capital investment required by light rail, canceling the post 2013 expansion plans will result in significant savings. DART pointed out that whilst the intervals between light rail trains will be extended, meaning fewer trains per period, the use of larger trains with greater capacity should aleviate any additional standing or discomfort on the trains. DART's plans include the use of rapid bus technology along Preston Road, as well as several other routes, were light rail is not practicable. Given the cost advantage of rapid bus technology, it will be interesting to see if it substitutes rapid bus technology for some of the planned light rail extensions.
H-h-h-h-h-m-m-m-m, I think I read the same article and the reductions were the result of basing the funding on the sales tax and the fact that sales tax revenue has fallen. I don't remember any analysis in the article stating that one mode was more cost effective then the other, I could have missed that part because I just skimmed. The bus system has greater ridership because it was more expansive to begin with. I can tell you having ridden both the buses are far less crowded then the light rail. Perhaps it's the DART busses I am riding though.
They are running higher capacity trains now as well by adding a new middle car. With the frequencies of trains from the Parker Road station on Sat & Sun they are all typically full by Mockingbird station I noticed. I've yet to be on a partially empty light rail train from Parker Road Station to downtown. They didn't extend the frequencies that much from what I remember either so it's not a huge hit against the Light Rail system.
News Release from DART:
https://www.dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=482
News article from Dallas Morning News:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052610dnmetdartcuts.3b498b35.html
I'm not buying the argument that buses are more efficient then trains in mass transit. I lived in a city where that was tried (Milwaukee) and it has failed. I remember Milwaukee's attempts with the "Freeway Flyer" to the suburbs, eventually it failed and was cut because of congestion on the freeway system. Users thought why sit on a crowded bus in rush hour when they could sit in their own cars. So sad.
Sales tax revenue is being attacked on two fronts. The obvious one is the current economic problems, the other is the exploding use of the Internet for shopping.
North Carolina is already auditing businesses to see if they are paying use tax on the items they buy from national vendors.
Phoebe Vet Sales tax revenue is being attacked on two fronts. The obvious one is the current economic problems, the other is the exploding use of the Internet for shopping. North Carolina is already auditing businesses to see if they are paying use tax on the items they buy from national vendors.
I think the shortfall is primarily current economic problems but your right, internet sales are falling as well. Texas sales tax is just local I believe.
Almost every state loves the regressive retail sales tax because it affects the politically voiceless. It also taxes the people who use transit to get to their employers, businesses, and stores who can avoid the cost of parking for these employees and customers. It's a win-win for business.
HarveyK400 Almost every state loves the regressive retail sales tax because it affects the politically voiceless. It also taxes the people who use transit to get to their employers, businesses, and stores who can avoid the cost of parking for these employees and customers. It's a win-win for business.
Sales tax is a major source of funding for localities. If they are deprived of that revenue by the increasing use of the Internet for purchases you can expect your property taxes to increase substantially.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975399974418909.html
Phoebe VetHarveyK400 Almost every state loves the regressive retail sales tax because it affects the politically voiceless. It also taxes the people who use transit to get to their employers, businesses, and stores who can avoid the cost of parking for these employees and customers. It's a win-win for business. Sales tax is a major source of funding for localities. If they are deprived of that revenue by the increasing use of the Internet for purchases you can expect your property taxes to increase substantially. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975399974418909.html
I've been thinking that property tax, based on the acquisition cost to protect fixed-income owner's homes, reflects the market value of the neighborhood and captures the value of nearby transportation facilities such as light rail.
Income tax does not reflect location of residence; and some states, Illinois included, have a flat rate.
In the end, transit either gets paid for; or it doesn't happen because there isn't any more tax revenue that can be extracted from the current tax base. The question is: what's a fair tax burden? If some people can avoid paying as much, that puts a greater burden on remainder of the tax base; and the trend is that the burden has fallen on those who can least afford it. IMO, this brought about the current transit crisis.
CMStPnPI'm not buying the argument that buses are more efficient then trains in mass transit. I lived in a city where that was tried (Milwaukee) and it has failed. I remember Milwaukee's attempts with the "Freeway Flyer" to the suburbs, eventually it failed and was cut because of congestion on the freeway system. Users thought why sit on a crowded bus in rush hour when they could sit in their own cars. So sad.
I've been up to Milwaukee a couple times in the last few weeks, at least on the highways. The express bus park-n-ride lots were pretty full and there still are about a dozen routes that I perused in the schedule rack at the Milwaukee Transportation Center, so Freeway Flyers, or whatever they're called now, can't be a total failure. Maybe bus ridership isn't up to TM days, but neither is the CTA.
Incidentally, I couldn't find any intercity bus schedules, or even an arrival/deprture board, for the half-dozen buses loading or waiting to load.
Phoebe VetSales tax is a major source of funding for localities. If they are deprived of that revenue by the increasing use of the Internet for purchases you can expect your property taxes to increase substantially. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975399974418909.html
My property taxes have held steady or declined where I live in Texas because of construction of shopping malls has increased sales tax revenue collection. In fact there is one city near me (Fairview) that has built it's City Hall within a Shopping Center I suspect as a means of driving traffic to that shopping center. I don't believe Texas collects sales taxes from the Internet, I could be wrong on that though. The suburb I live in has elected not to participate in DART, so we do not fund DART via our sales taxes collected in our suburb nor do we have any DART city buses. The suburb next to me has elected to fund DART. So while I benefit from DART.............I do not pay for it. The suburb I live in wants to participate in DART but the state has put a CAP on how much sales tax can be collected by cities and the suburb is too close to the CAP to meet DART's minimum threshold.
I mention all this to point out this is how Texas manages taxes. It's not necessarily always ever escalating property or sales taxes. In Texas there are limits to how much someone can be taxed set by the state. I know in other parts of the country this is not so and the taxes escalate over time. The Mayor in my city has stayed in office the past 10+ years by holding property taxes and the local sales tax relatively steady with very little increase if there was an increase, in some years there has been a decline. He has relied on growth and economic development instead.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.