blue streak 1 MidlandMike While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages. where exactly is there any new technology with BRT? I certainly do not see any ? Sounds like a political invention ?
MidlandMike While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages.
While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages.
where exactly is there any new technology with BRT? I certainly do not see any ? Sounds like a political invention ?
The buses are often long articulated with low floors and electronic fair collection for fast loading. Where they transit city streets, they control traffic signals (They often have their own lanes on outer parts of the routes.) For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
John WR What puzzles me (and the article does not clarify) is how the savings are achieved with a BRT system. In a true rapid transit system you have to acquire a right of way, put down either tracks or a road way and purchase the vehicles. In a light rail system you can operated multiple units hooked together with one engineer. With buses each bus must have a driver. So where is the difference in costs?
What puzzles me (and the article does not clarify) is how the savings are achieved with a BRT system. In a true rapid transit system you have to acquire a right of way, put down either tracks or a road way and purchase the vehicles. In a light rail system you can operated multiple units hooked together with one engineer. With buses each bus must have a driver. So where is the difference in costs?
The biggest difference is the capital costs. The estimated per mile cost for Rapid Bus Technology in Austin, which is a growing mid-size city, is roughly $3 million per mile. The lastest estimate for the light rail line from Bergstrom International Airport to the University of Texas via downtown is approximately $48 million per mile. Whether the operating costs of the light rail can recapture the capital costs is debatable.
Upgrading the Austin and Western to accomodate the Red Line commuter line cost approximately $145 million, although some of it, thanks to some doggy accounting, was allocated to freight operations. On top of the capital outlays Capital Metro incurs approximately $9 million a year in operating expenses for the Red Line. Two years ago, when I ran the numbers, the average rider on the Red Line was getting a daily subsidy of nearly $70 per day or $35 per trip. The average daily ridership is approximately 800 passengers or 1,600 trips per day for a metro population base of approximately 1.8 million.
For distances between 20 and 25 miles RBT can compete with light rail. Beyond 25 miles light rail and heavy rail win hands down. RBT is a technological solution that is an optimum fit for some environments, albeit, not all environments.
RBT will include timed stations similar to those found along a light rail line, although they will be spaced closer together. Passengers will enter and exit the bus through front and rear doors. The stations will have displays telling passengers when the next bus will arrive. The drivers will have limited control over traffic lights, thereby enabling them to maintain a quicker schedule than is the case with regular buses.
Apparently the DOT has been shocked at the cost of light rail. As mentioned earlier, the DART light rail system has cost more than $3.5 billion and requires a subsidy of $4.23 per passenger trip. The subsidy for the Trinity Railway Express is $5.54 per passenger trip. The subsidy for regular bus passengers is $5.12 per passenger trip, which is driven in part by the fact that the buses serve low density areas for political reasons, i.e. crosstown runs in Plano attract very few day time passengers, but must be run because of local politics. Given the capital costs, DOT apparently has been pushing RBT as a solution for some environments.
As noted in another posting, San Antonio is moving forward with RBT, with a possible eye to converting it to light rail 20 years down the road. That is an eternity given the financial picture of the United States and most states and cities. Whether it comes about remains to be seen. I probably will be dead in 20 years, so I don't expect to validate the prediction.
I suspect that sometimes savings are achieved because large buses are simply put on roads. Possibly other traffic is prohibited from the bus lanes. This, however, is simply not rapid transit. It is a bus line which at best is somewhat faster than local buses which operate in traffic.
Certainly most cities in the United States are going to opt for bus systems. By far the cheapest way to go is to buy a bus and put it on city streets. Small cities often cannot generate the traffic that a light rail needs to justify itself so buses are the best way to go. But local buses will always run slow. Some additional speed can be achieved with express buses making fewer stops If streets are wide enough you can dedicate lanes to BRT but you still have stop lights and people turning on and off the street in their cars. And often as you get downtown streets are not wide enough for dedicated bus lanes so you are back to a bus in traffic.
But many small cities today are only shadows of their former selves. Traditional amenities that drew past generations down town such as department stores, specialty shops and theaters have moved out and middle class home owners have also fled the cities. Government offices and maybe educational institutions have remained. Do we want to move toward revitalizing our cities or do we want to complete our abandonment them? That is the real decision.
Sam1 ... San Antonio has opted for an improved bus system, including Rapid Bus Technology. The planners there concluded that the cost of light rail is just too much for the benefits. Austin also is opting for more Rapid Bus Technology routes, with the first route planned to open in 2014. It too has been shocked at the cost of rail (commuter and light), although the proposal to build a light rail line from the airport to downtown and on to UT is still alive.
...
San Antonio has opted for an improved bus system, including Rapid Bus Technology. The planners there concluded that the cost of light rail is just too much for the benefits. Austin also is opting for more Rapid Bus Technology routes, with the first route planned to open in 2014. It too has been shocked at the cost of rail (commuter and light), although the proposal to build a light rail line from the airport to downtown and on to UT is still alive.
While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages. there must be other advantages to light rail, as San Antonio's transportation authority has said the new BRT will be replaced by light rail in the next 20 years. Of course things could change, and maybe they have already changed from this April article (see sidebar: VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority):
http://www.metro-magazine.com/resources/Images/BRT.pdf
The amount of private development that has been ginned by light rail is debatable. I am most familiar with Dallas and Austin, both of which have light rail or commuter rail.
Several years ago Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) commissioned an economics professor at the University of Texas to study the impact of its light rail system on line development. The professor, who was paid by DART, concluded that the light rail system had a positive impact on private development near the stations, citing the Mockingbird Station area in particular. However, what he did not say is equally impressive.
The most extensive retail, commercial, and residential development in Dallas has been in Up Town, which is just north of downtown Dallas, followed by downtown itself. It is not served directly by the light rail system. It is served by the McKinney Avenue Streetcar Line. Very few people use it to travel downtown. Having lived in Up Town for three years, I was impressed by the large number of residents who drove downtown, although Up Town is approximately a mile to two miles from most downtown locations.
As is true for every major city in the Lone Star state, Dallas is growing for a variety of reasons. It is a stretch to believe that it would not have done so without the light rail line. Had it not been for the light rail lines, the clusters would have looked different, but people need a place to live, shop, and enjoy. It would have happened with or without the light rail line.
What we do know is that DART has invested more than $3.5 billion in the light rail lines. Each passenger gets an average subsidy of $4.23 per ride on a $1.25 ticket.
Austin has the Red Line, which is a commuter rail line from Leander to Austin. To date little if any development has grown up as a result of it.
Transit-oriented development (TOD in the parlance) has been very successfully used in any number of cities in recent years. TOD requires longterm visioning, significant public and private investment (with an expected fair return on the private side, too), and a committed local government. Because of this, perhaps the most striking examples of success have been reserved for projects in/around both light rail and commuter rail lines. For example, rail transit systems with significant transit-oriented developments can be found in southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Portland area in Oregon, the Seattle area of Washington State, and in the other Washington. In some cases, this has led to even more public and private development.
Big reasons for this are public confidence and financial support of their rail transit systems. People just seem to love their trains. The big public investments in rail projects in turn create an air of permanence. Unlike a bus system, a rail system is not likely to have its public-funded route moved away, or have its service completely discontinued. This, along with public leadership and planning vision gives needed confidence to the private sector, which then may be more willing to listen and join in on the progress. For the private sector, it is about being seen on the right side of the political decision, making a smart investment, and getting a good rate of return.
Well-planned and successful rail transit improvements and transit-oriented development create increased property values, business opportunities, and economic expansion potentially all along the right of way. Where there is success, others often want a piece of the action as well. So in the current stinky economy, where is the significant and required public investment, both financial and political? That circles back to my earlier premise of strong local commitment to move transit forward. It takes vision, leadership, and both a strong backbone and hide, along with impeccable timing and a ton of money. Oh, and throw in a little luck, too.
Finally, a few words on non-rail transit, which often does not fare as well in this scenario. Not entirely, just in a comparative sense. Where is the love for those buses? Where is the financial and political commitment to upgrade bus service and facilities, and then to keep the routes in place? The very flexibility of so-called fixed routes can actually create doubt and work against private investment. After a public hearing, a bus route can be changed, reduced, or even eliminated with a vote of the governing board. Even so, there are numerous examples of significant public transit bus projects in cities large and small; however, the companion private investment often has been a touger sell. This then does not bode well for increasing property values. Bus transit managers may wish to pick this point with particular examples; however, on a comparative basis, and in this writer's opinion and experience, rail transit has an unmistakable, sometimes purely emotional edge.
I agree with you, Firelock. I'm really suprised that anyone would oppose this. That rail transit pushes up property values is beyond dispute.
Thanks for the very good news!
Hey everyone! Remember a few months ago I spoke about the flap in New Jersey concerning the proposed rehabilitation of CSX's Northern Branch into a light rail commuter line? How everyone was for it except the NIMBYs in the town of Tenafly? Well, here's a new wrinkle: It seems the towns north of Tenafly are VERY interested in light rail. NJ Transit's a bit surprised, they didn't plan on this.
If anyones interested you can find the story on www.northjersey.com. Select "Towns", then "Tenafly", and you'll find the story. Very interesting development.
Mind you, this is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and I don't believe in shoving things down peoples throats they don't want, but it seems the NIMBYs have some serious thinking to do.
Al and Sam1..both of you are big pluses in this department, great expositions on the funding issue.
Here in the province of Ontario we have a program that offers a dollar for dollar match for urban transit. This gives us an additional pool of dollars to use in expanding service to outlying subdivisions and communities. Recently, the LTC...London Transit Commission has had to increase cash fares by upwards of 10% ...first increase we had in several years.
Toronto has a great service, covering everything from buses to light rail/subways through the TTC as well as GO Transit..which is going to be expanded ....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
ontheBNSF,
If you're not familiar with it, you may want to look into the book, THE POWER BROKER, ROBERT MOSES AND THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's a long book, over 1,000 pages, very well written. Here's a comment about it...
"This book isn't just for New Yorkers or for those who wonder why New York's roadways are so confusingly laid out. America's other big cities are New York writ small--they went to New York at the height of Moses' power and emulated his methods! That helps us understand the mania for building our now hopelessly overcrowded expressways and devaluing public transportation, whose lack we are just now trying to address by building expensive light-rail and commuter-train systems that should have been in place for decades."
I'm from Brisbane Australia and our region has a (semi) intergrated public transport system operated by a mixture of state government heavy rail, local government buses and private company buses, all operating under contract to the state government. The system is known as Translink (http://translink.com.au/about-translink/our-service-area) and has a swipe card system that is recognised on all vehicles in the network. Patronage has improved substantially in the past 10 years since inception.
The network covers a distance of some 200km, serves an area with in excess of 2 million people and does rely on significant government funding. In is possible to do a trip from one end of the system to the other in a day - the cost would be AUD 24.22 by swipe (Gocard), $35.00 on a "paper ticket", involve 3 trains and one bus and take over 5 hours
15 years ago, public transportatoin in LA meant ride the bus along streets shared by all other traffic. Today, effectively, much of the old Pacific Electric infrastructure has been put back in place, with commuter rail, lots of light rail, and one heavy subway line, and a northern bus-exclusive way. Others can tell me if this has made a difference! I should think it has.
I live in a suburb with all ranges of income from pure poverty to millionaires, and the public light rail in my city is so popular the transit agency has had to expand parking and otherwise find ways to accommodate all the riders. If you want to ride the train downtown (about 1 hour by train, 45 minutes by car during rush hour) better be at the first or second station bright and early or count on standing all the way. And yes, the majority of those riders are wearing suits.
It's so successful because the transit agency took the time to find out who wanted to ride the trains and where they wanted to go before they broke ground on the first line. Cities opted in or out of supporting the transit system (includes buses and on-demand van rides as well as light-rail) by deciding whether or not to implement an incremental sales tax on top of the statewide base sales tax. Some cities were short-sighted and saw the buses bypass them for years. Now if they want to get in on the action they must come up with millions of dollars to make up what they would have contributed, and are doing so willingly because they've seen the light.
Meanwhile, one major artery between downtown and my suburb was completely rebuilt to bring it from its 1940's design into the 21st century, and of course it's still jammed at rush hour. Another, the major beltway around the city, is undergoing a similar massive revamping to accommodate (or try to, anyway) all the traffict it handles now and is expected to have not too far into the future. It includes managed toll lanes, where the toll changes according to time of day and demand. Parallel lanes will be free for those who choose more congestion over paying tolls.
OntheBNSF cites L.A. as a typical city, which in my opinion couldn't be further from the truth. The politics of L.A., not to mention the California attitude make greater L.A. a huge aberrations from most large U.S. cities. Nowhere in Dallas suburbs do you always find bumper-to-bumper traffic at 2:00 in the afternoon, like I did when travelling across the nothern suburbs of L.A. on my way from Simi to Fontana. My relatives assured me that was pretty much the norm. And that was 15+ years ago. I can't imagine it's any better today.
(edited for off-topic and political content)
Proposed $14 to cross the Hudson on Van WInkle and GWashington bridges...while that is one way, it only collected when outbound,,but 7 bucks a swim makes NJT tickets a super bargain if only because you don't have to swim.
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.
You may not need public transportation now, but, the elderly will benefit. Most of us will get old.
"If motorists saw the true cost of driving at the price point, i.e. the real cost of fuel, federal highways, state highways, county roads, local streets, traffic law enforcement, accident investigations, etc., many of the middle class may be more inclined to support and use public transit."
I think you are right on target with this comment, Sam. Until recently I commuted by local bus first to downtown Trenton, NJ and then after I moved to downtown Newark. Bus fare was $4.70 a day. Parking alone if you were willing to park a long way off was $5 and for a close by parking garage $10. Yet almost all of my fellow workers preferred to drive, pay for parking and extra insurance, gas, repairs and often even a car payment. Yes, the bus is slower. But you can read on the bus and even plan your day. And you have to wind up saving at least $300 a month. Think of what that will amount to over 20 years in an IRA. Interestingly, my colleagues with the lowest salaries all drove cars. The few who did use public transit all earned more than the lowest salaries, usually significantly more. Clearly, many people who drive are not acting in their own economic self interest. I wish I knew how I could get them to.
Al's Cajon Pass..., I, for one, welcome your comments here. We need people like you and sam1 to keep us in touch with reality now and then.
In response to the funding problem, I'll repeat that I think there is a short-sighted attitude of "If it doesn't benefit me directly, I'm against it." The way I see it, subsidized public transit will get many vehicles off the roads, saving money that would go into constantly widening roads and adding more soaring "spaghetti interchanges." It might also help get many drivers off the roads that shouldn't be driving. One common scenario with someone with multiple traffic citations that has had his license suspended is to tell the judge that he needs to drive to get to work, so he gets a permit to drive, or he just goes ahead and drives anyway. With good public transit, this argument loses a lot of weight.
To add to sam1's comment about the cost of driving, maintaining a car is a tremendous burden to poorer people. One big problem here is insurance. A significant part of our premium is for protection from "uninsured drivers." The law requires that all drivers have insurance , but there has been a problem enforcing it, and there are quite a few drivers without it. For many it's a big burden, so they just go without it.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
To John WR: Thanks for the kind words, but full disclosure here, so no-one gets the wrong idea. I grew up in Bergen County NJ, specifically Paramus, but live in the Richmond Va. area now, the wife and I bailed out of Jersey almost 25 years ago. I read the NJ papers on line, the " Record" (North Jersey.com) and the " Star Ledger" (NJ.com) because I am curious as to what's going on up there. Don't know why I still care but I do. At any rate those are two outstanding websites to begin with. And I AM a fan of Northeastern railroading, especially the Jersey 'roads.
Anyway, if I can't imagine why anyone living in North Jersey and who works in "The City" or its immediate enviorns WOULDN'T want commuter rail. I can't imagine driving into NYC every day, what a nightmare!
I agree with Al's Cajon Pass & Beyond MRR's posting regarding the challenges facing public transit in the United States. It is a well thought out response.
I have ridden public transit most of my life. I used it extensively in New York City, Hartford, Connecticut, Dallas, Texas, Melbourne Australia, and Washington, D.C. I still use it to get to and from the University of Texas in Austin where I am a continuing education student.
In addition to being a user, I was a citizen advisor to the Dallas Transit System and an active participant in the referendum campaign that helped bring about Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).
The biggest challenge faced by public transit (past, present, and future) is the automobile. It is convenient, dependable, and comfortable. It is the mode of transport favored by most Americans, who can afford it, for commuting, trips to the shopping center, entertainment outings, and family vacations.
We can bemoan unfair subsidies for the car, conspiracies real and imagined to do in public transit, lack of public funding, etc. until the cows come home, but Americans are not going to give up their cars. To think otherwise is unrealistic.
Some people appear to believe that the government should force people out of their cars. I disagree. In a democracy the majority of the people should decide what they want. Not some politician or government bureaucrat in Washington or the state capital. Having said that, it is equally important that the pricing mechanism for all modes of transport reflect their true cost at the purchase point, i.e. ticket counter, pump, etc. Unfortunately, under the current arrangements, tracing all of the subsidies and cross subsidies for each mode of transport is nearly impossible. And I am speaking as an accountant and former auditor with heaps of experience who has given it a go. It is a maddening exercise. Accordingly, most people have no idea how much their chosen mode of transport truly costs.
If motorists saw the true cost of driving at the price point, i.e. the real cost of fuel, federal highways, state highways, county roads, local streets, traffic law enforcement, accident investigations, etc., many of the middle class may be more inclined to support and use public transit. But the upper middle class and wealthy people will never use it. I would be willing to bet that most of the people who post to this forum do not use transit on a regular basis. Or if they do it is probably a suburban commuter train, which does attract a different class of patrons.
When the first segment of the DART light rail line was opened, a shindig was held at Dallas Union Station to celebrate its opening. The mayor, members of the DART board, and dignitaries of all stripe were on hand to praise the opening of the line. I was impressed by the fact that not a single person on the dais was a regular user of public transit. Moreover, as it turns out, most of DART's executives drive to work.
John - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Thanks, Firelock, for the information. Like Daffy Duck I find the NIMBY's baffling. As you well know Bergen County already has the Pascack Valley Line, the Bergen County Line and the Main Line and they are quite popular with people who live along them. Perhaps the biggest reason is that they tend to push up property values. Anyone who doubts this needs only to read "The Record's" real estate ads and note how many of them say "walk to train." But of course you need to deal with the reality of NIMBYism. I hope that you will persevere and opponents will come to their senses.
For about 20 years I lived in Waldwick and rode the train to Hoboken. My home and job were both within walking distance of the train. In the morning I had my coffee and a newspaper; in the evening a book and occasionally a beer with a friend. People who have never done this don't know what they are missing.
Hi. I'm a bit late to this discussion, and much already has been opined, so I will try to avoid repeating or taking difference with things already said. As a retired public transit executive and having served in several systems from the 1970's to mid-2008, I have seen a number of factors that have kept public transit from even greater successes than it has enjoyed.
Funding - Public support for transit has been neither universal nor anything close to permanent. Some places get support from local taxes, while others do not. Where there is local support, it sometimes can be coupled with state and/or federal support. Without local support and/or defined state support, it becomes difficult to compete for federal support which largely has become competitive in nature. If you are in a region with multiple/overlapping public transit operations, there likely is another regional system of funding management and competition. While everyone strives for cooperation and coordination, there also is politics (all of which is local) which creates for sometimes fierce competition for limited funding resources.
This may be a very simple summary of a very complex funding system, but there definitely is a political pecking order and fierce lobbying that goes all the way to the halls of Congress. This is reality, and when coupled with uncertainty of ongoing funding levels at all levels, it may severely stretch out even the greatest of plans, or derail them altogether. Based on the professed needs from across the states and the nation, there has not been and (in the current economy) likely never will be the levels of funding to take public transit to the levels dreamed by its most ardent fans.
Whose Responsibility - This age-old question has had neither a final nor fully agreed upon answer. In the 1970's and into the 1908's, there was a bountiful level of funding from the federal level, including predictable levels for day to day operations. In addition, there was significant capital support as well. The result was that many older systems were able to both modernize and expand, allowing for a number of newer rail systems to develop. But, as the years wore on, increasing strings attached to decreasing funding began to outstrip the demands and dreams at the local levels.
If you want the answer to responsibility for public transit, then it is best to follow the money trail as it began to fall back to the local/regional levels. Arguably, the responsibility should fall closest to where the service actually is provided. With the size, diversity, and breadth of our nation and its myriad of governing levels involved, a national public transit priority seems unlikely at best.
The ongoing problem, though, has been getting people to accept responsibility AND then put the money where their mouths are. The first part is easy compared to the last. With the federal government no longer willing or able to come over the hill on a white horse, it has required the locals to step up, make the needed investments, and make transit flourish. Recent years have seen both state and local funding for public transit to decline and/or become increasingly encumbered. No nice way to say it - transit needs tax support of some kind to flourish, and that has not been an easy sell in recent years. Until the funding becomes more stable and secure, then public transit will not be able to flourish.
Expectations - Let's face it, there are people who love and use public transit on a regular basis. But there also are those who see it as a tremendous waste of money. Those detractors also see public transit as an exercise in trying to force citizens and cities to change, To supporters, there are the environmental benefits of getting people out of cars and onto buses and trains. There also is the dream of making cities more pedestrian-friendly again. To supporters, though, expectations of one well-meaning group can compete with different expectations of another. Neither a bus nor a train can go everywhere people want it to and still get to destinations in a reasonable period of time (this always is compared by how long it takes to make the drive). Then, the dtractors enter the fray.
To the detractor, there is the oft-repeated image of the lumbering, filthy, mostly-empty bus seemingly wandering all over town, and taking away valuable parking where it needs to stop. This then translates to the so-called waste of taxpayer dollars to support service that very few actually use. It isn't fast enough, the operating costs are too high, it doesn't take people where they want to go in a timely manner (read, as long as it takes to drive there).
The arguments go back and forth, seemingly without end. Despite all the rants and all the statistics (remember what we were taught - how figures can lie, and liars can figure), there is no absolute or right answer. It only is what is the best fit for a community (something often decided at the ballot box regarding new, increased, or continued tax support).
Finally, the expectation that public transit can or even should pay its own way is a myth. No other form of public transportation does this, so why (or how) should public transit? The federal airways system is built and supported with tax dollars. Our passenger rail systems are dependent on federal and state support, and even the highways that both our cars and buses use are built and maintained with tax dollars. So, as long as there is this expectation of public transit paying its own way, then the cycle of debate will continue. If public transit service users had to pay the full cost, then who could afford the ride? Certainly, not some of those who need it the most. The rest of us would blissfully continue driving (mostly alone), adding to the traffic, and creating the need for even more highways (that we gladly will support with our tax dollars).
That Old Conspiracy - To the much-debated and alleged conspiracy at GM, one needs to add some other characters, such as Standard Oil, and at least one major tire manufacturer. Add to that National City Lines, and you can trace an arguably sordid path of the demise of the established interurban and street trolley systems, with their replacement by gas (and later diesel) buses. Students of this history are more adept with the facts than this author, but an interesting trail is there.
But this so-called conspiracy, pales when compared to the explosive urban growth that began following the end of the Second World War. Rapid suburban spread, economic expansion both personal and corporate, rapid highway growth, and comparatively cheap and plentiful fuel all fed the American dream of the 1950's and far beyond. The very visible vestiges of it remain to be seem with virtually every major shopping development since the 1950's. A huge shopping destination is set behind a veritable sea of asphalt of mostly empty auto parking places. In the vast majority of cases, public transit systems drive by and maybe stop on the surrounding boulevards (if local traffic officials will allow such stops). Who wants to walk some distance from their suburban home to ride for too long a time, only to be let off where you can see the destination but must hike to it? Of course, this must be repeated with packages in hand if you want to get home. And don't forget that the transit system's operating hours and frequency likely are lower on weekends and evenings when you have the extra time to shop. Forget taking that 2x4 from the hardware store, it won't fit under your seat on the bus.
How Can We Regain Momentum? The great question, that likely has no good answer in the current or near-term economy. Funding is needed everywhere, and the priorities are seemingly endless. Sadly, public transportation likely is not near the top of many lists. Despite its touted (and proven advantages in some markets), the sheer scale of needed funding, and the politically risky supporting decisions in the current political climate make any watershed changes unlikely for now. Instead, the hope lies in the critical planning and decision-making at local and regional levels. That is where the ideas and goals will take root. In many cases, early successes will fuel the demand to go farther. If well thought through and efficiently executed, current transit systems will be able to make their case for their future. But the support must come first at the local level for now.
No more big white horses coming over the hill to the rescue. Instead, it likely will be a few well-bred ponies coming down your street, with saddlebags filled with ballots for local support. And if you haven't tried out your local transit system, give it a shot (it is your system), and don't be afraid to let the folks know how it can be improved, too. They need to know if public transit is to regain momentum. It all begins at the local level and with you.
Bucyrus I think the problem of traffic and commuting will be solved by just ending commuting, rather than commuting by train. We are quickly becoming a service / information economy. People will just stay home and do their work on the Internet. This nonsense of driving off to work every day will seem like a relic of the horse and buggy era.
I think the problem of traffic and commuting will be solved by just ending commuting, rather than commuting by train. We are quickly becoming a service / information economy. People will just stay home and do their work on the Internet. This nonsense of driving off to work every day will seem like a relic of the horse and buggy era.
You conflate the service economy with the information economy. In the service economy as a whole, much of the growth is projected for health care for aging baby boomers. Hands-on care (think everything from physical therapy to changing adult diapers) can't be provided over the Internet.
In the information economy, routine work can indeed be done over the Internet, often over an ocean. But even there, some pretty significant employers (think Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter) who have generous telecommuting policies still have large campuses with employees on site. Notably, some of them even provide "private transit": company-operated bus systems to bring employees to and from campus so the employees can spend their valuable time doing something useful while the bus driver battles Silicon Valley traffic congestion. That such congestion persists even in our capital of high tech suggests that telecommuting isn't solving the commuting problem.
A single person's experience is worth only so much, but from my work in the software industry:
1. Some managers still don't want you to telecommute, period.
2. Many others want you to spend a minimum amount of time physically present.
3. When I spent 75% of my time telecommuting, I found that I missed a lot of interactions, decisions, etc that took place over the cubicle wall in the office; even with the best will in the world, my coworkers who were physically present wouldn't always remember to dial the phone or type into the instant messenger application to include me in a discussion that had started up on the spur of the moment. (So the managers who don't want you to telecommute 100% of the time have a point.)
4. I can successfully telecommute 100% of the time only if my task is relatively independent of other people, can be defined precisely at the outset, and is one which I already know how to do.
Sorry, I have time for only a short reply here on a topic close to me, too, and without reading other posters' replies carefully yet. I'd ask, "But has public transportation actually failed?" If we look at recent, nationwide ridership figures, the answer is "hardly!" A glance at the Trains Magazine online Newswire stories and other media sources confirms that. What has failed is our political will to recognize the vital importance of public transportation, to realize that it is not only a public good but a central cog in the economy, and to find ways to support it adequately. Out of money? No, it's a question of priorities, I'd say. Sure, there are some tough issues to be addressed, e.g., pension legacy costs that have gone out of control, as another poster said. But just watch what happens, sadly, in cities such as Pittsburgh as we face another round of service cuts, on top of even more fare increases. Downtown Pittsburgh is a major employment center and an amazing 50% of workers there reach their jobs daily via public transit. As chaos ensues from travel disruptions, overcrowded streets and lack of (expensive!) parking, people will see just how foolishly hard-headed and blind our political leaders are. Maybe people will then wake up and demand that sensible transit priorities be set. We'll see. Privatization?? When Pgh Port Authority had to pull the plug on one of its suburban-to-downtown lines, a private company, chomping at the bit, immediately ran the route at a considerable fare increase. Their business slumped immediately. The transit situation ahead won't be pleasant, even as demand continues to increase. But it might cause a public awakening from our strange political stupor.
Manufacturing coming back to the US? Well there's a few things that could make it happen:
1) Foreign workers getting tired of working for peanuts. It happens. In the past 20 years I've seen copier parts shift from Japan, to Malaysia, to Vietnam, to China, and now some are coming from Germany! All the way 'round the world. Wonder why?
2) Declining quality of the outsourced products, and distance and language problems making them difficult to corrrect.
3) And talking "real world" here, say the local politico's demands for "baksheesh" (look it up) getting too exorbitant. It happens.
Could happen. Maybe.
I just picked one reference, but the point I made can stand without a reference. What sort of axe would M&H have to grind on this issue? The only other link I looked at said manufacturing might come back to the U.S. because they surveyed a selection of business executives who said they are considering moving manufacturing back to the U.S.
My personal experience is that the current economic downturn is far, far more of a drag on U.S. manufacturing than outsoucing ever was.
At this point, I don't see any indication of a trend that will either reverse outsourcing or revive the economy. I am making lots of preparations in case it does come back, but I can't wait forever.
It should be noted that the article appears in the blog of a strongly protectionist organization headed by the controversial (look up Metzenbaum and Hollings for the backgound) former Sen Hollings.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I would say that the return of manufacturing to the U.S. is largely wishful thinking at this point. Energy is priced on the world market, so why would cheaper energy cause job growth in the U.S. in particular? If energy prices fall for the U.S., they will also fall for China.
Business follows opportunity, and when the third world suddenly was capable of competing for manufacturing, U.S. businesses followed the opportunity to China. Now the third world is offering another kind of opportunity in the form of a better business climate than the U.S. The U.S. is facing the prospect of rising taxes and regulations, and this discourages investment, and results in a poorer business climate.
I speculate that the impetus that caused jobs to leave for lower wages in the third world will not be nearly as strong as the motivation for jobs to leave for a better business climate outside of the U.S.
So, overall, I can’t any reason why business would return manufacturing to the U.S., or even start new manufacturing here. Of course, there will be exceptions here and there, but those do not represent a trend.
Here is an article:
http://economyincrisis.org/content/manufacturing-returning-to-u-s
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.