You like opening cans of worms, don't you Sam1. Well if you've been in New York City over the past ten or so years, then you know the traffic and parking problems and costs along with the air pollution. Chicago privatized their parking meters and a radio report I heard yesterday said it now cost $6.50 an hour there in some places.
And in discussing public transit lets keep inter city services like Amtrak separate from commuter rail and rapid transit.
I don't live in a major metropolitan area buy about a dozen time a year we, my Ridewithmehenry group, will ride NJT, MNRR, LIRR, MTA, SEPTA, PATH, PATCO, plus area light rail lines and even Amtrak. Most of the time we watch out the window as we pass cars lined up in traffic rarely do they pass us. Yes, sometimes public transit means going out of the way to get where you must get or do it on a schedule that may not be totally efficient. Still, whether a commuter train from Port Jervis, NY or Hackettstown, NJ or Doylestown, PA to Montauk, Greenport, New Haven, Waterbury, Danbury, New Canaan, Wassaic, Poughkeepsie, Spring Valley, Gladstone, High Bridge, Princeton, Trenton, or Bay Head, or if riding a subway or light rail vehicle, there often is a crowd and a lot of getting on and off enroute. I can't see metropolitan areas like NY or Phila. without such service, nor can I conceive other large metropolitan areas without, either. In it all I also see a need for regional passenger rail whereby there are tight, reliable connections maybe even with the same trainset but definitely with one ticket, on a ride that spreads over a hundred to maybe 200 miles like New Haven to Philadelphia or somewhere beyond...not an inter city Amtrak train but a train to handle needs from like New Haven to Newark or Philadelphia to Stamford. The market is there, it has to be surveyed and planned so as to be useful to the public and to those who would provide it.
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.
Sam1 ... The arguments against expanded investments in public transit include the capital and operatings costs, especially for heavy and light rail; inaccessibility and inconvenience for most of the population, and the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice. Your thoughts!
...
The arguments against expanded investments in public transit include the capital and operatings costs, especially for heavy and light rail; inaccessibility and inconvenience for most of the population, and the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice.
Your thoughts!
It's not a fact that people will not use transit if they have a choice. Ride any commuter train in the New York area and you will see at station after station parking lots filled with cars that people chose to park, and take the train.
MidlandMike Sam1 ... The arguments against expanded investments in public transit include the capital and operatings costs, especially for heavy and light rail; inaccessibility and inconvenience for most of the population, and the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice. Your thoughts! It's not a fact that people will not use transit if they have a choice. Ride any commuter train in the New York area and you will see at station after station parking lots filled with cars that people chose to park, and take the train.
It's not a "fact" in Chicagoland, either!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MidlandMike ... It's not a fact that people will not use transit if they have a choice. Ride any commuter train in the New York area and you will see at station after station parking lots filled with cars that people chose to park, and take the train.
There are several types of riders in the NY and Phila areas which I have observed. First is the commuter who will jam parking lots full at railroad stations 40, 60, 90 miles away from Gotham by 7AM. Second is the riders...many commuters, students, etc....who will ride between intermittent stations and lines at virtually every hour of the day. Third...there is my Ridewithmehenry group who rides just for the fun of riding and seeing how railroading works, trains run, historical venues and routes, and whatever else; but note my group is not the only one doing that, there are individuals and other groups, too. And I should add a fourth type of rider: weekenders...be it individuals off to shop, theater, sporting events, etc. or in groups out for a day's outing in the city. I am sure any city with seven day services at least 12 if not 18 or 24 hours a day , reflect the same types of riders. Again...don't confuse these riders with inter city or long distance travelers.
Sam1 The arguments against expanded investments in public transit include the capital and operatings costs, especially for heavy and light rail; inaccessibility and inconvenience for most of the population, and the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice. Your thoughts!
Here in Charlotte, lots of people who have a choice choose the light rail. The park and ride lots are full of their cars.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
MidlandMike It's not a fact that people will not use transit if they have a choice. Ride any commuter train in the New York area and you will see at station after station parking lots filled with cars that people chose to park, and take the train.
Do they really have a choice?
Traffic congestion, high parking fees (if you can even find a lot or garage that has space) and in many cities "traffic calming" measures designed to make motor vehicle access difficult.
Public transit is necessary in cities. I used it when I lived in San Francisco and Los Angeles (even picked my residence locations based on the transit routes and schedules).
I currently live in a rural mountain area. The end of the bus route that serves the area is three miles down the mountain from my home. The bus is parked at the end of the line and makes two round trips a day to the "city" on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday only.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
IMHO the only measure that can count is the increase in total ridership of a system when some form of rail is instituted vs the increase of total population of an area.
I would bet that Phoeebe can provide us those figures for Charlotte. That would give us a real feeling for how in the last say 10 years the ridership has increased or decreased using ridership figures of CATS 10 years ago to today. measure that vs percentage of population using it 10 years ago to today.
Hofstra U did an excellent analysis on the subject as a whole.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/conc7en/ch7c1en.html
I believe that most new transit systems tend to be wealth producing vs wealth consuming as they increase economic mobility and the ability of labor to find sources of employment without the large investment of an automobile, decrease congestion, and decrease pollution.
I also believe that added transportation options and transportation mobility increases Economic activity and GDP. I have yet to see where exactly a transit system has bankrupted a city or caused a city's decline. Maybe someone could enlighten me where such an event has happened in the past?
DSchmitt MidlandMike It's not a fact that people will not use transit if they have a choice. Ride any commuter train in the New York area and you will see at station after station parking lots filled with cars that people chose to park, and take the train. Do they really have a choice? Traffic congestion, high parking fees (if you can even find a lot or garage that has space) and in many cities "traffic calming" measures designed to make motor vehicle access difficult. ...
There are 300,000 commuters in the Chicago suburbs who ride Metra daily to and from downtown Chicago. They choose to do so because we have a long tradition of excellent suburban rail service, which for many people is superior to driving , not because they cannot afford a car or some other reason, such as inaccessibility as suggested by the OP..
CMStPnPHofstra U did an excellent analysis on the subject as a whole.
Thanks for Transportation and Economic Development by Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Theo Notteboom. Their broad analysis offers some impacts of diverse transportation systems that are too often ignored.
John WR CMStPnPHofstra U did an excellent analysis on the subject as a whole. Thanks for Transportation and Economic Development by Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Theo Notteboom. Their broad analysis offers some impacts of diverse transportation systems that are too often ignored. it's 'interesting" when self-proclaimed passenger advocates dismiss the notion that passenger rail contributes to positive economic development out of hand without any evidence.
it's 'interesting" when self-proclaimed passenger advocates dismiss the notion that passenger rail contributes to positive economic development out of hand without any evidence.
schlimm John WR CMStPnPHofstra U did an excellent analysis on the subject as a whole. Thanks for Transportation and Economic Development by Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Theo Notteboom. Their broad analysis offers some impacts of diverse transportation systems that are too often ignored. it's 'interesting" when self-proclaimed passenger advocates dismiss the notion that passenger rail contributes to positive economic development out of hand without any evidence.
I think so as well. Generally that's NOT the public view in Dallas with the DART system. Most feel investments in DART Light Rail are investments in Dallas vs just an investment in transit. So I am at a loss to explain where exactly that opinion originates from. We had a Conservative President (Bush) throw over a Billion Dollars at the DART light rail system. He did that because he saw it as an engine of growth for the city he was about to live in. He didn't do it because he felt it would make a profit.
Likewise the same person as Governor (Bush) invested in the Heartland Flyer to OKC because he saw a strong group that politically supported it AND the investment by the State of Texas in paying for rehab on the bilevels used was almost trivial vs the tourist income the train would generate for both states. Pragmatic approach vs Profit and Loss.
It is not opinion but fact. There are piles of statistics at all DOT's and public transportation and transit agencies. A rail line providing passenger service for commuters brings prosperity to the area served and the area loses some of the prosperity when the service is no longer there. There is even evidence that communities with rail passenger service are more prosperous than those without not just in the US but elsewhere around the world. The facts and statistics are there...check you library, departments of transportation, highway departments, FRA, STB, congressmaPostn's office, state offices. If it weren't true, planners and politicians wouldn't pay so much attention.
henry6A rail line providing passenger service for commuters brings prosperity to the area served and the area loses some of the prosperity when the service is no longer there.
But there is a problem with that argument. While the area served becomes more prosperous a much wider area must be taxed to pay for the improvement and all of the people taxed will not share in the prosperity. Of course, this is a short run argument. Had we taken it seriously we never would have developed an transportation system of any kind and today we would all be a lot poorer for it. But still, we all live in the short run.
A good example of this is the Erie Canal which brought a lot of prosperity to the area along the canal and also to New York City. In fact it made New York City the financial capital of the nation. However, all people in New York did not share in that prosperity or at least they did not equally share. However, I think that today few people would argue that the canal should not have been dug.
schlimm There are 300,000 commuters in the Chicago suburbs who ride Metra daily to and from downtown Chicago. They choose to do so because we have a long tradition of excellent suburban rail service, which for many people is superior to driving , not because they cannot afford a car or some other reason, such as inaccessibility as suggested by the OP..
Suburban riders are a relatively small component of transit users. Clearly, more often than not, if my experiences in New York City, Dallas, and Melbourne are relevant indicators, the people who can afford to live in the suburbs and ride commuter trains tend to be cut from different cloth than town folks who ride transit.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, in 2010 Chicago area transit agencies had 627,669,100 passengers trips on all modes of transit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and Will counties in Illinois and Lake County in Indiana was 10,055,638. OMB defines a slightly larger area with a somewhat smaller population. Approximately 77 per cent of the population was over 18. The numbers would vary somewhat between the suburbs and the city core.
If one assumes that everyone over 18 was a potential transit rider for every 2010 day, 17.1 per cent of the population have used transit. However, this probably is a bit unrealistic. The other end of the spectrum would be to assume that the population only used transit for work, in which case 24 per cent of the population would have used it. This number is also a bit unrealistic because it assumes that everyone is a potential rider, which is unrealistic, and it excludes everyone under 18, which is also unrealistic since some of the riders, especially in the city, probably are under 18. Moreover, if we assume that most of the riders made a round trip, the per cent of the population using public transit would be cut in half.
To get a true picture of transit riders in Chicago, one would have to slice and dice the numbers much more than is feasible from a distance. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to conclude that whilst transit ridership is considerably higher in the Chicago area than the nation as a whole, the majority of people don't use it. The actual motives for why people choose transit, if they have a choice, would require a robust study.
In 2007 I asked Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for a breakdown of every bus, light rail, and commuter rail line in the Dallas area. Much to my surprise they sent me Excel worksheets for every route. They also showed me the results of several customer surveys that they had completed. The surveys showed, amongst other things, that 43 per cent of the city bus riders did not have a car or an alternative mode of transport. Also, 21 per cent of the light rail passengers did not have an alternative mode of transport. As one might imagine, the motives for suburban riders was markedly different than the motives for many of the city riders.
Sam1The surveys {of Dallas transit riders} showed, amongst other things, that 43 per cent of the city bus riders did not have a car or an alternative mode of transport. Also, 21 per cent of the light rail passengers did not have an alternative mode of transport.
These figures indicate that more than half of all bus riders have other transportation available and choose to ride the bus. Also, more than three quarters of all light rail riders have other transportation available to them and choose to ride the light rail.
John WR Sam1The surveys {of Dallas transit riders} showed, amongst other things, that 43 per cent of the city bus riders did not have a car or an alternative mode of transport. Also, 21 per cent of the light rail passengers did not have an alternative mode of transport. These figures indicate that more than half of all bus riders have other transportation available and choose to ride the bus. Also, more than three quarters of all light rail riders have other transportation available to them and choose to ride the light rail.
As noted in other posts regarding transit use in Dallas, which is the only area where I have delved seriously into the numbers, approximately four to five per cent of the Metroplex (Dallas, Fort Worth and surrounds) population uses public transit.
The point I was attempting to make is that of those numbers a significant percentage, albeit not a majority, have no other options. If they had another option, the overall percentage of people in the Metroplex who chose to use public transit could be even less.
Also as pointed out in another post. of the modes of transit supported by DART, the HOV lanes host more passenger trips for less cost to the taxpayers than the buses, light rail, and commuter train.
Sam1The point I was attempting to make is that of those numbers a significant percentage, albeit not a majority, have no other options. If they had another option, the overall percentage of people in the Metroplex who chose to use public transit could be even less.
First of all, if some of the no car transit riders were to get cars they may well choose to drive their cars. But is there any reason to believe that the proportion of people without cars is going to change? As long as the proportion of no car people is stable it should produce a stable number of transit riders.
Since the lightrail is relatively new and so many riders have other transportation perhaps over time the number of people using it will increase. One thing is clear: The large majority of light rail riders have cars but still choose to ride the light rail.
John WR Sam1The point I was attempting to make is that of those numbers a significant percentage, albeit not a majority, have no other options. If they had another option, the overall percentage of people in the Metroplex who chose to use public transit could be even less. First of all, if some of the no car transit riders were to get cars they may well choose to drive their cars. But is there any reason to believe that the proportion of people without cars is going to change? As long as the proportion of no car people is stable it should produce a stable number of transit riders. Since the lightrail is relatively new and so many riders have other transportation perhaps over time the number of people using it will increase. One thing is clear: The large majority of light rail riders have cars but still choose to ride the light rail.
Although public transit plays a more significant role in major metropolitan areas than middle size cities and rural areas, as per the APTA numbers, no where, with the possible exception of NYC, does the majority of the population use it. From my perspective this is a key takeaway from the analytics.
Given the large capital costs incurred by DART, as an example, for its light rail system, as well as the significant operating costs, policy makers would be well advised to take a hard look at what systems, i.e. commuter rail, light rail, rapid bus technology, or good old fashion buses are the best solution for the country's growing need for better mobility, especially in congested urban areas.
Sam, why do automatically assume that they have NOT looked at these costs?
I can speak for Jerusalem where the cost of the light rail was far far less than the costs associated with highway and road construction if a majority of car drivers could not be pursuaded to move to public transit, and light DOES have a proven ability to cause drivers to make that choice. (Trolley buses vs diesel buses also may do so in some situations.)
daveklepper Sam, why do automatically assume that they have NOT looked at these costs? I can speak for Jerusalem where the cost of the light rail was far far less than the costs associated with highway and road construction if a majority of car drivers could not be pursuaded to move to public transit, and light DOES have a proven ability to cause drivers to make that choice. (Trolley buses vs diesel buses also may do so in some situations.)
I did not assume that transit planners don't look at costs.
I was heavily involved in getting the DART referendum passed in Dallas. My corporate employer believed it was a good idea and made me available to the team to help get it done.
The planners did not ignore the costs. At the time they believed that the light rail system could be built without any federal funds. As it turned out the cost estimates were put together with rose colored glasses. The advocates saw what they wanted to see. This is a human characteristic that is not confined to transit projects.
The cost estimates for the DART light rail lines were way short of the mark. As a result, DART had to turn to the federal government for help. Heaps of it.
DART was building a light rail system for a city that had grown out along highways. It does not have the characteristics of a New York, Chicago, San Francisco. The highways were already there; it was what the people wanted.
Dallas has 27 employment centers, of which only one is downtown. Most Dallas County commuters don't go downtown; they go cross town. But the DART planners and advocates (me included) had a solution (light rail), and we were determined to make it fit.
As a result, as noted, only three to five per cent of people in the Metroplex use DART. Of the DART modes, the most widely used is the HOV lanes, as per the DART key facts, which can be found on the DART webpage.
As I look back I have concluded that DART focused on light rail and ignored other potential solutions. In any case, it has been a costly project.
Have you not thought that perhaps the planners for some very good reason wishes to restore the centrality of downtown? That they hoped the light rail system would reduce urban sprawl and restore the centrality fo the center?
Sam1, you say "cost estimates were put together with rose colored glasses." Was this because DART was an early project and the true costs were not well known? I'm guessing no one could successfully dispute the costs at that time?
daveklepper Have you not thought that perhaps the planners for some very good reason wishes to restore the centrality of downtown? That they hoped the light rail system would reduce urban sprawl and restore the centrality fo the center?
Planning actually got underway whilst downtown was the major employment center in Dallas. Subsequently, for a variety of reasons, downtown fell apart, but it is staging a comeback. Some relatively large employers have returned to the CBD. Many of the old office buildings have been converted into apartments and condos. Approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people live downtown. When I worked downtown, which was up to 2007, you could count on one hand the number of people living downtown.
The Metroplex is continuing to expand outward. Houston, San Antonio, and Austin to a lesser extent, have experienced the same trends seen in Dallas. With the exception of Houston, which has a seven mile inner city light rail system, none of the others have a light rail system. If they are seeing the same trends as Dallas, i.e. some return of the CBD but continued expansion of the metropolitan area, it is hard to say that the light rail system was a deciding factor.
MidlandMike Sam1, you say "cost estimates were put together with rose colored glasses." Was this because DART was an early project and the true costs were not well known? I'm guessing no one could successfully dispute the costs at that time?
DART was a political response to a mobility problem. From my interaction with many of the leaders, I got the impression that they had decided on a solution and were looking for signs to justify their decision. Once people decide on a solution, they tend to look for the data that supports their conclusion and overlook warning signs. I saw the same thing, at least in part, with my employer's decisions on numerous major construction projects. Suffice it to say that we did some things simply because they had come into vogue, i.e. we needed to be overseas because some of our peers were going overseas, which is a join the crowd move that turned out not to be in our best interest.
DART had a number of light and commuter rail systems to look at. The San Diego system was up an running. They also had many foreign systems to look at. And they did. The members of the board, if I remember correctly, were criticized for their seemingly excessive overseas trips, primarily to Europe, to look at rail based transit systems. Also, they engaged as the chief engineer the man who had overseen the construction of the Singapore rail system. He supposedly had a good handle on the costs to develop rail systems.
Dallas is very conservative, although less so today than when I moved there 38 years ago. To gain the support of the powers that be, the advocates had to come in with cost estimates that could be sold locally. That meant, amongst other things, stating that the system could be built without federal funds.
Part of the cost overruns can be attributed to having to build a tunnel under Central Expressway to reach north Dallas, Richardson, and Plano. Originally, the plan was to run the light rail from downtown to the Mockingbird Station area along the old Katy route. Unfortunately, the planners had not counted on the serious pushback they received from the residents of University Park and Highland Park, who did not want light rail running through their back yards. Interestingly, they did not object in the first half of the last century when most intercity travel was by passenger rail. The Katy had a station in Highland Park.
The DART Board of Directors are political appointees. They usually get their positions because they helped the council person who appointed them get elected to the city council(s). Most of them had (have) no experience with transit. During development of the light rail system I was shocked to learn, for example, that the board did not have anyone with transit expertise or engineering background. They did not even know what questions to ask let alone determine whether they were getting a straight answer. Based on what I observed at some of the meetings, they were bowled over by the slick presentations from technical experts.
What really got my attention occurred during the opening cerimonies for the first segment of the Red Line. They were held at Union Station. Speechs aplenty poured forth for the crowd of well wishers. I was amongst them. Not one of the dignitaries had any background in transit. Not a one of them used it. To this day not a single board member is a regular user of public transit in Dallas. Shoot, most of DART's executives don't use it on a regular basis. Given the decision makers did not have a strong background in transit and don't use it on a regular basis, it is hard to believe that they understand it and how much it truly costs.
Light rail is a viable transit solution under the right conditions. I was and remain an enthusiastic supporter of DART. I ride the trains every time I go to Dallas, which is at least once a week. But it is a costly solution, and in many instances there are better alternatives.
DART has spent more than $4.5 billion for a light rail system, which combined with the buses and commuter rail, carries approximately 3 to 5 per cent of the Metroplex's commuters. It draws a higher percentage of the residents living closer to the system, and it carries approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the workers commuting into the CBD, but it has proven to be a very expensive solution. Whether it is seen that way 25 years from now is another story.
Sam1 schlimm There are 300,000 commuters in the Chicago suburbs who ride Metra daily to and from downtown Chicago. They choose to do so because we have a long tradition of excellent suburban rail service, which for many people is superior to driving , not because they cannot afford a car or some other reason, such as inaccessibility as suggested by the OP.. To get a true picture of transit riders in Chicago, one would have to slice and dice the numbers much more than is feasible from a distance. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to conclude that whilst transit ridership is considerably higher in the Chicago area than the nation as a whole, the majority of people don't use it. The actual motives for why people choose transit, if they have a choice, would require a robust study.
300,000 suburban transit riders daily on heavy suburban commuter rail reduces the already overcrowded expressways and toll roads at rush hour. This has been the favored practice of many commuters from suburbs to downtown Chicago for many years. Suburbs that lie near one of the ten or so commuter lines are preferred areas for those who commute because of quicker access to Metra. The criteria for determining the value of commuter transit does not rest on whether or not a majority use it. A true measure would be the ridership on rush hour trains. Try riding most of the Chicago lines and you will find the trains are very crowded, often with standees. I gather Houston and Dallas did not have that tradition, and it takes time before new alternatives become established.
schlimm Sam1 schlimm There are 300,000 commuters in the Chicago suburbs who ride Metra daily to and from downtown Chicago. They choose to do so because we have a long tradition of excellent suburban rail service, which for many people is superior to driving , not because they cannot afford a car or some other reason, such as inaccessibility as suggested by the OP.. To get a true picture of transit riders in Chicago, one would have to slice and dice the numbers much more than is feasible from a distance. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to conclude that whilst transit ridership is considerably higher in the Chicago area than the nation as a whole, the majority of people don't use it. The actual motives for why people choose transit, if they have a choice, would require a robust study. 300,000 suburban transit riders daily on heavy suburban commuter rail reduces the already overcrowded expressways and toll roads at rush hour. This has been the favored practice of many commuters from suburbs to downtown Chicago for many years. Suburbs that lie near one of the ten or so commuter lines are preferred areas for those who commute because of quicker access to Metra. The criteria for determining the value of commuter transit does not rest on whether or not a majority use it. A true measure would be the ridership on rush hour trains. Try riding most of the Chicago lines and you will find the trains are very crowded, often with standees. I gather Houston and Dallas did not have that tradition, and it takes time before new alternatives become established.
Do you mean 300,000 suburban riders or 300,000 passenger trips? The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports passenger trips. There is a big difference, i.e. 300,000 suburban riders translates into approximately 600,000 passenger trips per day whereas 300,000 passenger trips translates into approximately 150,000 customers.
The APTA reports all passenger trips, i.e. rush hour and non-rush hour. Moreover, to be technically correct, one should half the potential numbers that I presented in my earlier post. Most passengers make roundtrips, which means that the passenger trips should be cut in half to get an idea of the percentage of the population that uses public transport.
Clearly, as stated previously, the percentage of people in the major cities of the northeast and the upper midwest, in particular, as well as the Bay area, is much higher than the country as a whole. However, even in major metro areas like Chicago and Denver, based on the APTA figures, only a distinct minority of the population use public transport. Which was one of my original observations. The percentage of people who use public transport is a measure of its value. An equally important measure would be whether they are willing to pay for it.
I would argue that public transport in the city functions like a utility. It serves a broad segment of the population and should be funded like a public service. Many of the people who depend on it are relatively poor. But a taxpayer supported commuter rail system for relatively affluent suburbanites strikes me as a bit over the top.
from Metra: "Daily ridership on weekdays is 301,200. 81.4 million passenger trips in 2010; Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders; Farebox recovery ratio in 2009 = 55.4%."
Chicagoans like commuter rail service and pay a district sales tax to the RTA. The RTA (which started in 1974) sales tax was increased to 1.25% in Cook County, and 0.75% in the suburban counties but one-third of the sales tax collected in the those counties (i.e. 0.25%) is distributed directly to the counties and their county boards may use that money for transportation or public safety purposes. So people here use Metra and are willing to pay for it, directly and indirectly. Perhaps that isn't your "Texas or Dallas Way" but most folks who live here appreciate the fact that we have the service.
Sam1I would argue that public transport in the city functions like a utility. It serves a broad segment of the population and should be funded like a public service. Many of the people who depend on it are relatively poor. But a taxpayer supported commuter rail system for relatively affluent suburbanites strikes me as a bit over the top.
Since New Jersey Transit began New Jersey State Government would agree with you in part and disagree in part.
Over all NJT has a 52.6 per cent recovery rate. (From NJT's Fast Facts for 2011) That means subsidy accounts for 47.4 per cent of costs. Well over one half of all passengers use local bus service but NJT does not publish recovery rates by mode of transport. Also not published is rider income levels. From time to time NJT has customer surveys so I suppose that information is available. However customer surveys are conducted by tossing questionnaires on bus and train seats. Whether or not those returned are a random sample I do not know.
From reading the newspapers there seems to be a consensus that bus riders tend to be low income and not high income people. At the same time some train riders have very high incomes. For example, Princeton is so expensive that there are reports members of the Princeton University Faculty cannot afford to buy a home there. And NJT serves communities such as Basking Ridge, NJ and Tuxedo Park, NY. When private railroads operated our commuter trains some affluent people formed clubs to rent parlor cars for their individual use at a far higher cost than a monthly commuter ticket. NJT does not offer this service but I imagine there are still the same number of people who could afford it were it offered.
The reason for subsidizing affluent and even wealthy commuters is that we are competing for these residents with other states that surround Manhattan. They pay high income taxes and high property taxes on expensive homes and at the same time tend to send their children to private schools lowering educational expenses. They could afford to drive to Manhattan if they choose but there is no way they could avoid the time traffic congestion at bridges and tunnels takes. The train offers them a faster and stress free commute. So to the extend that high income people ride our trains they benefit from NJ's generous subsidy.
But simply because many train riders have high incomes it does not mean that no low income people ride the train. Many train stations are close to hotels, hospitals and other places with low paying jobs that attract low income individuals. Over all fewer people ride all trains than ride all buses so no doubt fewer low income people ride trains but I don't know the numbers.
Finally, one identifiable group of low income people who ride our trains are domestic workers whose jobs are in affluent communities.
So back to one of my original points in another thread. I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc.
A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl.
I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons. Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia. At least until the kids are out of school.
Sam1 So back to one of my original points in another thread. I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc. A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl. I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons. Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia. At least until the kids are out of school.
But what if you were to take into account the cost of those Wall Streeters now riding commuter trains who would be needing superhighways and parking spaces, adding to air pollution and causing traffic jams? Why should the little guy have to pay that? I am, of course, assuming that the long term cost and payback of a rail line being cheaper over that period than how many more lanes of traffic. I also disagree with the idea that only Wall Streeters use NJT for commuting. Where was it said once that a single railroad track can handle the equivalent of 6 highway lanes of traffic? With that statement in mind, then, there is no room alongside current NJ highways to add lanes nor room to add a half dozen or more 6 lane highways. Nor can the air take the pollution it would produce. And I don't think Bloomberg has any more parking spaces available nor are there garages to pack them in. No, it has been stated by highway officials, urban planners, politicians, and so many others, that NJ cannot take any more highways...no room on the ground, cannot withstand the additional pollution, plus Bloomberg has already threatened that south of 14th Street become a gated and tolled community or suffer the total absence of cars!. So, lets talk to what we know: NJT has to provide rail passenger services, NJT has to constantly improve it service products while maintaining what exists. And while I pick on NJT here, the same goes for LI and the LIRR and NY and CT served by MNRR. Unless one comes up with a single seat, non polluting, fold up and carry to your desk car, NJT, MNRR, and LIRR have to exist.
Oh, I am not advocating that the Wall Street bankers and Madison Avenue advertising executives drive to Manhattan. My argument is that they can afford to pay the full cost of transporting them on the train.
Commuter railroads should charge the full fare. If society wants to subsidize low income workers so that they can get to and from low paying jobs in the suburbs, it can underwrite their fares. And it could do it without anyone being the wiser.
Today food stamps are not food stamps. Rather the beneficiary gets a card that looks and acts like a credit card. He or she uses at the supper market to buy food. For the most part no one knows that the card is a food stamp vehicle. The same technique could be used for commuter rail.
As it is providing subsidies for everyone underwrites the commuting costs of high and upper middle income people who could afford to tote the note. Doesn't make sense to me.
Now I will add a political note, which I have not done or at least not directly but will make this exception. In a country where 20.7 per cent of the children don't have health insurance and in many instances lack an adequate diet, i.e. they don't get enough to eat, subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene. The monies, which are limited, could be better spent helping people who really need help and not high income people riding on taxpayer supported railroads.
Most of the Metra commuters are not earning $500k annually. Many suburbanites who ride the trains to Chicago are solidly middle class. They can afford a car or two and probably a house or condo. Some rent. Most of the folks over 30 live in the suburbs because they have a family and prefer their kids attend the suburban schools, which are much better than in the city. Driving to the Loop is terrible because of traffic, long in duration, and very expensive for parking. The Metra train isn't cheap, either. And the fare is going up again soon.
You choose to conveniently ignore the information I posted from Metra. "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." And adding that many lanes to the expressways would not just be prohibitively expensive, it would be impossible.
People here like Metra and taxpayers aren't up in arms about paying a sales tax for a service they seldom or never use. Perhaps that is because the notion of a shared providing of services as a community is widely accepted. Ditto with paying enormous amounts in property taxes that are primarily for schools here. Many folks pay a great deal even with no kids in school but we accept it for the greater good. You seem to want something akin to a need-based commuter ticket, which sounds loaded with administrative problems. Perhaps you favor services entirely paid for by user-fees. I have no idea. But don't knock publicly subsidized mass transit and commuter rail in places outside TX (such as those with a long history: Chicago, NY, Phil, Boston, and the new services in cities like LA, SF, denver, etc.) where the residents seem quite happy.
Providing rail services is not to give people cheap transportation, underwritten transportation, but to help DOT's budgets, environmentalist with clean air, and real estate agents with land for buildings instead of concrete parking lots stretched across miles.
schlimm Most of the Metra commuters are not earning $500k annually. Many suburbanites who ride the trains to Chicago are solidly middle class. They can afford a car or two and probably a house or condo. Some rent. Most of the folks over 30 live in the suburbs because they have a family and prefer their kids attend the suburban schools, which are much better than in the city. Driving to the Loop is terrible because of traffic, long in duration, and very expensive for parking. The Metra train isn't cheap, either. And the fare is going up again soon. You choose to conveniently ignore the information I posted from Metra. "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." And adding that many lanes to the expressways would not just be prohibitively expensive, it would be impossible. People here like Metra and taxpayers aren't up in arms about paying a sales tax for a service they seldom or never use. Perhaps that is because the notion of a shared providing of services as a community is widely accepted. Ditto with paying enormous amounts in property taxes that are primarily for schools here. Many folks pay a great deal even with no kids in school but we accept it for the greater good. You seem to want something akin to a need-based commuter ticket, which sounds loaded with administrative problems. Perhaps you favor services entirely paid for by user-fees. I have no idea. But don't knock publicly subsidized mass transit and commuter rail in places outside TX (such as those with a long history: Chicago, NY, Phil, Boston, and the new services in cities like LA, SF, denver, etc.) where the residents seem quite happy.
If they can afford a car or two, how come they could not afford to pay the cost of their commuter train ride to downtown Chicago or downtown USA.
For decades commuters from Long Island, Main Line Philadelphia, etc. rode on commuter trains hosted by private railroads. They were not subsidized by the people. That all changed in the 60s and 70s for a variety of reasons.
My point is simple. Even in large cities, such as Chicago, Philadelphia, etc., the majority of people do not use public transit. And the APTA numbers show it clearly.
I did not ignore your Metra information. I read the quick facts as well as the financial statements.
Commuter rail is different than intracity public transit. I accept the argument for it. But commuter rail is designed for a different population group. And I suspect many if not most of the users could cover the cost out of the fare box with subsidies for low income people if required.
As mentioned in a prior post, going to means-based subsidy of mass transit, be it either for city transit or suburban rail, would involve additional administrative expense and would also be a legal and political nightmare. It's difficult to envision middle-class suburbanites submitting paperwork similar to college financial-aid forms to determine the cost of the ride to work without complaining to their local politicians about invasion of privacy, too much government, etc.
There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic.
Sam1, in Trains frequently (it seems like about every other issue but I'm sure it's less) they talk about another new DART line or expansion. Does Dallas-FW now have a better handle on costs, or have they not learned their lesson, or is something else going on?
CSSHEGEWISCH As mentioned in a prior post, going to means-based subsidy of mass transit, be it either for city transit or suburban rail, would involve additional administrative expense and would also be a legal and political nightmare. It's difficult to envision middle-class suburbanites submitting paperwork similar to college financial-aid forms to determine the cost of the ride to work without complaining to their local politicians about invasion of privacy, too much government, etc.
Means testing would not be an administrative nightmare; it might be a political nightmare. I have a senior pass on DART. It took about a minute to obtain it. I had to verify my age.
My Medicare Part B premiums are means tested. The Social Security Administration gets my MAGI from the IRS and uses it to calculate my Medicare Part B premium. I don't like paying a higher Medicare Part B premium for a variety of reasons, but an invasion of my privacy is not one of them. If invasion of privacy is a key concern, folks need to take on the entire tax system.
I am talking about means testing commuter rail. I am not talking about means testing in-town transit. Given the horsepower of today's computers, with linked data bases, verifying a person's income could be done in a flash.
How powerful are today's computers? The IRS has all the information it needs to complete 75 to 80 per cent of the personal income tax returns. It could, based on the information that it receives from employers, banks, investment houses, etc., complete the returns; mail them for verification or correction, and be done with it. Why don't they do it, especially in light of the fact that California is doing it on a limited basis. Primarily because the companies that peddle tax preparation software (Intuit, H&R Block, etc.) surely don't want it to happen for obvious reasons. And they have been successful in lobbying the Congress to prevent the IRS from leaping into the 21st Century.
schlimm There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic.
I am only talking about requiring those who use commuter rail to pay the note for the tote. For those people who must use commuter rail and cannot afford to pay for it, subsidies may be in order. As noted, they could be subsidized easily without anyone being the wiser.
Asking people who can afford the ride to pay for it, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it, does not bespeak of building more highways.
MidlandMike Sam1, in Trains frequently (it seems like about every other issue but I'm sure it's less) they talk about another new DART line or expansion. Does Dallas-FW now have a better handle on costs, or have they not learned their lesson, or is something else going on?
DART has extended the Blue Line, as well as developed the Orange and Green lines, since the initial lines were opened.
I don't know whether the management has a better handle on its costs, other than to say that according to an article in the Dallas Morning News about a year or so ago, the Orange line was more than $1 billion over budget.
Having worked on the budgets for several power plants, with estimated costs in the neighborhood of five to eight billion dollars, bringing the project in on time and under budget is a real challenge.
schlimm ...sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic.
I am aware of the many so-called externalities associated with public transit vs. autos, etc. The problem is how to measure them. It is usually done with statistical sampling and regression analysis that leads to a very broad range of potential outcomes.
The financials are a pretty good place to start. They are not everything, but they give a good picture of how an activity is performing from a financial perspective. In the case of a public entity, such as Metra, they provide valuable insight into how much the activity costs and who is paying for it.
According to Metra's 2010 audited financial statements, in that year Metra had operating revenues of $296.4 million, of which $239.4 million was passenger revenue and $57.0 million was other. It had operating expenses of $615.7 million before depreciation. Depreciation was $213.8 million, thereby bringing total expenses to $829.5 million. The agency received $590.9 million in external support, i.e. sales tax revenues, grants, etc.
The agency recovered 38.9 per cent of its operating expenses before depreciation from the fare box and 28.9 per cent after inclusion of depreciation. It recovered 48.1 per cent of expenses from total revenues before depreciation and 35.7 per cent after depreciation.
These numbers appear to be in line for those for the CTA. Metra's claim regarding operating expense recovery appears to overlook depreciation and other charges. These are real charges that must be covered by someone. As is the case with Amtrak, it is the taxpayers.
Sam1The agency recovered 38.9 per cent of its operating expenses before depreciation from the fare box and 28.9 per cent after inclusion of depreciation. It recovered 48.1 per cent of expenses from total revenues before depreciation and 35.7 per cent after depreciation.
Your "numbers" do not agree with Metra's even if depreciation is not counted, which by state law is not.
http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/Board_Information/July_2011_FinanceComte.pdf
A comparison of 2009 (above) vs 2010 reveals "Certain 2009 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2010 presentation."
http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/2010%20Metra%20Financial%20Statements.pdf
schlimm Sam1The agency recovered 38.9 per cent of its operating expenses before depreciation from the fare box and 28.9 per cent after inclusion of depreciation. It recovered 48.1 per cent of expenses from total revenues before depreciation and 35.7 per cent after depreciation. Your "numbers" do not agree with Metra's even if depreciation is not counted, which by state law is not. http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/Board_Information/July_2011_FinanceComte.pdf A comparison of 2009 (above) vs 2010 reveals "Certain 2009 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2010 presentation." http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/2010%20Metra%20Financial%20Statements.pdf
I suggest you read the 2010 and 2009 audited financial statements. Do the calculations. My calculations included only fare box and other operating revenues, i.e. the recover of all expenses through the fare box.
Depreciation is a real expense. It must be recovered from someone.
The slides are for the 2011 budget. The numbers that count are the actual audited financial statement numbers. The latest numbers presented on Metra's website are for 2010.
"Operating expenses exclude depreciation, payments with respect to public transportation facilities, costs for passenger security. Operating expenses also exclude payments of interest and principal on bonds and payments on other financial agreements." This is laughable for a business person or any one with strong background in accounting and finance.
In 2010 Metra received state operating subsidies of $3.4 million and federal operating subsidies of $29.8 million, which appear to have been left out of the slides. The agency also received $229.5 million in capital grants from the state and federal governments.
At the end of 2009 Metra had capital assets of $5.4 billion. Of this amount, $2.7 billion was provided by the federal government, $509 million by the Illinois Department of Transportation, $1.4 billion from the Regional Transportation Authority, and $6.4 million from Indiana. Metra riders contributed $853 million or 15.7 per cent of the total capital for Metra.
The system is heavily dependent on the federal government for its capital funds. Even Amtrak does not try to eliminate the amortization of capital from its financials.
Sam1 schlimm There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic. I am only talking about requiring those who use commuter rail to pay the note for the tote. For those people who must use commuter rail and cannot afford to pay for it, subsidies may be in order. As noted, they could be subsidized easily without anyone being the wiser. Asking people who can afford the ride to pay for it, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it, does not bespeak of building more highways.
So then, you'd be in favor of only those who use the roads pay their full share whether they drive to the corner store, 50 miles to work or from ocean to ocean? And the same with air traffic..flyers would pay full cost of airports used plus air traffic control, and other costs? I don't think the US is ready for undertaking such a burden...that's why government is empowered to collect taxes and build and provide.
Sam1I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc.
1. If the population of the US were equally distributed over the land area the 5 per cent argument would have some validity. However, the population is not equally distributed over the land area.
2. Here you are self contradictory. If the majority of the population use a service you argue that it should not be provided by government because the majority can well afford to provide for themselves. If only a minority use a service you argue that it should not be provided by government because a majority do not use it.
Sam1A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl.
Do you have any evidence to support this counter intuitive assertion? Conventional wisdom is that communities have developed around commuter rail stations in a fairly tight "pearls on a string" pattern.
henry6 Sam1 schlimm There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic. I am only talking about requiring those who use commuter rail to pay the note for the tote. For those people who must use commuter rail and cannot afford to pay for it, subsidies may be in order. As noted, they could be subsidized easily without anyone being the wiser. Asking people who can afford the ride to pay for it, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it, does not bespeak of building more highways. So then, you'd be in favor of only those who use the roads pay their full share whether they drive to the corner store, 50 miles to work or from ocean to ocean? And the same with air traffic..flyers would pay full cost of airports used plus air traffic control, and other costs? I don't think the US is ready for undertaking such a burden...that's why government is empowered to collect taxes and build and provide.
Sam1I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
Commuter trains serve people of all income levels from the highest to the lowest. Once a commuter train is in operation conventional wisdom is that the commuter authority should try to get a maximum number of riders. To institute a means test so that people above a certain income level would be prohibited from riding the train is, again, counter intuitive.
John WR Sam1A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl. Do you have any evidence to support this counter intuitive assertion? Conventional wisdom is that communities have developed around commuter rail stations in a fairly tight "pearls on a string" pattern.
So the development that occurred on Long Island following WWII was not facilitated in part by the Long Island Railroad? I supposed it depends on your definition of urban sprawl. I lived in New York City for eight years. I am reasonably familiar with the area. I also lived in Melbourne, Australia for more than five years. It did not take a lot of intuition to know that commuter rail helped spawn urban sprawl in both areas.
The Trinity Railway Express in Dallas has contributed to the growth of Irving, Arlington, etc. One of the factors is the fact that the fares on the TRE are subsidized heavily.
Sam1I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons.
Well, yes, but which state's suburbia? Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all compete to provide suburban homes for the most highly paid people. One factor in that competition is public transit.
John WR Sam1I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. Commuter trains serve people of all income levels from the highest to the lowest. Once a commuter train is in operation conventional wisdom is that the commuter authority should try to get a maximum number of riders. To institute a means test so that people above a certain income level would be prohibited from riding the train is, again, counter intuitive.
Here is a way for the commuter transit authority to maximize ridership. Make it free! That's what Austin tried a few years ago with its bus system. In addition to nearly wrecking the city's finances, the buses attracted heaps of street people, who in turn drove away the few middle class riders who used the bus.
Sam1Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail.
The Philadelphia Main Line was developed by and for executives in the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the wealthiest special interest groups in the history of our country.
Sam1Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia. At least until the kids are out of school.
What does this mean? People at the highest income levels send their children to private schools so that is not a factor in their decision.
Sam1 In a country where 20.7 per cent of the children don't have health insurance and in many instances lack an adequate diet, i.e. they don't get enough to eat, subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene.
I've never considered that when I get on board a commuter train I am committing an "obscene" act. While we do have people without adequate food, housing and medical care I don't see that their problems would be reduced were I to drive my car instead of boarding that train. But you see my train ride as "obscene."
The notion that if those of us who ride trains were forced to drive our cars instead then the problems of the poor would be reduced strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
John WR Sam1 In a country where 20.7 per cent of the children don't have health insurance and in many instances lack an adequate diet, i.e. they don't get enough to eat, subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene. I've never considered that when I get on board a commuter train I am committing an "obscene" act. While we do have people without adequate food, housing and medical care I don't see that their problems would be reduced were I to drive my car instead of boarding that train. But you see my train ride as "obscene." The notion that if those of us who ride trains were forced to drive our cars instead then the problems of the poor would be reduced strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
If the people who ride on Amtrak, as well as those affluent riders on the nation's commuter rail system paid the full cost of their transportation, the nation would have additional resources to help the poor.
In the case of Amtrak it would be more than $1.5 billion per year. I don't know how much it would be in the case of commuter rail, but it would be substantial. Amtrak's accumulated loses, all of which have been covered by the taxpayers, is more than $28 billion. That would buy a lot of school lunches.
On an earlier posting I noted that Chicago' Metra has received 85 per cent of its capital costs from the federal and state governments. That too would buy a lot of school lunches.
I am not talking about you or other commuter rail passengers driving. I am talking about people who can afford the note to tote it. Based on my experience in and around New York City, as well as several other major metropolitan areas, a significant percentage of the commuter rail passengers could afford to pay all of the cost of the commute. They should do so. And that would free up money for more worthwhile activities. Like helping poor people get enough to eat.
In fact we do have the resources to help the poor. We just don't have a political consensus to use those resources to help the poor.
But if Amtrak and commuter rail is "obscene" how can it be that users of those services are not also "obscene?"
Sam1 I have been over who pays for the roads in this country. You apparently are convinced that motorists, almost all of whom pay income taxes, fuel taxes, license fees, real estate and sales taxes, etc., are not paying for the nation's roadways. The money must be coming from the tooth fairy. There is nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise.
But you double speak....yes we all pay for the roads, even those who don't use them, the guy who flies or takes the train or walks pays for roads. But I don't use I80 west of Pocono Summit, PA nor I5 in California...so why should I pay for them? You are being selective. I am also paying for airplanes to be guided to Alaska and tugs and barges on the Mississippi. What I am saying is that we, as the population of a state or the United States, have empowered those governments to provide roads and transportation infrastructure in the best possible manner for the location. I pay for the LA Freeway the same way an Angelo pays for I78 across PA and NJ. And the air traffic controllers all across the country and the Army Corps of Engineers' waterways come out of my same taxes, too. Either you want the user to pay or you don't want the user to pay, Concrete and asphalt, river and canal, air and tarmac, railroad and trolley line. What's the difference between modes and users and payers?
henry6Concrete and asphalt, river and canal, air and tarmac, railroad and trolley line. What's the difference between modes and users and payers?
The difference, Henry, is that to some people railroads are "obscene" while asphalt and concrete is pure and holy.
John WR henry6Concrete and asphalt, river and canal, air and tarmac, railroad and trolley line. What's the difference between modes and users and payers? The difference, Henry, is that to some people railroads are "obscene" while asphalt and concrete is pure and holy.
Maybe I have watched too much PBS, but something tells me that Public Assistance already makes provisions for transportation to work, so I don't know that needs to be factored in when commuter agencies consider pricing of fares.
Commuter lines I am familiar with usually charge more during rush hours. It may have more to do with optimizing fares at times of peak demand, but it also has the effect of getting more money out of those affluent commuters. It also suggests that the fares are somewhat priced at what the agency thinks will bring in the most money before passengers will start to desert. On existing lines the municipality is going to want to insure the line is used, to retain the asset. While municipalities look at other low cost options like HOV highway lanes to relieve growing congestion. I can't remember a time when they abandoned a working commuter rail line, other than some short duplicate PRR/Reading lines in Phily.
John WR Sam1Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. The Philadelphia Main Line was developed by and for executives in the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the wealthiest special interest groups in the history of our country.
The "Main Line of Public Works" was built by the State of Pennsylvania in the 1830s as a RR/canal scheme. The RR was sold to PRR in the 1850s. It was electrified to Paoli in 1915 and was followed by electrification of 5 other Phily suburban lines in the next 15 years. I think SEPTA took over suburban service in the 1970s.
Sam1 I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
trying to balkanize again? Cities in different states are sized differently. Take Houston which is a very large one city in texas. In NJ that area would take in maybe 100 towns or more.
New York city is actually composed of what was 5 cities at one time . WOULD you have had those 5 each with their own transit system?
Local Transit, commuter rail, AMTRAK are all some kind of regional service providers. These entities shuld not be subject to an artificial political division but be population driven.
blue streak 1 Sam1 I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. trying to balkanize again? Cities in different states are sized differently. Take Houston which is a very large one city in texas. In NJ that area would take in maybe 100 towns or more. New York city is actually composed of what was 5 cities at one time . WOULD you have had those 5 each with their own transit system? Local Transit, commuter rail, AMTRAK are all some kind of regional service providers. These entities shuld not be subject to an artificial political division but be population driven.
OK, change it to local transit or bus transit or whatever. What does your comment have to do with whether wealthy suburban commuters should pay the full cost of their commute?
Most of the commuters in north Dallas that are commuting into the CBD use the Dallas North Tollway. They are coming in large part from upper class neighborhoods. Not only do they cover the cost of their commute, they contribute to other transit projects in the area. The same applies if they are traveling east to west across north Dallas and Collin counties. The same concept applies many areas of Houston and Austin, where toll roads have cropped up like weeds after a west Texas rainstorm.
The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.
Perhaps the problem is that Texas cities have very different priorities, needs and values than cities in other parts of the country. It is hardly surprising that in the state that is the center of Big Oil, autos and highways would be the traditional mode of commuting, at least until recently. The comment of the poster ("The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.").reflects an experience and set of attitudes that seem quite alien to the larger metro area of the Midwest and Northeast. Then again, it may be an indication only of the attitudes of the original poster of this thread and the underlying Randian political ideology.
Sam1The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.
This is just absolutely silly.....
I live in Dallas and I do not see a specific income class using the toll roads. I see all income classes using them. Dallas is using toll road construction because it lacks funds SIMILAR TO OTHER STATES LIKE INDIANA to keep up with the rapid population expansion. The Dallas area is reluctant to raise taxes to pay their share of the Federal Matching formula to increase highway construction so they are leaning towards Toll Roads to fill the gap.
Plenty of people ride the transit system including Middle Class ole me. I have the choice of using my car but mass transit in DFW is cheaper than the car everytime. I can travel from my home to Fort Worth for just a $7 day pass, the pass works on the Light Rail segment to Downtown Dallas, Trinity Railway Express to Fort Worth........and then on the Fort Worth City Bus system to the Stockyards. If I drive my car that distance you can calculate for an average car that I would be paying more, athough the trip would be shorter in time consumed. Add one or two family members in the car or the rail pass system and the costs become a little more competitive between the two but I still think with two family members I pay less with the mass transit option.
Likewise for the benefit of the readers here that are unaware, the Dallas Light Rail system stops right at the downtown Arena where the Mavericks play, likewise, it stops right at the Zoo and the State Fair as well as Dallas Union Station for a cross platform transfer to Amtrak. Additionally, you can transfer to the McKinney Avenue trolley (which is free on weekends sometimes) to get to the Art Museum and other locations. Dallas is pretty well covered by the Light Rail system and shortly there will be an airport spur into DFW Airport. That makes it a very convienient option.
It just is a mystery to me why on these Forums the DART system is made to look like a folly or waste of money because I can assure you the predominant attitude in Dallas is it is money well spent. More folks in Dallas think the Bus System wastes money and some bus lines run empty. So there is some waste there that needs to be fixed. DART is well patronized though.
Isn't the new toll road in Texas a private enterprise designed to allow for 80 (meaning 100) miles per hour speed limit? Thus only those with deep pockets and oil wells can afford to drive them?
CMStPnP Sam1The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation. This is just absolutely silly..... I live in Dallas and I do not see a specific income class using the toll roads. I see all income classes using them. Dallas is using toll road construction because it lacks funds SIMILAR TO OTHER STATES LIKE INDIANA to keep up with the rapid population expansion. The Dallas area is reluctant to raise taxes to pay their share of the Federal Matching formula to increase highway construction so they are leaning towards Toll Roads to fill the gap. Plenty of people ride the transit system including Middle Class ole me. I have the choice of using my car but mass transit in DFW is cheaper than the car everytime. I can travel from my home to Fort Worth for just a $7 day pass, the pass works on the Light Rail segment to Downtown Dallas, Trinity Railway Express to Fort Worth........and then on the Fort Worth City Bus system to the Stockyards. If I drive my car that distance you can calculate for an average car that I would be paying more, athough the trip would be shorter in time consumed. Add one or two family members in the car or the rail pass system and the costs become a little more competitive between the two but I still think with two family members I pay less with the mass transit option. Likewise for the benefit of the readers here that are unaware, the Dallas Light Rail system stops right at the downtown Arena where the Mavericks play, likewise, it stops right at the Zoo and the State Fair as well as Dallas Union Station for a cross platform transfer to Amtrak. Additionally, you can transfer to the McKinney Avenue trolley (which is free on weekends sometimes) to get to the Art Museum and other locations. Dallas is pretty well covered by the Light Rail system and shortly there will be an airport spur into DFW Airport. That makes it a very convienient option. It just is a mystery to me why on these Forums the DART system is made to look like a folly or waste of money because I can assure you the predominant attitude in Dallas is it is money well spent. More folks in Dallas think the Bus System wastes money and some bus lines run empty. So there is some waste there that needs to be fixed. DART is well patronized though.
You have lifted a single sentence from my posting and stated it out of context. Your posting does not have a single data reference to support your point of view. It is based on your observations. Apparently anyone disagreeing with you is silly.
According to the U.S. 2010 census, the median household income for Dallas County was $48,942. The median household income for Dallas was $42,259, which is impacted by the large number of poor people in south and west Dallas. The median household income in south Dallas was $39,120. The median household income for north Dallas was $60,575 and the median household income for Collin County was $82,758. The median household income for Highland Park was $219,096 and that for University Park was $151,862.
The primary point in referencing the Dallas North Tollway was to show that affluent people will pay the the cost of commuting. Of course a variety of economic classes use it. But a close look at the map of the DNT and the adjacent communities it serves shows that it draws a significant portion of its traffic from affluent areas.
Dallas as well as Texas have turned to toll roads because the Texas Legislature has refused to raise the state's fuel tax, which is the primary source of funding for through arteries in Dallas, as well as Texas other major cities. Although Dallas pays most although not all of the cost of its local streets, the throughways, i.e. Dallas North Tollway, I-35, U.S. 75 are funded primarily by state and federal funds. Dallas does not have much skin in the game with respect to these roadways.
The population served by most of the light rail system was 3,342,361 in 2010. Approximately and 80 per cent of this population was over 16. The numbers would be slightly higher in 2011 because of growth, especially outside of Dallas but within the service area.
Of the major modes of transit offered by DART, the HOV lanes had the highest average weekday passenger trips of 141,700 at an average subsidy of 22 cents. The average weekday passenger trips for the buses was 125,900 at an average subsidy of $5.12 per passenger. The average weekday passenger trips on the light rail system was 71,600 at an average subsidy of $4.23. These are passenger trips. Most weekday passenger trips are for work and consist of a roundtrip for each user. Thus, the average number of users for these components of the system would be 169,600 per day. This means that approximately 6.3 per cent of the population served by DART's HOV, bus, and light rail lines used the services. Also, one should keep in mind that approximately 25 per cent of the light rail riders begin their ride on a bus that forces them onto the light rail line to complete their journey.
Yes indeed. You can travel from Dallas to Fort Worth and onto the stockyards for $7. And you can get back on the same tickets. What you failed to mention, however, is you get a subsidy on the Trinity Railway Express of $11.08 ($5.45 each way), but subsidies on connecting transportation in Dallas and Fort Worth.
The numbers speak for themselves. You can check them out. If you think that the numbers make the DART spend on light rail, etc., a waste that is your prerogative. The point I made with my opening comments is that public transit in the United States is not well used, even when taking into consideration the higher ridership numbers in the nation's major metropolitan areas.
Before you call someone silly, you should check the facts.
henry6 Isn't the new toll road in Texas a private enterprise designed to allow for 80 (meaning 100) miles per hour speed limit? Thus only those with deep pockets and oil wells can afford to drive them?
Texas 130 is a private toll road that goes around the east side of Austin. The speed limit is 80 mph. I drive it frequently. I have not seen any demographic data regarding the users. However, based on my observations of the vehicles on the roadway, I would say that most of them are the middle class folks who live in Georgetown, Round Rock, Pflugerville, east Austin, etc. These are distinctly middle class neighborhoods.
The toll from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge (Segments 1 - 4) for a two axile vehicle is $5.12. The cost of the segments ranges from $.45 to $1.69. A significant percentage of the users get on for one or two segments. These costs, as well as my observations of the vehicles (plenty of old pick-ups being driven by good old boys) on the roadway, don't suggest that the highway is being used only by those with deep pockets.
Segments 5 and 6, which extend the tollway from Mustang Ridge to Sequin, TX, where it connects with I-10, for a two axle vehicle, would cost in the neighborhood of another $5.00. Commuters can get a discount for regular use.
schlimm Perhaps the problem is that Texas cities have very different priorities, needs and values than cities in other parts of the country. It is hardly surprising that in the state that is the center of Big Oil, autos and highways would be the traditional mode of commuting, at least until recently. The comment of the poster ("The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.").reflects an experience and set of attitudes that seem quite alien to the larger metro area of the Midwest and Northeast. Then again, it may be an indication only of the attitudes of the original poster of this thread and the underlying Randian political ideology.
You have no idea of my political ideology.
The comment about toll roads being built so that low income people can avoid them could be better stated to say that they have been built so that low income motorists don't have to use them and have reasonable alternatives. Thus, no one is forced to use TX130 around Austin; they can continue on I-35 through the heart of the city, but they are likely to encounter more traffic.
As noted previously, the cities in the northeast and upper midwest, as well as the Bay area, to a large extent grew out along rail lines that had been laid down in the 19th century. Most of the cities in the west and southwest grew out along highways following WWII.
Clearly, people in this part of the country have different attitudes regarding public transit and preferred modes of transit.
Those two declarative sentences, not just one, clearly state your opinion. What part of them is NOT a correct reflection of your views? Barring phrases snipped out of a larger work that states a contrary opinion, the claiming that what one says is taken out of context is usually just a dodge to avoid responsibility for statements that are either wrong, embarrassing or both.
schlimm Sam1The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation. Those two declarative sentences, not just one, clearly state your opinion. What part of them is NOT a correct reflection of your views? Barring phrases snipped out of a larger work that states a contrary opinion, the claiming that what one says is taken out of context is usually just a dodge to avoid responsibility for statements that are either wrong, embarrassing or both.
Maybe you should read everything instead of lifting sentences out of context. That includes clarification comments.
"The comment about toll roads being built so that low income people can avoid them could be better stated to say that they have been built so that low income motorists don't have to use them and have reasonable alternatives. Thus, no one is forced to use TX130 around Austin; they can continue on I-35 through the heart of the city, but they are likely to encounter more traffic."
If you cannot see from the verifiable numbers that a small percentage of people in Texas, including those in the state's major metropolitan areas, use public transportation, there is nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise. But then I don't care what conclusions you draw.
Nope! Claiming that statements are taken out of context is a relevant observation. All too often, when you, as well as several others, don't like the facts, you push back with an extraneous comment without in anyway addressing the facts.
If your assumption that lower income people avoid toll roads then that means that the marketing of the toll road is either non existent or wrong. Toll roads can be cost effective in with not stopping and starting, traffic lights, etc., a vehicle can get better gas mileage which can be very cost effective; also, less time spent travelling can mean cost savings for some, too.
schlimm Those two declarative sentences, not just one, clearly state your opinion. What part of them is NOT a correct reflection of your views? Barring phrases snipped out of a larger work that states a contrary opinion, the claiming that what one says is taken out of context is usually just a dodge to avoid responsibility for statements that are either wrong, embarrassing or both.
And in my view they also show a hint of prejudice towards lower income people.
Sam1 You have lifted a single sentence from my posting and stated it out of context. Your posting does not have a single data reference to support your point of view. It is based on your observations. Apparently anyone disagreeing with you is silly. According to the U.S. 2010 census, the median household income for Dallas County was $48,942. The median household income for Dallas was $42,259, which is impacted by the large number of poor people in south and west Dallas. The median household income in south Dallas was $39,120. The median household income for north Dallas was $60,575 and the median household income for Collin County was $82,758. The median household income for Highland Park was $219,096 and that for University Park was $151,862. The primary point in referencing the Dallas North Tollway was to show that affluent people will pay the the cost of commuting. Of course a variety of economic classes use it. But a close look at the map of the DNT and the adjacent communities it serves shows that it draws a significant portion of its traffic from affluent areas. Dallas as well as Texas have turned to toll roads because the Texas Legislature has refused to raise the state's fuel tax, which is the primary source of funding for through arteries in Dallas, as well as Texas other major cities. Although Dallas pays most although not all of the cost of its local streets, the throughways, i.e. Dallas North Tollway, I-35, U.S. 75 are funded primarily by state and federal funds. Dallas does not have much skin in the game with respect to these roadways. The population served by most of the light rail system was 3,342,361 in 2010. Approximately and 80 per cent of this population was over 16. The numbers would be slightly higher in 2011 because of growth, especially outside of Dallas but within the service area. Of the major modes of transit offered by DART, the HOV lanes had the highest average weekday passenger trips of 141,700 at an average subsidy of 22 cents. The average weekday passenger trips for the buses was 125,900 at an average subsidy of $5.12 per passenger. The average weekday passenger trips on the light rail system was 71,600 at an average subsidy of $4.23. These are passenger trips. Most weekday passenger trips are for work and consist of a roundtrip for each user. Thus, the average number of users for these components of the system would be 169,600 per day. This means that approximately 6.3 per cent of the population served by DART's HOV, bus, and light rail lines used the services. Also, one should keep in mind that approximately 25 per cent of the light rail riders begin their ride on a bus that forces them onto the light rail line to complete their journey. Yes indeed. You can travel from Dallas to Fort Worth and onto the stockyards for $7. And you can get back on the same tickets. What you failed to mention, however, is you get a subsidy on the Trinity Railway Express of $11.08 ($5.45 each way), but subsidies on connecting transportation in Dallas and Fort Worth. The numbers speak for themselves. You can check them out. If you think that the numbers make the DART spend on light rail, etc., a waste that is your prerogative. The point I made with my opening comments is that public transit in the United States is not well used, even when taking into consideration the higher ridership numbers in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Before you call someone silly, you should check the facts.
You quote a bunch of random numbers and try to relate them to backup your conclusion which is also silly and it is my choice if I believe your position to be credible or not. In most cases I judge it to be NOT credible.
In regards to the HOV lanes, I have never before seen such a analysis applied to mass transit. HOV lanes and particularly the freeway system is more accessible to Dallas Commuters than the light rail system. Futher, a good portion of HOV lanes are free and there are no constraints to using it. With Light Rail you have the constraint of parking at the station where you intend to pickup the train as well as the distance that you have to drive to the station as well as the rail fare and the parking charged at the station. These are what most analysts would call constraints to accessing the system.
Now if you wanted to do a serious rebuttal of my comments you would have analyzed the percentage of occupancy of the light rail trains during commute hours to show me that patronage was not all that great. Instead you compare the open freeway to a pay as you go and limited in route Light Rail system......really? Thats a serious rebuttal?
Seriously Sam1, it's great that you include financial statistics and usage statistics and such you just need to make sure they backup your conclusion and arguing position or are at least relevant. That is where you are missing on your posts, to me it looks like you are grouping in unrelated numbers and figures really that should not be compared and clouding the issues you comment on. Then when someone disagrees with you. You get upset or you introduce more numbers and figures that either are unrelated or are silly to compare.
I also ride the DART Light Rail system at least twice a month into Dallas or suburbs of Dallas vs driving. I have no problems mixing with people of lower income. They put their clothes on just like I do.
One of the reasons I use DART light rail on weekends is because the Dallas Freeway system will jam up bad on some Saturdays and Sundays when there are events downtown or when Christmas shopping is at a fever pitch.
No, I do not know what your stated political philosophy is. However you make frequent statements expressing displeasure with subsidized passenger rail, whether intercity, suburban and transit, along with statements that express a preference for a user-fee financial basis, modified somewhat by suggesting that transit agencies should means test it ridership. There is a strong correlation between that and a randian (each for his/her own) ideology which may or may not apply in your case.
You asked for opinions in your original thread post, yet seem to devote your responses to abruptly dismissing and disputing everyone who bothered to respond. Not exactly the way to discuss issues productively.
Your contention originally was that only 5% of the US public uses transit. When the obvious absurdity of that was pointed out, you retreated to the contention that even in urban/metro areas, transit is not favored by many folks who commute. Of course in many metro areas, there have not been any alternatives to auto (or possibly long bus rides) until recently, if even now. Consequently a more useful metric is to look at the experience in metro areas that have a well-developed suburban rail commuter system. I gave the example of Chicago, where "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." I believe by any standard, that is a service that has real value, by several criteria.
MidlandMikeThe "Main Line of Public Works" was built by the State of Pennsylvania in the 1830s as a RR/canal scheme. The RR was sold to PRR in the 1850s.
The Erie Canal opened in 1825. It quickly attracted much of the traffic that had moved overland by ox cart from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. To recover their traffic the State of Pennsylvania built the Main Line of Public Works that you describe. In addition to a railroad and canals it also included a series of inclined planes over the Allegheny Mountains.
I will agree, Sam1, that you did make a statement and asked for discussion. Since then you've worked hard to slam anybody who has commented. You also show a bent of arrogance and superiority over those of lower income levels. Your political and social views are very transparent and apparent. You don't want any government of supply public services except that which benefits you. Well, that sounds like you are an American for sure.
Asking for an opinion is not a pledge to stand mute on the issue.
My political views - I am essentially apolitical - are irrelevant to the discussion.
I have not argued for means testing of public transit per se. However, I believe and suggested that it would be appropriate for commuter rail. Public transit in the United States is a user fee based system. However, the fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of the service and, therefore, must be augmented from general tax funds, i.e. sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
I presume randian is a reference to Ayn Rand. I have never read Atlas Shrugged or any of her books.
According to Table 1-41, National Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, five (5) per cent of the U.S. population used public transportation to commute to work. The percentages have remained fairly constant since 1989, i.e. 4.8 per cent in 1989, 4.9 per cent in 1999, 4.7 per cent in 2005, and 4.9 per cent in 2007. FY09 is the last year for complete statistics.
Work is the major reason people use public transit. It also includes students traveling to and from school, and it includes all modes of public transit, i.e. bus, streetcar, subway, railroad, and elevated trains.
Although the percentages vary from location to location, approximately 90 per cent of all public transit trips are for work. This is especially true on weekdays. In Chicago, for example, approximately 87 per cent of Metra users are traveling to and from work. Thus, if you divide 5 per cent by .9, it gives us 5.6 per cent for the nation as a whole. As is the case with any statistic, peeling back the onion skins can reveal additional information. Moreover, as noted, the percentage of people who use the system in major metropolitan areas is somewhat higher, by in no instance is it the major mover of people.
To claim that the figure, which is generated from a government database, is obviously absurd, without offering any supporting information, is unfounded. It is simply a rant.
henry6 I will agree, Sam1, that you did make a statement and asked for discussion. Since then you've worked hard to slam anybody who has commented. You also show a bent of arrogance and superiority over those of lower income levels. Your political and social views are very transparent and apparent. You don't want any government of supply public services except that which benefits you. Well, that sounds like you are an American for sure.
So if I have a view that is contrary to yours, it is a slam? But if you disagree with me, it is an enlightened view blessed by a higher power. Is that your perspective? The real problem is that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you on a number of issues. Unfortunately, instead of presenting a well constructed, data supported counter view, you attack my perceived social and political views.
If you think the bunch of numbers is unrelated or wrong, why don't you construct a counter argument that is supported by verifiable financial and operational data. What you have offered up are opinions based on your observations. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities. The financial and operating data can be found on DART's webpage. Have a look. That is where I get most of my information regarding DART.
Three or four years ago, I asked DART for a breakdown of ridership numbers for the buses, light rail and TRE. I never thought that they would make them available to me. Boy was I surprised. They e-mailed me an Excel spreadsheet for every bus and rail line with data for every run from the first run in the morning to the last run at night.
As one might imagine, ridership peeks during the morning and evening rush hours. It is relatively light during the pre-morning and after evening rush hours. On the TRE for example, from CentrePoint to downtown Dallas, the rush hour trains had an average load factor of approximately 85 per cent of capacity. However, overall the average load capacity was approximately 33 per cent of capacity. Some of the late night trains, unless there is a special event at the American Airlines Center, operate with an average load of 10 per cent. The figures probably have not changed much. In fact, according to an article in this morning's Dallas News, ridership for the system is down from it peaks.
Load factors can be deceptive. During the morning and evening rush hours a typical TRE train has four cars. However, during the day, as well as the pre-morning and after evening rush hours, a typical TRE train has two or three cars. Thus, by reducing capacity during the day, the TRE shows a higher load factor than otherwise would be the case. By comparison, DART does not change the consist of its light rail trains because they are semi-permanently coupled together. Again, if you think these are a bunch of unrelated statistics, that's up to you. But unless you can offer some validated counter figures, I am sticking with my story.
When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data, i.e. the $7 day pass on DART/TRE/T without mentioning the substantial subsidies riders receive.
The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you haven't delved into them. Your conclusions are based on personal observations, which are not supported by facts. You are wasting your time criticizing my use of data unless you can present properly supported counter data.
If you don't understand the relationship of incomes to neighborhoods to the ability to drive on a toll road to the ability to park close in or the relationship of low income to the need to use public transit, there is nothing that I can say that would convince you that the numbers are drivers of outcomes. Or to be more accurate they are input and outcome indicators. Or that they are not just a bunch of numbers!
Once again you distort others' words, obfuscate with torrents of numbers as though they settled the matter, and attack any and every response. Asking for comments certainly does not mean you can't present your own or even rebut, but when every response is disputed or the respondent is the recipient of dismissive devaluing comments, it begs the question, why do you even ask? But then, you are never wrong.
Samples from just your last post: "opinions based on your observations and experiences. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities." "When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data" "The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you don't understand them." and finally, "Moreover, your reasoning is seriously flawed."
schlimm Once again you distort others' words, obfuscate with torrents of numbers as though they settled the matter, and attack any and every response. Asking for comments certainly does not mean you can't present your own or even rebut, but when every response is disputed or the respondent is the recipient of dismissive devaluing comments, it begs the question, why do you even ask? But then, you are never wrong. Samples from just your last post: "opinions based on your observations and experiences. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities." "When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data" "The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you don't understand them." and finally, "Moreover, your reasoning is seriously flawed."
And your properly supported refutation of the data that I have presented will be forthcoming when? You called the five per cent figure absurd. I have given you a source for reference. Apparently you have chosen not to consult it.
Offering up a $7 day pass as an advantage of using public transit in the Metroplex is not all of the story. As noted, the subsidies are more than $11. How is that not selecting data, i.e. not giving the complete picture. It is like Amtrak's claim that it recovers 75 to 85 per cent of its operating costs through its revenue stream, whilst ignoring the heavy depreciation charges. Which have put it seriously in the hole to the tune of approximately $1.3 billion per year!
"I gave the example of Chicago, where "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors." Yes you did! Unfortunately, it is somewhat misleading, and I have misquoted it in part. Metra says that it carries 50 per cent of the traffic along its parallel expressways that is going downtown on weekdays. The number is meaningless. What percentage of the total service area commuters does it carry would be a more realistic number of its market penetration.
As I said before, you are always right. My quote is directly from Metra. It says exactly what it says. Metra carries a passenger load about 1/2 of that the major expressways do. Is that hard to understand. The reason that figure is significant is because most people who commute from the suburbs to downtown do so via the expressways, Metra or suburban Pace buses. Most metra commuters ride from a suburb to downtown, not to an intermediate point. The suggestion that anything more than a tiny fraction ride bicycles or walk [sic!] to make that journey is beyond comment.
schlimm As I said before, you are always right. My quote is directly from Metra. It says exactly what it says. Metra carries a passenger load about 1/2 of that the major expressways do. Is that hard to understand. The reason that figure is significant is because most people who commute from the suburbs to downtown do so via the expressways, Metra or suburban Pace buses. Most metra commuters ride from a suburb to downtown, not to an intermediate point. The suggestion that anything more than a tiny fraction ride bicycles or walk [sic!] to make that journey is beyond comment.
Speaking of cherry picking the numbers, you chose to focus on Metra and have ignored CTA. Metra is only part of the public transit picture for the Chicago area.
If you think that I am always right, how come you keep pushing back. Or do you mean to say that I think that I am always right when in fact I am wrong.
Metra does say that its load factors are equal to half of those of the major expressways. What does that mean? Does it mean that a passenger on the train is equal to a car or does it mean that a passenger on the train is equal to the average number of passengers in a car. There is a significant difference according to the national statistics.
Nationally 86.1 per cent of commuters drive to work and school. Ten per cent ride in a car pool (7.8 in a two person car pool, 1.3 per cent in a three person car pool, and .9 per cent in the four or more person car pool).
Metra would have to have performed some sophisticated studies to determine the number of people on the expressways who are commuting vs. those who are traveling for other purposes. Again, the number could be somewhat different for Chicago and its environs, but it probably is not a significant outlier.
"That is different than saying that 50 per cent of the people who commute into downtown Chicago ride Metra or public transit or other modes of transport, including walking, riding a bicycle, etc." As you can see, I did not say that anything more than a tiny fraction ride bicycles or walk. I just pointed out that these methods could be an option for those who are not on Metra. They are nationwide.
Nation wide 4.5 per cent of commuters walk, ride a bicycle or motorcycle, or use other means to commute to work. In the Chicago area, I suspect not many people opt for a bicycle or motorcycle during the winter months, just as not many people choose to walk or ride a bicycle in Dallas during the summer months.
So rather than looking up the figures you just say that it is beyond comment. How does that add to the conversation, which mercifully is at an end from my perspective.
Your point? I was talking about suburban commuters. CTA provides mass transit almost exclusively within the city of Chicago. The CTA carries some suburban riders, but only from Evanson and Wilmette (most take the parallel Metra line), Skokie and some who park at the Cumberland stop near O'hare on the Blue line. But you again miss or choose to ignore the point, which is very simple. Metra carries many commuters from the suburbs to downtown, about 50% as many as the expressways do. That is a lot and it takes a great load off those expressways or reduces the very expensive/impossible need to build more lanes.
Your metric of 4.5 or 5% is absurd because it is almost meaningless. Why? The total of commuters includes folks who live very close to their workplace or where there is no readily accessible transit, if any at all A friend down in Urbana (UIUC) walked to work daily, about four miles round trip for many years. Why? He chose to because it was close and good exercise. Where I reside I can drive the five miles to my clinic or walk or bicycle (which I do often in milder weather). There is no transit option. If there were, I would use it. When I still taught, I drove the 106 mile round trip because there was no transit option. If there had been, I would have used it. For many people, there is no transit option, even in the Chicago area. You cite your number as though it were evidence that few people would choose transit, "the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice" when it proves no such thing. To prove that you would have to compare the number of commuters in an area where a viable transit option exists with the number who use it to commute. that would be very hard to do. I chose the Metra figures because they give a rough estimate of users who have a choice and roughly 1/3 choose Metra, probably much more since many on the expressway are not going to downtown Chicago.
schlimm Your point? I was talking about suburban commuters. CTA provides mass transit almost exclusively within the city of Chicago. The CTA carries some suburban riders, but only from Evanson and Wilmette (most take the parallel Metra line), Skokie and some who park at the Cumberland stop near O'hare on the Blue line. But you again miss or choose to ignore the point, which is very simple. Metra carries many commuters from the suburbs to downtown, about 50% as many as the expressways do. That is a lot and it takes a great load off those expressways or reduces the very expensive/impossible need to build more lanes. Your metric of 4.5 or 5% is absurd because it is almost meaningless. Why? The total of commuters includes folks who live very close to their workplace or where there is no readily accessible transit, if any at all A friend down in Urbana (UIUC) walked to work daily, about four miles round trip for many years. Why? He chose to because it was close and good exercise. Where I reside I can drive the five miles to my clinic or walk or bicycle (which I do often in milder weather). There is no transit option. If there were, I would use it. When I still taught, I drove the 106 mile round trip because there was no transit option. If there had been, I would have used it. For many people, there is no transit option, even in the Chicago area. You cite your number as though it were evidence that few people would choose transit, "the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice" when it proves no such thing. To prove that you would have to compare the number of commuters in an area where a viable transit option exists with the number who use it to commute. that would be very hard to do. I chose the Metra figures because they give a rough estimate of users who have a choice and roughly 1/3 choose Metra, probably much more since many on the expressway are not going to downtown Chicago.
But the topic is public transit. Not just suburban commuter trains. When I quote DART numbers, I include the whole ball of wax. The national figures cover all modes of transport. That is important if one want to get a total picture.
Actually, the percentage of folks who opt for public transit is not my figure. It is published by the U.S. DOT, which you have chosen to ignore. I said that the figure is a strong indicator that most people have not chosen public transit. And it tells me that most people in the U.S., outside of selected metro areas, will not use it.
I misspoke about the per Metra's ridership, and I have corrected the previous postings. Metra claims that its load factor is equal to approximately 50 per cent of the load factor on the expressways that parallel its lines in its service area to downtown Chicago. As noted in a previous post, exactly what that means is difficult to say.
One could say that the DART Red Line, which runs from downtown Dallas to Plano carries 50 per cent of the traffic on Central Expressway, which is an express way that parallels its red line. But that would overlook the traffic on Hillcrest, Preston Road, Midway Road, Greenville Avenue, etc., all of which parallel Central Expressway and the rail line.
As I have noted, people in urban areas make greater use of transit than people in smaller cities, towns, village, and rural areas. Equally important, I have provided figures from the American Public Transportation Association. You have chosen to ignore them; instead giving us your personal experience that is irrelevant.
Clearly, part of using public transit is convenience. But even in Dallas, which has the best developed public transit system in the southwest, even a significant majority of people who live close to a bus or rail line do not use it. One can see this is the demographics and the use data.
A commute of 106 miles a car must have been tiring. Well, not to worry. We Texans appreciate that kind of long distance commuting. Must have burned up a lot of our oil in the process. Or did you specify that it come only from overseas? If you really believed in public transit, you would have moved closer to a transit line. I did! I rode the Numbers 36 and 184 buses in Dallas for more than 30 years.
Absurd, meaningless, .......This terms are not necessary and don't add to the conversation. If you disagree you can say so without using inflammatory words.
Sam1 If you think the bunch of numbers is unrelated or wrong, why don't you construct a counter argument that is supported by verifiable financial and operational data. What you have offered up are opinions based on your observations. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities. The financial and operating data can be found on DART's webpage. Have a look. That is where I get most of my information regarding DART. Three or four years ago, I asked DART for a breakdown of ridership numbers for the buses, light rail and TRE. I never thought that they would make them available to me. Boy was I surprised. They e-mailed me an Excel spreadsheet for every bus and rail line with data for every run from the first run in the morning to the last run at night. As one might imagine, ridership peeks during the morning and evening rush hours. It is relatively light during the pre-morning and after evening rush hours. On the TRE for example, from CentrePoint to downtown Dallas, the rush hour trains had an average load factor of approximately 85 per cent of capacity. However, overall the average load capacity was approximately 33 per cent of capacity. Some of the late night trains, unless there is a special event at the American Airlines Center, operate with an average load of 10 per cent. The figures probably have not changed much. In fact, according to an article in this morning's Dallas News, ridership for the system is down from it peaks. Load factors can be deceptive. During the morning and evening rush hours a typical TRE train has four cars. However, during the day, as well as the pre-morning and after evening rush hours, a typical TRE train has two or three cars. Thus, by reducing capacity during the day, the TRE shows a higher load factor than otherwise would be the case. By comparison, DART does not change the consist of its light rail trains because they are semi-permanently coupled together. Again, if you think these are a bunch of unrelated statistics, that's up to you. But unless you can offer some validated counter figures, I am sticking with my story. When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data, i.e. the $7 day pass on DART/TRE/T without mentioning the substantial subsidies riders receive. The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you haven't delved into them. Your conclusions are based on personal observations, which are not supported by facts. You are wasting your time criticizing my use of data unless you can present properly supported counter data. If you don't understand the relationship of incomes to neighborhoods to the ability to drive on a toll road to the ability to park close in or the relationship of low income to the need to use public transit, there is nothing that I can say that would convince you that the numbers are drivers of outcomes. Or to be more accurate they are input and outcome indicators. Or that they are not just a bunch of numbers!
So again, how does any of that refute the point DART light rail is a well patronized system. If I look at freeway traffic into and out of Dallas I can see the same traffic trends. Should we then abandon the freeway system since it is congested during rush hours into and out of work but only lightly used at late night? Oh my gosh how inefficient our freeway system is? Seriously, the same holds true for some airlines in regards to traffic trends.
So here is my point that your reinforcing again. Your stats really do not support your argumentative position. I can look at the DART stats but they would tell me a far different story then what your outlining here in this forum.
CMStPnP Sam1 If you think the bunch of numbers is unrelated or wrong, why don't you construct a counter argument that is supported by verifiable financial and operational data. What you have offered up are opinions based on your observations. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities. The financial and operating data can be found on DART's webpage. Have a look. That is where I get most of my information regarding DART. Three or four years ago, I asked DART for a breakdown of ridership numbers for the buses, light rail and TRE. I never thought that they would make them available to me. Boy was I surprised. They e-mailed me an Excel spreadsheet for every bus and rail line with data for every run from the first run in the morning to the last run at night. As one might imagine, ridership peeks during the morning and evening rush hours. It is relatively light during the pre-morning and after evening rush hours. On the TRE for example, from CentrePoint to downtown Dallas, the rush hour trains had an average load factor of approximately 85 per cent of capacity. However, overall the average load capacity was approximately 33 per cent of capacity. Some of the late night trains, unless there is a special event at the American Airlines Center, operate with an average load of 10 per cent. The figures probably have not changed much. In fact, according to an article in this morning's Dallas News, ridership for the system is down from it peaks. Load factors can be deceptive. During the morning and evening rush hours a typical TRE train has four cars. However, during the day, as well as the pre-morning and after evening rush hours, a typical TRE train has two or three cars. Thus, by reducing capacity during the day, the TRE shows a higher load factor than otherwise would be the case. By comparison, DART does not change the consist of its light rail trains because they are semi-permanently coupled together. Again, if you think these are a bunch of unrelated statistics, that's up to you. But unless you can offer some validated counter figures, I am sticking with my story. When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data, i.e. the $7 day pass on DART/TRE/T without mentioning the substantial subsidies riders receive. The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you haven't delved into them. Your conclusions are based on personal observations, which are not supported by facts. You are wasting your time criticizing my use of data unless you can present properly supported counter data. If you don't understand the relationship of incomes to neighborhoods to the ability to drive on a toll road to the ability to park close in or the relationship of low income to the need to use public transit, there is nothing that I can say that would convince you that the numbers are drivers of outcomes. Or to be more accurate they are input and outcome indicators. Or that they are not just a bunch of numbers! So again, how does any of that refute the point DART light rail is a well patronized system. If I look at freeway traffic into and out of Dallas I can see the same traffic trends. Should we then abandon the freeway system since it is congested during rush hours into and out of work but only lightly used at late night? Oh my gosh how inefficient our freeway system is? Seriously, the same holds true for some airlines in regards to traffic trends. So here is my point that your reinforcing again. Your stats really do not support your argumentative position. I can look at the DART stats but they would tell me a far different story then what your outlining here in this forum.
Look them up! Then use them to tell me why my interpretations of DART's data, as well as the other data basis that I reference, are wrong.
Once again, sam1 misses the point. Since intelligence and skill with figures is not an issue, the motivation is the cause. No one said transit is solely suburban rail. I simply gave Metra as an example of how popular transit can be on a large scale when the service is available. If you do not understand or choose to ignore why the 5% statistic is inappropriate (I will use that term, rather than absurd), no matter the source, for the explicit and clear reasons given, then that is your choice. I am not about to explain it again. Re-read what i stated and reason it out for yourself. My anecdotes were simply a way of illustrating the reasoning behind why your stat is inappropriate. Again, if you do not understand that concept, perhaps someone else can explain it for you.
Sam1 So if I have a view that is contrary to yours, it is a slam? But if you disagree with me, it is an enlightened view blessed by a higher power. Is that your perspective? The real problem is that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you on a number of issues. Unfortunately, instead of presenting a well constructed, data supported counter view, you attack my perceived social and political views.
The point is that everyone has an opinion off center to you and you have "slammed" everybody who has responded...like you set us all up so you could take shots at us. Even when we agree with a point or whatever, you seem to want to turn it into a "slam" of some kind.
Ok, so five (5) per cent is a national figure. It is a starting point that tells us that pubic transit is not widely used in the United States.
So how about 8.5 to 12 per cent of the people in the Chicago area as public transit users as per the APTA. Or 4.8 to 6.4 per cent of the folks in the Dallas light rail service areas. Are these reasonable indicators of people's interest in and use of public transit?
I worked on the DART referendum effort. My big, really big, corporate employer assigned me to the team that got it done. Out of the effort came DART and its light rail program, amongst things. I rode the bus to work practically every day of my working life in Dallas. So where is the motivation issue?
My main point is that relatively few Americans opt for public transit when they have choices, although they do so in varying degrees depending upon where they live.
Sam1My main point is that relatively few Americans opt for public transit when they have choices, although they do so in varying degrees depending upon where they live.
That point is not supported for the logical reasons I have made abundantly clear, probably to all but you. Why no longer matters. henry6 has speculated as to the tone of your responses. Having the final word seems important to you so, as far as I'm concerned, you've got it. Of all the responses, about 55 disagreed with your thesis. The rest were your attempts to rebut those responses.
Likewise I have seen no stats that you have presented so far that backs up that point. You don't seem to think beyond a very narrow range of statistics. How many people are in the Dallas Light Rail system service area? How many of those people are traveling downtown to work or work in the suburb they live? How many cars is DART light rail taking off the road? How is DART light rail increasing mobility?
As I mentioned before.....
1. Freeway more ubiquitous and easier to acccess than mass transit
2. Freeway usually free and does not require a search for a parking place to use.
3. Freeway in many cases of non-rush hour travel via POV is more direct and faster than mass transit with it's many stops.
Make Mass Transit free, Make Mass Transit easy to use from your garage, make sure there is plenty of parking at the mass transit station.....and watch the usage of mass transit increase.
Then of course there is this, which completely blows away your ridership stats on DART light rail:
http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/expect-gargantuan-jump-in-dart-light-rail-figures.html/
CMStPnP Sam1My main point is that relatively few Americans opt for public transit when they have choices, although they do so in varying degrees depending upon where they live. Likewise I have seen no stats that you have presented so far that backs up that point. You don't seem to think beyond a very narrow range of statistics. How many people are in the Dallas Light Rail system service area? How many of those people are traveling downtown to work or work in the suburb they live? How many cars is DART light rail taking off the road? How is DART light rail increasing mobility? As I mentioned before..... 1. Freeway more ubiquitous and easier to acccess than mass transit 2. Freeway usually free and does not require a search for a parking place to use. 3. Freeway in many cases of non-rush hour travel via POV is more direct and faster than mass transit with it's many stops. Make Mass Transit free, Make Mass Transit easy to use from your garage, make sure there is plenty of parking at the mass transit station.....and watch the usage of mass transit increase. Then of course there is this, which completely blows away your ridership stats on DART light rail: http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/expect-gargantuan-jump-in-dart-light-rail-figures.html/
Statistics are a starting point. In a previous posting I noted the number of people in the service area by community, i.e. Dallas, University Park, Highland Park, Collin County, etc. I showed their income levels. And I calculated the percentage of actual riders based on the potential riders for the service area. My numbers come from authoritative sources, i.e. DART, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. DOT, TXDOT, etc.
One can draw legitimately different conclusions from the data. But without it all one has are opinions based on limited observations. Very limited!
People don't have to be going downtown to be potential riders. In addition to the light rail lines, DART has approximately 20 to 30 cross town routes - some go all the way across town (county) whilst others just go part way, as per the DART System Service Map.
You have referenced an October posting on a transportation blog that quotes an increase in August 2012 numbers due to a change in counting methodology. One month of ridership numbers is not indicative of a trend. Most people look at the numbers for a year and then do year over year comparisons.
This morning the Dallas Morning News reported that ridership on the light rail lines is down significantly from 2007 and is flat for this year, even after the opening of the new lines and/or line extensions. But I will wait until DART publishes the 2012 figures, which are audited as part of the financial audit processes.
DART's light rail, as well as the TRE, has taken relatively few cars off the road. Many riders drive to a park and ride lot to catch the train. The Red Line north, as an example, has large parking lots - parking is free - at most of the stations beginning at Mockingbird Lane Station and continuing to Parker Road. Thus, to be accurate, one can say that DART has reduced the distance that the cars on on the road, but they have taken very few cars completely off the road.
Approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the people commuting into the CBD come by DART. Of those traveling on DART's hosted facilities, as DART's numbers show, the HOV lanes host the greatest number of passenger trips.
To dismiss an argument by saying that a presenter doesn't think beyond a very narrow range of statistics is not a valid argument, especially given the fact that you have offered no counter statistics other than to cite a blog report regarding one month of statistics that have not been independently verified. And since it is taken out of context, it adds no insight into the percentage of the population that uses public transit, which was one of the opening questions of this thread.
Anyone who has read my postings carefully knows that my knowledge of DART extends beyond the statistics. I worked on the DART referendum campaign, was part of the citizens advisory committee during DART's formative years, and rode public transit downtown practically ever day for more than 33 years.
Make mass transit free, make mass transit easy to use from your garage. Austin and Portland, Oregon tried free transit for a short period. The results were disastrous. You just lost me.
schlimm Sam1My main point is that relatively few Americans opt for public transit when they have choices, although they do so in varying degrees depending upon where they live. That point is not supported for the logical reasons I have made abundantly clear, probably to all but you. Why no longer matters.
That point is not supported for the logical reasons I have made abundantly clear, probably to all but you. Why no longer matters.
This thread has been viewed 1,905 times and generated 98 responses. It must have taken a significant amount of time to systematically survey even a valid statistical sample of observers and respondents to determine that everyone gets it except me.
Parking is NOT free at the DART light rail stations, you have to pay at Parker Road and all the way to LBJ if your not in the DART Light Rail service area and you use the service. Furthermore, Parker Road parking lot is typically full of cars before the morning commute rush hour has even completed. Again you do not mention these items. So my question to you is, where do I park my car for the day if I want to use a Red Line train into downtown? Lets say I live in the Service area and I can park free given that I went to the trouble of obtaining a parking pass.............again, where do I park my car for a day if I wish to use a Red Line train into downtown. That right there limits ridership, you present it as free choice. How is it my free choice NOT to use DART light rail if I can't park anywhere within a mile or two of the rail station?
Where is this information above reflected in the stats you quoted? See my point? You can't have tunnel vision on the stats nor can you say seriously they are a good place to start.
You know I had a similar argument with someone in Milwaukee that was trying to tell me that the Amtrak Mitchell field station was a intermodal station. My response was it was not fully intermodal until it was manned and accepted checked baggage. I cannot detrain at Milwaukee Mitchell Field from any train which has my bags checked in Chicago as there is nobody at that station to unload the baggage car...............yet Amtrak is reporting stats as if it is a fully intermodal station. Is that statistically correct? I don't think so.
Oh and one more item, DART light rail ridership has dropped also for the reason that Dallas employment market still has not fully recovered. Granted some of that spike in ridership was due to the shock of higher gas prices and once that shock subsided some returned to their cars BUT another part of it is that we still have a high unemployment rate in downtown Dallas. I would presume the same is true for Chicago but I have not checked. So this is another shortcomming of just looking at a few narrow stats and saying you have the causation based conclusion.
The 5% transit use national figure tells us it's a small portion of the total, but unless there is a reasonable transit option for every possible trip, it infers nothing about choice. To qualify choice you would need to study lanes where there are options. One poster cited a Chicago statistic where commuter rail gets about 50% of travel compared to parallel freeways. While it was pointed out there is some fuzziness to the stat, it shows a case of approximate parity between the two modes where they go head to head.
In interests of facts, I should point out that the 10 routes parallel to the Metra lines include three toll interstates continuing outside Chicago, i.e. a combination of expressway and toll. All the routes are plagued with delays during the rush hours.
A group called the Mother Nature Network. has posted a map on FB which shows NJ has the largest population percentage reliant on public transportation. So, that show that some of my observations are jaded to the same extent all others are. But proves there is a need for public transportation and that not all users of public transportation, by far not all users of public transportation, are low income or losers. In reflection, NJ railroads have reflected that with the NY&LB-PRR's The Broker to Bay Head and the DL&W's various Bankers Express's: Hunterdon HIlls, Madison and Morristown along with the drumheaded Lakeland Express. Bar cars on the NYC, NH, LIRR, and PRR also would indicate a martini or bourbon exceeded the value of a beer at that time.
henry6 Bar cars on the NYC, NH, LIRR, and PRR also would indicate a martini or bourbon exceeded the value of a beer at that time.
No doubt you remember this better than I do. The Erie ran bar cars on its trains. Conrail ran bar cars on those same trains. NJT stopped them because they were losing money; only the government could loose money selling liquor by the drink.
But you could (and as far as I know still can) buy beer, wine or liquor at Hoboken Terminal and drink it on the train. The train remains the only civilized way to travel.
By the seventies bar cars were a board placed across two seats and a bucket of ice. Back when, there was an actual kitchen or bar set up and a steward to serve even at the seat.
John WR No doubt you remember this better than I do. The Erie ran bar cars on its trains. Conrail ran bar cars on those same trains. NJT stopped them because they were losing money; only the government could loose money selling liquor by the drink.
Considering that dining-car service was historically a red-ink item (back to at least the 1920's), it's not surprising that bar service on suburban trains was also a money-loser.
It was a money loser to an extent...it served as a valuable PR and advertising tool aimed at stockbrokers, bankers, and big company officers. The real end was when the railroads left the long distance passenger buisness and no longer had commissaries and rosters to cover the jobs.
A problem overlooked by both proponents and opponents is how many people want to take public transit but cannot because of lack of parking at stations. Phoeebe has often told us that the southernmost station in Charlotte is always full on business days. Southern California has I believe at least 5 parking lot expansions ( some one there know ? ). Here is an example in NJ of people not being able to get a place after 7 am for buses.
http://www.app.com/article/20130106/NJNEWS/301050095/Parkway-exit-109-Park-Ride-lot-has-no-place-commuters-grow?nclick_check=1
schlimm Your contention originally was that only 5% of the US public uses transit. When the obvious absurdity of that was pointed out, you retreated to the contention that even in urban/metro areas, transit is not favored by many folks who commute. Of course in many metro areas, there have not been any alternatives to auto (or possibly long bus rides) until recently, if even now. Consequently a more useful metric is to look at the experience in metro areas that have a well-developed suburban rail commuter system. I gave the example of Chicago, where "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." I believe by any standard, that is a service that has real value, by several criteria.
Go to many far out railroad stations after 8AM and try to find a parking space...Southeast, NY on MNRR's Harlem line, or Middletown, NY; Dover, NJ on NJT;s Morristown LIne; Hamilton, NJ on the Corridor Landsdale and Doysletown on SEPTA, Babylon, Patchogue, and Huntington on the LRR. You won't find a parking space. But you won't find a parking space inside Manhattan either...at least not as cheap as a ticket on the train even if you have to pay for parking at the station.
Even with considerable expansion and a daily fee of $1.50, our local Metra station's parking lots are almost full. Ditto with the other stations' lots inbound.
henry6Go to many far out railroad stations after 8AM and try to find a parking space.
Sometimes I wonder if New Jersey is going to wind up with a solid strip of parking lots between Trenton and the North River Tunnels. Trenton Transit Center is next to two parking garages and other lots. Hamilton Station was built to handle overflow parking from Princeton Junction. Princeton Junction itself is a constellation of parking lots and it takes years to get a permit there. There is a hugh parking lot at Jersey Avenue and now, as another thread describes, a new station and parking lot will be built between them. There are parking garages at New Brunswick and every station closer in has parking facilities. And of course there is Metro Park, a group of parking garages off of the Garden State Parkway. There is a proposal to make available the parking lot at Newark Airport to rail commuters too. And there still is not enough parking.
But as you know there has just been a sharp increase in the tolls at all the bridges and tunnels.
John WR henry6Go to many far out railroad stations after 8AM and try to find a parking space. Sometimes I wonder if New Jersey is going to wind up with a solid strip of parking lots between Trenton and the North River Tunnels.
Sometimes I wonder if New Jersey is going to wind up with a solid strip of parking lots between Trenton and the North River Tunnels.
But John we have been told that people don't want to travel by public transport. How can all the parking lots be full and many lots with waiting lists ?
seriously --- will the demand outrun the supply ? The limitations of the north river tunnels may constrain traffic.
uestion for some one in the know. are the NJT trains running at max # of revenue cars ? That question is not post "SANDY " but before the loss of much equipment.
blue streak 1 But John we have been told that people don't want to travel by public transport. How can all the parking lots be full and many lots with waiting lists ? seriously --- will the demand outrun the supply ? The limitations of the north river tunnels may constrain traffic. uestion for some one in the know. are the NJT trains running at max # of revenue cars ? That question is not post "SANDY " but before the loss of much equipment.
Streak,
All I can say in answer to your first question is that New Jersey's people must not have gotten the message about all of the wonderful freedom that automobiles bring. People might get into their cars and drive off in many directions to find work where they would have free parking and uncrowded roads. In fact a great many drive to the train station and wait for the train. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a lot of the jobs you can drive to are limited to flipping hamburgers or similar skills.
Right now the limits of the North River Tunnels have been reached and no more trains can get through them. Signal improvements have increased the number of trains that can use the tunnels but they have been made. NJT runs specially designed double decker cars that can fit the relatively low tunnels but no further improvement there is possible. And yes, NJT does run the maximum number of revenue cars. On a commuter train all cars are revenue cars. The only way to increase the number of trains is to build new tunnels.
Regrettably, our Governor Chris Christie cancelled NJT's own tunnels. However, Amtrak intends to build new tunnels of its own but their project is still in the planning stages.
John
I have always held that the large parking lots at many transit stations are an admission of failure on the part of the transit system. They became a necessary evil because of the inadequacy of the feeder networks. And of course, since now most drive to the station, the feeder networks don't get enough ridership to justify improvement. A classic "chicken & egg" situation.
cx500I have always held that the large parking lots at many transit stations are an admission of failure on the part of the transit system.
One area where New Jersey Transit seems to lack an understanding of the importance of connectivity is with its bus routes. My own experience is that many of them go close to rail stations but not close enough to connect to those stations. The bus routes that do connect were in existence before NJT took over our transit system.
One example is Hamilton Station in Mercer County. When it was built NJT promised it would be a transportation hub. Yet there are bus routes that get close to it but not close enough. When I lived there I read letters to the editor in The Times (of Trenton) by people who lived along a bus route and wanted to ride a bus to the station but when they tried they found it was impossible.
blue streak 1But John we have been told that people don't want to travel by public transport. How can all the parking lots be full and many lots with waiting lists ?
Ah yes. But Blue Streak1, who should we believe? Our little anecdotes, someone's lyin' eyes or the highway lobby?
Four ridewithmehenry trippers surveyed parking lots and train usage yesterday (Wed 1/9/13) beginning at NJT's Lake Hopatcong Station at 7:50AM returning there at 6:59PM. LH is a little out of the way and NJT's dealing with Sandy and modified schedules are showing with the parking lot at LH being very lightly used with about maybe 20 cars...this was the fourth and final eastbound train of the day and about a dozen people boarded the train that began 20 minutes earlier in Hackettstown and had about 50 or so people aboard...half of whom changed at Dover to the Mid Town Direct train. Mt. Arlington Station parking lot was about 80% full, less than has been seen in the past. However, from Dover and east, with more frequent services all day, the lots were full and the train crew was complaining that even with 9 cars there was standing room only by the time they were to Summit with two stops yet to make before sprinting to Newark.. All parking lots were seen to be pretty full with few spots left. Station platforms were jammed with people. The 9 Comet cars were full with 125 people as opposed the 135 they could be hauling with the super duper, panacea for solving crowding conditions bi level cars. (Duper, in super duper, refers to the public and state officials being "duped" into buying these cars instead of electric MU's or standard cars which crews don't have to walk up and down stairs 20 times or more per run which is dangerous and tiring, but that's another story.) Over on MNRR the mid day train (11:48AM) of GCT for Southeast was about 90% full. The ride was not comfortable but was fast when not in work zones. Express to White Plains then all stops to Southeast. All parking lots full or more (yeah, more, with cars parked on the shoulders of the drive paths into the lots). Southeast is 53 miles out of GCT and its parking lot is overpouring cars. We change to the three car scoot from there to Wassaic at 82 miles from GCT. Train did have two of the three cars well occupied and all parking lots a good 80-90% full at the half dozen or so stations between terminal points. The return trains like wise filled rapidly and totally crowded the platform at GCT at 4:24PM. The NJT train to Dover leaving NYP was totally full and on time. About 30 crossed the platform at Dover to join about 100 passengers on train 1055 to Hackettstown with a large number getting off at Mt. Arlington and about a dozen at LH.
So: anecdotal observation: people ride trains when service is offered when reasonable prices and good convenient schedules and adequate parking are offered.
schlimm [Ah yes. But Blue Streak1, who should we believe? Our little anecdotes, someone's lyin' eyes or the highway lobby?
[Ah yes. But Blue Streak1, who should we believe? Our little anecdotes, someone's lyin' eyes or the highway lobby?
CSSHEGEWISCHConsidering that dining-car service was historically a red-ink item (back to at least the 1920's), it's not surprising that bar service on suburban trains was also a money-loser.
I think it is surprising. A dining car is a white table cloth restaurant. There was silver and china with the railroad insignia. The New Haven couldn't even pay its fuel bill but its best trains had a proper dining car. And yes, no doubt it was expensive to run.
But New Jersey Transit's bar car was a stand that took up the space of two or three seats in the middle of the car with a bar man to serve you. In the morning there was coffee and rolls. In the evening there was liquor by the drink and some kind of snack food. If I had been operating it I bet I could have made a nice profit. But NJT couldn't manage it effectively.
But NJT does a lot of things very well and running its trains is one of them. In the morning I had a catering truck and in the evening at Hoboken Terminal there is a shop that sells beer, wine, whisky and gives you a set up. The rest I can handle myself as long as there is a train to ride.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.