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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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..
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ...
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.
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.
...
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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" in Chicagoland, either!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.