cordon wrote:You may read more about GE's hybrid locomotive here. Sounds promising.
You may read more about GE's hybrid locomotive here. Sounds promising.
I've seen that webpage and ran across the page for hybrid tugboats (idea makes sense). One funny note is that the first production diesel electric hybrids were the post V-boat US Navy subs.
From what I gather, the GE hybrid freight locomotive will be using sodium sulfur batteries, which have the advantage of good energy density (not much less than Li-ion) and are made from readily available materials (both sodium and sulfur are much easier to find than the lithium and cobalt used in Li-ion - and much cheaper as well), but the disadvantage of a lower power density than Li-ion.
I would expect that hybrid commuter locomotives would use some sort of Li battery for the higher power density, by the time a NaS battery was large enough to have a useful power output, it would be large enough to run for at least two hours on battery alone.
The cities in North Carolina are healthy and growing because NC has a great law.
When contiguous area outside the city reach a certain population density, the city can just annex them. They do not need the consent of the people being annexed.
When my house was built in 1978 it was 5 miles outside of the city. It is now several miles INSIDE the city.
That law means that we don't have the poor people living in the city and the middle class and upper class living in the suburbs. Interestingly enough, as the mass transit is being improved, more and more of the upper middle class are moving to city center. With the new trend toward mixed tall use buildings, more and more people are taking the elevator to work.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Samantha wrote: cordon wrote: I don't believe that rail, either light or heavy, is the answer, either. What I believe is that a mix of mass transportation is better than an all-automobile approach, and that people living nearer to work and school is better than people living far from work and school (large schools mean a higher proportion of students use school buses because more students live outside the walking distance).The trends in my lifetime have been suburban sprawl, multiple workers in each household, shopping centers located where the people and businesses are not, tax strategies that drive both residents and businesses out of cities, ever larger schools, and increased use of automobiles with no passengers. I believe that we should work to reverse all these trends. Mass transportation is just a part of it.Many users of mass transportation don't own a car. I believe that many of them would have to get a car or join a carpool if the mass transportation they use were not available. I think it's certain that some of them would move to using cars. Following WW II the majority of middle class people fled the cities for a better environment. Like most things in life, doing so created it own set of problems, but most people I know prefer these problems to the ones associated with living in crowded cities.Some people, primarily young people and empty nesters, will continue moving into high density environments, which are better suited for public transit, especially rail based public transit. But most people will stay in the suburbs. Or even move further away from the big cities.Most people will continue to rely on personal vehicles for commuting, running errands, getting to entertainment venues, and for family vacations. What will change, probably dramatically; will be the size, shape, and power plants of the vehicles. Ten or fifteen years from now, if not sooner, most vehicles will be hybrids, all electrics, or powered by alternative fuels. Rail advocacy folks seem to miss this point. They seem to think that automotive technology will stand still; that it will continue to be powered as it is now, and people will continue to opt for large SUVs and pick-ups. I don't think so.I'll bet a large number of the people who participate in this forum live in the suburbs. And I'll bet they will be there 10 years from now.
cordon wrote: I don't believe that rail, either light or heavy, is the answer, either. What I believe is that a mix of mass transportation is better than an all-automobile approach, and that people living nearer to work and school is better than people living far from work and school (large schools mean a higher proportion of students use school buses because more students live outside the walking distance).The trends in my lifetime have been suburban sprawl, multiple workers in each household, shopping centers located where the people and businesses are not, tax strategies that drive both residents and businesses out of cities, ever larger schools, and increased use of automobiles with no passengers. I believe that we should work to reverse all these trends. Mass transportation is just a part of it.Many users of mass transportation don't own a car. I believe that many of them would have to get a car or join a carpool if the mass transportation they use were not available. I think it's certain that some of them would move to using cars.
I don't believe that rail, either light or heavy, is the answer, either. What I believe is that a mix of mass transportation is better than an all-automobile approach, and that people living nearer to work and school is better than people living far from work and school (large schools mean a higher proportion of students use school buses because more students live outside the walking distance).
The trends in my lifetime have been suburban sprawl, multiple workers in each household, shopping centers located where the people and businesses are not, tax strategies that drive both residents and businesses out of cities, ever larger schools, and increased use of automobiles with no passengers.
I believe that we should work to reverse all these trends. Mass transportation is just a part of it.
Many users of mass transportation don't own a car. I believe that many of them would have to get a car or join a carpool if the mass transportation they use were not available. I think it's certain that some of them would move to using cars.
Following WW II the majority of middle class people fled the cities for a better environment. Like most things in life, doing so created it own set of problems, but most people I know prefer these problems to the ones associated with living in crowded cities.
Some people, primarily young people and empty nesters, will continue moving into high density environments, which are better suited for public transit, especially rail based public transit. But most people will stay in the suburbs. Or even move further away from the big cities.
Most people will continue to rely on personal vehicles for commuting, running errands, getting to entertainment venues, and for family vacations. What will change, probably dramatically; will be the size, shape, and power plants of the vehicles. Ten or fifteen years from now, if not sooner, most vehicles will be hybrids, all electrics, or powered by alternative fuels.
Rail advocacy folks seem to miss this point. They seem to think that automotive technology will stand still; that it will continue to be powered as it is now, and people will continue to opt for large SUVs and pick-ups. I don't think so.
I'll bet a large number of the people who participate in this forum live in the suburbs. And I'll bet they will be there 10 years from now.
You are absolutely correct about moving to the suburbs. The air is cleaner, there is less crime, the schools are better, etc. My wish is that we (meaning our govts, with our consent) should work to reverse those trends. Is there something inherent in the "city" that forces them to have undesirable characteristics? Or is it possible to have a city with clean air, good schools, low crime, good public transportation, etc.? Would it be a "subsidy" to spend billions to evolve cities in those directions so that people would want to, and be able to afford to, live closer and use public transportation?
In some cases the govts did exactly the opposite. I lived near Boston in the 40s - 60s when "urban renewal" struck. The govt forced residents to leave the ethnic neighborhoods, many of which were somewhat self-contained (i.e., there were many jobs right there), and built office buildings.
In some cities the govt increases property taxes even when there is no improvement to the property and when the owner does not change the use. I'm talking about changes way out of proportion to inflation and increases in the cost of living. This makes it impossible for some people to continue to live in, or run a small business in, some city neighborhoods. The city simply drives them out with taxes. Would not doing that be a subsidy leading to a bad decision?
I am a proponent of decisions (I hope good ones) leading to the careful use of subsidies and other incentives to achieve the goals we set as desirable.
I think we, as a society, often have a problem in agreeing on what's desirable, especially where long-term effects are involved. If we can get over that hurdle, I don't think we will object to subsidies.
oltmannd wrote:The stored braking energy technology that's available to improve mileage of suburban driving is also available to transit (in fact, I rode a hybrid bus in Denver over 2 years ago...). Hybrid drives should benefit transit even more than autos since wind resistance and rolling resistance are a less % of the overall energy consumption of transit vehicles compared to autos. I'm a bit surprised nobody's tried to pitch a hybrid commuter locomotive to anybody yet.
The stored braking energy technology that's available to improve mileage of suburban driving is also available to transit (in fact, I rode a hybrid bus in Denver over 2 years ago...). Hybrid drives should benefit transit even more than autos since wind resistance and rolling resistance are a less % of the overall energy consumption of transit vehicles compared to autos. I'm a bit surprised nobody's tried to pitch a hybrid commuter locomotive to anybody yet.
I remember talking about that idea with Bill Farquhar (then at San Diego NCTD) about hybrid commuter locomotives back in the mid-1990's. Main reason that there hasn't been a serious pitch is trying to find a battery (or other energy storage system) with sufficient energy density, power density and cycle life to be practical. Li-ion batteries can meet two of those three requirements, but there is a very significant trade-off between usable energy density and cycle life. GE's hybrid locomotive battery has sufficient energy density, but I'm not sure if it has a high enough power density.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: One of the problems with rail is its inflexibility. Once the tracks are tacked down, it is difficult to move them. Thus, in Dallas, the areas that took off just about the time the first light rail trains began to operate are not served by light rail, as per my previous post. There is no way to get a train to them. Had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology it could have easily changed the bus routes to serve the new high density neighborhoods. Samantha, had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology how were they to have easily changed the bus routes and still have retained the rapid bus aspect on the new routing?
Samantha wrote: One of the problems with rail is its inflexibility. Once the tracks are tacked down, it is difficult to move them. Thus, in Dallas, the areas that took off just about the time the first light rail trains began to operate are not served by light rail, as per my previous post. There is no way to get a train to them. Had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology it could have easily changed the bus routes to serve the new high density neighborhoods.
One of the problems with rail is its inflexibility. Once the tracks are tacked down, it is difficult to move them. Thus, in Dallas, the areas that took off just about the time the first light rail trains began to operate are not served by light rail, as per my previous post. There is no way to get a train to them. Had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology it could have easily changed the bus routes to serve the new high density neighborhoods.
Samantha, had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology how were they to have easily changed the bus routes and still have retained the rapid bus aspect on the new routing?
Rapid bus technology, which was in its infancy when Dallas opted for light rail, requires at least three conditions: dedicated lanes, at least for part of the route; relatively infrequent stops; and operator traffic signal control.
In the Dallas central business district, buses have had dedicated lanes for as long as I can remember. Only buses, as well as cars turning right, can use them. East and West Transit Centers were opened in the mid 1990s, if I remember correctly, but the buses still stop at every corner as they work their way through town, so the opportunity to take advantage of limited stops was lost. Dallas did not give the buses, or light rail operators for that matter, the opportunity to control the traffic signals for cross street traffic.
As an example, rapid bus technology could be implemented to serve Uptown and Oak Lawn with through service to Love Field. These are two of the "in communities" in Dallas that are not and will not be served by light rail. Only a few changes would be necessary. First, the drivers would have to be given the ability to change the traffic signals. Second, parking would have to be banned along McKinney Avenue and parts of Cedar Springs where it is permitted. Third, the buses would only stop every three blocks, which means that passengers, in the extreme, would have to walk no more than 1.5 blocks if they lived on the route or add 1.5 blocks to their normal walk.
DART could give it a go. If it did not attract enough passengers, it could place the buses somewhere else, and change a few signs telling passengers where the buses stop. But it cannot move the light rail lines.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, light rail is very expensive. Whether it is the best option, outside of a few locations, is debatable. No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, highways and automobiles are very expensive. Whether they are the best options is debatable.
Samantha wrote: No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, light rail is very expensive. Whether it is the best option, outside of a few locations, is debatable.
No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, light rail is very expensive. Whether it is the best option, outside of a few locations, is debatable.
No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, highways and automobiles are very expensive. Whether they are the best options is debatable.
True! But slicing and dicing the numbers shows there is a big difference. Motorists pay directly or indirectly the cost of driving. The reason is because their base (number of users) is very large. Passenger and transit train riders depend on a large subsidy from non-users because their base (number of users) is small in relation to the population as a whole.
Hybrid DE loco: http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/products/hybr.html
Used cooking oil? Sort of like saying I should capture the condensation off my beer can to water my lawn.... Does a single McDonalds even create enough used oil to power a couple dozen of their customers from their homes thru the drive thru?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: The stored braking energy technology that's available to improve mileage of suburban driving is also available to transit (in fact, I rode a hybrid bus in Denver over 2 years ago...). Hybrid drives should benefit transit even more than autos since wind resistance and rolling resistance are a less % of the overall energy consumption of transit vehicles compared to autos. I'm a bit surprised nobody's tried to pitch a hybrid commuter locomotive to anybody yet.
stored braking has also been available for a long time in electrified tranist/railroad lines. I'm no expert, apparently it has some complicating factors. For example even though mainline railroads had been using regenerative brakes since the early 1900's PCC streetcars from the 1940's had regular dynamic brakes, with no regenerative capability. Something to do with a motor not being a very efficient generator and vice versa, and needing extra equipment in the power distribution system to take advantage of all that braking power getting pumped into the lines.
I also haven't heard anything about hybrid diesel locomotives. Since they're usually diesel-electric with dynamic brakes, doesn't that mean they already have some of the hybrid equipmnet already, just missing the batteries?
And how about a separate tank for cooking oil? I say somebody idling a Mercedes-Benz diesel automobile, asked him why idle, he said he needed the engine to warm up so he could switch to his homebuilt waste cooking oil tank. Other than adding the extra tank and delivery mechanism he said he made no other mechanical modifications. Can a mainline locomotive with a bunch of McDonalds next to the right of way take advantage of cooking grease for fuel?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
The problem isn't cars, it's how much we drive them. Suburban living is built around cars and and some seemingly deep-seated set of American values, so I doubt there will be drastic changes such as mass migration back to city dwelling. Transit fits as poorly to suburban living as autos do to Manhattan living. You can't just plug-in transit for autos in the suburbs any more than you can just plug in autos for the NYC-TA.
But, I'll bet you lots of things will change, slowly, around the edges. I've already changed some of my habits because of gas prices. Now, instead of driving a 10 mile RT to Lowes for $15 of stuff, I'll drive 3 miles to Ace and spend $17 for the same stuff. I also order more stuff on-line and have it delivered rather than drive to the mall or hobby shop, for example.
Similarly, people may be more willing to drive to a closer park and ride lot rather than drive a whole trip. I see this happening around me. My express commuter bus, that 3 months ago, usually had a dozen empty seats has had standees the past couple of days.
Nobody in here expects mass transit to totally replace individual transportation.
Mass transit allows many families to operate with only one car, and a few urban families to operate without a car. In many dense urban environments, it costs more to park your car than it does to buy a monthly no limit transit pass. Many people cannot drive because of their age, medical condition, or economic status. They NEED public transit.
America is choking on it's automobile traffic. Mass transit is an essential part of the solution.
Samantha wrote: oltmannd wrote: I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour......... Cities that grew up around freeways tend to have suburban sprawl and business-only city centers (LA, Atlanta, Dallas, Houtson)You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low...... The problem with express bus service, is that nobody makes development decisions around bus lines. Have you ever heard of a new, mixed use development around a bus route?DART has had an impact on traffic density inside its service area, albeit it low. Approximately two per cent of the adults in the Metroplex ride the light rail and commuter rail systems. What I said was that DART has taken few if any cars off the roads. This is true. But in the case of the DART and the TRE riders it has taken car miles off the road and transformed them into train miles inside the rail service area. Most suburban rail riders (light rail and commuter rail) drive to a park & ride lot where they park the family buggy and board the train. The net reduction in car miles is equal to the portion of their commute from where they board the train to where they get off. DART does not know how far its light rail passengers ride. Nor does it know what type of vehicle they parked. Thus, it does not know how many vehicle miles its trains take off the road and, equally important, it does not know how much pollution is eliminated by those who ride its trains. It does not know whether its passengers are Honda Civic devotees or Ford 250 drivers. The Red Line, which runs from Plano to the Dallas CBD and on to West Moreland, which is located in southwest Oak Cliff, boards inbound passengers at the Plano terminus. They come from Allen, Plano, etc., which are affluent communities. A few come on a connecting bus, but most of them drive to the station. At the West Moreland end of the line the passenger mix is markedly different from the north boarding passengers. Although some of them drive to the West Moreland Park & Ride, many of them come on connecting buses. And a higher proportion of them don't have access to a car. They are not taking a vehicle off the road. As the train proceeds to town it picks up more park & ride passengers until its gets south of Forest Lane. From there to town a significant number of passengers are fed into the red line by connecting buses. Interestingly, in some instances they come off connecting buses that ran downtown before the light rail line went into operation. And even more interesting, at least to skeptics, their commute is longer, not shorter, because of the rerouting of the bus line and the transfer from the bus to the train. As I mentioned in a previous post, approximately 40 per cent of DART's bus riders don't have a car. The number of passengers connecting with the light rail who do not have a car is unknown. However, DART told me that approximately 20 to 23 per cent of the light rail users don't have a car, as is true for 13 to 15 per cent of the TRE passengers. These numbers need to be factored into any estimate of the number of vehicles and vehicle miles that the rail lines take off the road. DART has difficulty getting information about its riders because it does not have a positive fare collection system. Therefore, it depends on sample surveys for its information. As you can imagine, collecting rider information on a crowded train early in the morning is a challenge. In 2006 the light rail system carried a daily average of 50,904 passengers. In 2007 the average number was 49,041, a decrease of 3.7 per cent. Of course, the number is higher during the week and lower on the weekends. Although the 2008 figures are not available, I have heard that the number of riders is up between five and eight per cent from April 2007 to April 2008. These numbers can be found on the DART website. The red and blue lines began operating in 1996. Twelve years later one significant real estate development (Mockingbird Station) could be attributed to the light rail line. In addition, with a little bit of a stretch, one could say that a redo south of downtown, as well as a new apartment complex near Presbyterian Hospital, was spawned by the light rail lines. As I mentioned, most of the developments in Dallas have been in areas that are not and will not be served by light rail. No one has any hard data to support an argument that the developments next to the light rail line would not have occurred if the light rail system had not been built. In a growth area like Dallas they surely would have although not necessarily on properties close to the rail line. DART, as well as the American Public Transit Association, has commissioned studies touting the economic benefits of light rail. I agree with many of their findings. But they paid for the studies. Most auditors, at least, look askance at studies that are paid for by the client. It tends to produce a biased report. To stir the pot a bit further, DART and TXDOT added HOV lanes on two of the major highways that parallel the rail lines for much of the way. As a result, a daily average of 110,000 people uses the HOV lanes. With the exception of the HOV lane on I-30, which uses a complex movable barrier, the cost of adding the HOV lanes on I-35 and U.S. 75 was minimal. They reduced the existing lanes by six inches, for a total of 18 inches, and eliminated the center emergency stopping lane. Presto! They had an HOV lane for the cost of stripping and the placement of some flex poles to mark it. These lanes will be excellent for rapid buses if DART decides to include them in its mix. Proponents of light rail have made a convincing argument for it in many locales. In fact, I was a strong proponent of it in Dallas and spent many hours getting a referendum passed to make it happen. But I have had some second thoughts about it. Whether the results justify the cost is debatable. Anyone who argues that a rapid bus complex and route attracts real estate development in a economic growth area would have the same challenge of proving it as the proponents of light rail. They may think that it does. But believing that it does and proving it are two different things. Rail is a good choice in selected environments, but those who think it is a universal solution, as seems to be favored by many folks who participate in this forum, are probably wrong.
oltmannd wrote: I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour......... Cities that grew up around freeways tend to have suburban sprawl and business-only city centers (LA, Atlanta, Dallas, Houtson)You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low...... The problem with express bus service, is that nobody makes development decisions around bus lines. Have you ever heard of a new, mixed use development around a bus route?
I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour.........
Cities that grew up around freeways tend to have suburban sprawl and business-only city centers (LA, Atlanta, Dallas, Houtson)
You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low......
The problem with express bus service, is that nobody makes development decisions around bus lines. Have you ever heard of a new, mixed use development around a bus route?
DART has had an impact on traffic density inside its service area, albeit it low. Approximately two per cent of the adults in the Metroplex ride the light rail and commuter rail systems.
What I said was that DART has taken few if any cars off the roads. This is true. But in the case of the DART and the TRE riders it has taken car miles off the road and transformed them into train miles inside the rail service area.
Most suburban rail riders (light rail and commuter rail) drive to a park & ride lot where they park the family buggy and board the train. The net reduction in car miles is equal to the portion of their commute from where they board the train to where they get off.
DART does not know how far its light rail passengers ride. Nor does it know what type of vehicle they parked. Thus, it does not know how many vehicle miles its trains take off the road and, equally important, it does not know how much pollution is eliminated by those who ride its trains. It does not know whether its passengers are Honda Civic devotees or Ford 250 drivers.
The Red Line, which runs from Plano to the Dallas CBD and on to West Moreland, which is located in southwest Oak Cliff, boards inbound passengers at the Plano terminus. They come from Allen, Plano, etc., which are affluent communities. A few come on a connecting bus, but most of them drive to the station.
At the West Moreland end of the line the passenger mix is markedly different from the north boarding passengers. Although some of them drive to the West Moreland Park & Ride, many of them come on connecting buses. And a higher proportion of them don't have access to a car. They are not taking a vehicle off the road.
As the train proceeds to town it picks up more park & ride passengers until its gets south of Forest Lane. From there to town a significant number of passengers are fed into the red line by connecting buses. Interestingly, in some instances they come off connecting buses that ran downtown before the light rail line went into operation. And even more interesting, at least to skeptics, their commute is longer, not shorter, because of the rerouting of the bus line and the transfer from the bus to the train.
As I mentioned in a previous post, approximately 40 per cent of DART's bus riders don't have a car. The number of passengers connecting with the light rail who do not have a car is unknown. However, DART told me that approximately 20 to 23 per cent of the light rail users don't have a car, as is true for 13 to 15 per cent of the TRE passengers. These numbers need to be factored into any estimate of the number of vehicles and vehicle miles that the rail lines take off the road.
DART has difficulty getting information about its riders because it does not have a positive fare collection system. Therefore, it depends on sample surveys for its information. As you can imagine, collecting rider information on a crowded train early in the morning is a challenge.
In 2006 the light rail system carried a daily average of 50,904 passengers. In 2007 the average number was 49,041, a decrease of 3.7 per cent. Of course, the number is higher during the week and lower on the weekends. Although the 2008 figures are not available, I have heard that the number of riders is up between five and eight per cent from April 2007 to April 2008. These numbers can be found on the DART website.
The red and blue lines began operating in 1996. Twelve years later one significant real estate development (Mockingbird Station) could be attributed to the light rail line. In addition, with a little bit of a stretch, one could say that a redo south of downtown, as well as a new apartment complex near Presbyterian Hospital, was spawned by the light rail lines.
As I mentioned, most of the developments in Dallas have been in areas that are not and will not be served by light rail. No one has any hard data to support an argument that the developments next to the light rail line would not have occurred if the light rail system had not been built. In a growth area like Dallas they surely would have although not necessarily on properties close to the rail line.
DART, as well as the American Public Transit Association, has commissioned studies touting the economic benefits of light rail. I agree with many of their findings. But they paid for the studies. Most auditors, at least, look askance at studies that are paid for by the client. It tends to produce a biased report.
To stir the pot a bit further, DART and TXDOT added HOV lanes on two of the major highways that parallel the rail lines for much of the way. As a result, a daily average of 110,000 people uses the HOV lanes. With the exception of the HOV lane on I-30, which uses a complex movable barrier, the cost of adding the HOV lanes on I-35 and U.S. 75 was minimal. They reduced the existing lanes by six inches, for a total of 18 inches, and eliminated the center emergency stopping lane. Presto! They had an HOV lane for the cost of stripping and the placement of some flex poles to mark it. These lanes will be excellent for rapid buses if DART decides to include them in its mix.
Proponents of light rail have made a convincing argument for it in many locales. In fact, I was a strong proponent of it in Dallas and spent many hours getting a referendum passed to make it happen. But I have had some second thoughts about it. Whether the results justify the cost is debatable.
Anyone who argues that a rapid bus complex and route attracts real estate development in a economic growth area would have the same challenge of proving it as the proponents of light rail. They may think that it does. But believing that it does and proving it are two different things.
Rail is a good choice in selected environments, but those who think it is a universal solution, as seems to be favored by many folks who participate in this forum, are probably wrong.
I would agree that it's no panacea. There is no panacea. I find it hard to look at mobility choices as either/or. Usually it's both/and.
The easy-sleazy HOV lane trick is a good one. They did that here in Atlanta on I-85 North. It still took them a year of construction to do it though... Now, I-85 is five to six lanes wide 30 miles out from Atlanta and is abutment to abutment with traffic lanes on every underpass. Any more lanes will be really big bucks. The HOV lanes are better, but not hugely better. They knock 5-10 minutes off the commute. Too many times, a car will stall or wreck in the left lanes and use what little shoulder is left next to the HOV lane as a breakdown lane. They can't make it accross 5 lanes of traffic to the RH shoulder. This causes big delays....
The funny thing here in Atlanta is that the MARTA heavy rail system generates 250,000 riders a day - about the same as the heavy rail system in Phila. (Both consist primarily of one N-S and one E-W line), but the common perception is that MARTA trains run empty all the time and Northeasterners are transit users. The other interesting thing is that inside the perimeter highway, where MARTA runs, traffic is much lighter than outside. A good chunk of this is due to so much commuting around the perimeter, but still....
Paul Milenkovic wrote: No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, highways and automobiles are very expensive. Whether they are the best options is debatable. You betcha highways and automobiles are expensive, not only in terms of direct and indirect dollar cost, but also in terms of environmental degradation and social effects on neighborhoods and how people live in their homes, or could no longer live in their homes when they got paved over. But highways and automobiles are an overwhelming preference, not only true in the US, where gas and roadbuilding is subsidized in various indirect ways, but in Europe, where you long have had highly-taxed gas and those toll stickers for the Austrian and Swiss Autobahn. And no, there is no vast Concrete Lobby, Libertarian-Right Wing Think Tank, Car Company conspiracy. People are willing to pay for highways and cars, either directly through auto ownership expense or indirectly through property taxes and gas tax, at levels that people have not had the enthusiasm to pay for common carrier and transit modes.A lot of this is a matter of lifestyle. I am old enough to remember the "transit-automobile transition era", at least in terms of growing up in Chicago and surrounds.I was born in a Chicago city neighborhood, but the family moved to the 'burbs. No, we didn't move out of the city to have a fancy house and have Dad commute into the city. His job moved out to the burbs long before we moved. For the longest time we were a "one-car family", and Dad would take that car to get to his suburban job. I remember Mom adapting to suburban life without a second car. The go-to place to buy almost anything back in the day -- women's clothes, kids clothes, toys, books, I mean just about everything -- was Marshall Fields on Michigan, and in summer months with school out, a shopping trip went something like this. We would hike out to the suburban bus stop and ride the bus to the El station. From there, the El, perhaps there was a change of trains, would take you past the front door of Marshall Fields -- I seem to remember they even had their own station, or at least a pedestrian walkway to one. The day would be spent "shop till you drop or at least until the kids were beyond cranky", and Marshall Fields even had a restaurant to cover lunch.The return trek, laden with those classic department store shopping bags, was perhaps a reprise of the inbound journey, but if it happened during rush hour, we would forgo the El train and go to this city terminal for suburban express buses, and I can still smell the propane fumes of that bus garage. Propane buses were the "green" alternative to stinky Diesels in that time. As to mode choices, there was no trains vs buses snobism -- we took whatever bus or train got us to the right place in a convenient manner.By the early 1970s we had a second car and all of this went by the wayside. Heck, I still remember milk delivery, the milk box on the front steps and the ticket with the boxes you checked off to get your milk order. Milk is a particularly heavy commodity to pack home from the corner grocery store in a sack. But with the advent of suburban supermarkets, Mom found that milk was much cheaper to bring home in the trunk of the car than to continue the milk delivery.In terms of social changes, perhaps the biggest social change past Mom's generation is the big increase in women working jobs outside the home, and this is tied to big declines in transit and even in car pooling. Dad can talk about how a bus or light rail would be so convenient to get to his job, but Mom not only has to get to work, she has to get the kids to and from daycare, get the groceries on the way home from work, and have dinner on the table at the appointed time. Yeah, like Mom is going to enter into any kind of debate about transit alternatives to a car.
You betcha highways and automobiles are expensive, not only in terms of direct and indirect dollar cost, but also in terms of environmental degradation and social effects on neighborhoods and how people live in their homes, or could no longer live in their homes when they got paved over.
But highways and automobiles are an overwhelming preference, not only true in the US, where gas and roadbuilding is subsidized in various indirect ways, but in Europe, where you long have had highly-taxed gas and those toll stickers for the Austrian and Swiss Autobahn. And no, there is no vast Concrete Lobby, Libertarian-Right Wing Think Tank, Car Company conspiracy. People are willing to pay for highways and cars, either directly through auto ownership expense or indirectly through property taxes and gas tax, at levels that people have not had the enthusiasm to pay for common carrier and transit modes.
A lot of this is a matter of lifestyle. I am old enough to remember the "transit-automobile transition era", at least in terms of growing up in Chicago and surrounds.
I was born in a Chicago city neighborhood, but the family moved to the 'burbs. No, we didn't move out of the city to have a fancy house and have Dad commute into the city. His job moved out to the burbs long before we moved. For the longest time we were a "one-car family", and Dad would take that car to get to his suburban job.
I remember Mom adapting to suburban life without a second car. The go-to place to buy almost anything back in the day -- women's clothes, kids clothes, toys, books, I mean just about everything -- was Marshall Fields on Michigan, and in summer months with school out, a shopping trip went something like this. We would hike out to the suburban bus stop and ride the bus to the El station. From there, the El, perhaps there was a change of trains, would take you past the front door of Marshall Fields -- I seem to remember they even had their own station, or at least a pedestrian walkway to one. The day would be spent "shop till you drop or at least until the kids were beyond cranky", and Marshall Fields even had a restaurant to cover lunch.
The return trek, laden with those classic department store shopping bags, was perhaps a reprise of the inbound journey, but if it happened during rush hour, we would forgo the El train and go to this city terminal for suburban express buses, and I can still smell the propane fumes of that bus garage. Propane buses were the "green" alternative to stinky Diesels in that time. As to mode choices, there was no trains vs buses snobism -- we took whatever bus or train got us to the right place in a convenient manner.
By the early 1970s we had a second car and all of this went by the wayside. Heck, I still remember milk delivery, the milk box on the front steps and the ticket with the boxes you checked off to get your milk order. Milk is a particularly heavy commodity to pack home from the corner grocery store in a sack. But with the advent of suburban supermarkets, Mom found that milk was much cheaper to bring home in the trunk of the car than to continue the milk delivery.
In terms of social changes, perhaps the biggest social change past Mom's generation is the big increase in women working jobs outside the home, and this is tied to big declines in transit and even in car pooling. Dad can talk about how a bus or light rail would be so convenient to get to his job, but Mom not only has to get to work, she has to get the kids to and from daycare, get the groceries on the way home from work, and have dinner on the table at the appointed time. Yeah, like Mom is going to enter into any kind of debate about transit alternatives to a car.
If Mom's transit use is park and ride - and that's about the only way you can even come close to provided mass transit in a suburban sprawl - then her routine can actually be enhanced by mass transit. More predictable and dependable transit times mean she can get the kids at daycare on time and hit the grocery store on the way home.
I grew up in a one car, suburban household, but my folks purchase their home within one mile of the the LIRR train station so that my dad could take a bus or bike to the station. He was out the door at 5:30 AM and back in the door at 6:00PM, every day like clockwork. He had a three seat trip. LIRR diesel train to Jamacia, electric to Brooklyn and bus to Navy Yard.
Later, we lived in South Jersey and still managed with only one car as he carpooled with 4 other guys.
South Jersey provides a good example of development around highways and transit in the auto age. In 1960, most of South Jersey was rural farm land. In the interval from 1960 to 1970, two significant projects were completed. One was the a freeway running south from the newly completed Walt Whitman Bridge about 15 miles south into the farmland. The other was the PATCO high speed line down to the similarly rural Kirkwood NJ to the south east.
The area at the end of the freeway built out almost entirely into single family houses and strip malls. The area around the end of the transit line built out almost entirely in garden apartments.
Neither area had particularly strong zoning requirments, but interestingly, some of the most desirable single family homes in the region (Voohrees) had easy access to the transit line, and rather poor access to the freeways. Also, the only mall in the region that didn't have access to a freeway was built adjacent to the transit line. It didn't attact shoppers by transit. It wasn't located very close to a transit stop, but rather it served the medium density population clustered along the transit line.
I agree.
While I was a skeptic at first, I am watching the effect work here in Charlotte.
Mixed use development is springing up near every light rail stop.
I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour.
Even a small number of diverted trips can have a dramatic effect on freeway trip times. The infamous "C" shaped curve for highway capacity means that once you reach the tipping point from free-flowing to congested, it's game-over for trip times. It only takes a small amount of extra traffic to tip the balance.
However, it appears that DART is providing considerably more than a small contribution during rush hours on the corridors it serves.
From what I can figure, DART currently has four routes from the suburbs to the city (two "red" and two "blue") and daily ridership of about 70,000. If you spread that out over two, two hour rush hour periods, that's over 4000 trips per hour per route.
Since a highway lane can carry about 2000 vehicles per hour, each route is worth about two highway lanes in each direction. It's hard for me to imagine the that the capital + operating expense of DART's light rail lines is more than the capital alone to add lanes to the existing freeways.
To provide similar capacity with suburban bus service would require about 100 busses per hour per route. These would all converge at one place - a bus every 9 seconds.
Cities that grew up around rail transit tend to have higher population density and middle class in-city neighborhoods, shopping and entertainment (Chicago, NY, Boston, Phila, SF). They transit lines came BEFORE the population growth.
You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low. Neither can you expect to replace rail transit with highways. The density is too high.
You CAN expect that, over time, the development will shift to fit the transportation accomodation that's been constructed. There is quite a bit of evidence of that in Atlanta. There is a continuing boom in residential and office construction in Atlanta - and not coincidentally, it's all along MARTA's lines. Portland OR is the poster child for this effect.
Samantha wrote: cordon wrote: I personally benefit each time a DART rider leaves his/her car at home, even though I live many miles away. How many cars does the light rail and commuter rail systems take off the road in DFW? Practically none! Most users drive from home to a Park & Ride, where they get on the train. The train, however, for the two per cent of residents who use it, reduces the number of auto miles from the train station to the users destination, which in the case of Dallas is usually downtown. In the case of Frisco, TX, transit does not take any cars off the road. A Frisco resident would only see a reduction in traffic if he drives inside the areas served by the rail system.
cordon wrote: I personally benefit each time a DART rider leaves his/her car at home, even though I live many miles away.
I personally benefit each time a DART rider leaves his/her car at home, even though I live many miles away.
How many cars does the light rail and commuter rail systems take off the road in DFW? Practically none! Most users drive from home to a Park & Ride, where they get on the train. The train, however, for the two per cent of residents who use it, reduces the number of auto miles from the train station to the users destination, which in the case of Dallas is usually downtown.
In the case of Frisco, TX, transit does not take any cars off the road. A Frisco resident would only see a reduction in traffic if he drives inside the areas served by the rail system.
My main benefit way out here is reduced pollution and reduced gasoline consumption. And, of course, I admit that it's mainly a matter of principle because the relative numbers of DART users are currently so low. My point is simply that all of us, not just the rider, benefit when a rider uses transportation that pollutes less than a car and uses less oil than a car.
There are other effects that go beyond the rider. For the cars remaining on the road, reduced congestion means that they will operate in a better part of their performance envelope, which also reduces pollution and oil consumption. There may also be reduced accidents, although, as I said before, that needs verification in the case of DART because of the grade crossings.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
blue streak 1 wrote:I agree about Texas weather. I've suffered in Harlengin (sp) and Laredo in the summer (110+). Any indication of decrease in ridership figures in summer?
The number of public transit riders in Texas decreases during the hot summer months, although the exact numbers are difficult to determine. Some of the decrease is due to vacations; some of it is because school is out; and some of it is because more people move during the summer.
I rode public transit to work for 30 of the 32 years that I lived in Dallas. Several of my colleagues, who used it from October to May, would not ride it during the summer because of the heat.
I was a middle level manager in a Fortune 250 company. We had more than 17,000 employees, of whom approximately 700 were executives and managers. Less than 20 of the managers used public transit. None of the executives used it.
Most of the people in DFW who used public transit came from the bottom half of the income distribution continium. However, with the coming of the express commuter buses in the late 1980s and the light rail system in the late 1990s, the pattern changed. Suburban commuters began to use the system in significant numbers.
In 2007 I was able to get DART's rider numbers for every bus and light rail route, as well as the TRE. Although the numbers did not show the incomes of the people who use public transit in Dallas, the patterns of use suggest that the riders can be divided into three groups.
The majority of local bus riders are lower income folks, although there are exceptions. Upper income people do not use public transit. And it is unlikely that they will. Approximately 40 per cent of the bus riders do not have a car. The bus is their only alternative.
A significant percentage of the express bus riders, although how many is unknown, as well as the light rail riders are suits. Most of them work downtown, but some of them work on the fringes of downtown, and some are reverse commuters. They only use public transit to get to and from work.
A significant percentage of the light rail riders at the close in stations transfer from buses that connect with the system at various points. Approximately 20 per cent of the light rail riders, essentially those transferring from the bus system, probably don't have access to a car.
Before the light rail system was implemented, many of the buses ran downtown. Thus, some of the riders on the light rail system were force fed onto it. Ironically, in many instances, their commute time increased because of the transfer time between the bus and light rail.
The third group are special event riders, e.g. State Fair of Texas, American Airlines Center, etc. Many middle class event goers use the special event light rail and Trinity Railway Express services. This is the only time that the TRE stops at Victory Station.
As tends to be the case in life, rail has some advantages, albeit very costly ones; but buses are more flexible and can compete with rail if they can run in HOV lanes, which is the case in much of Dallas.
That only two percent of people living in an area use the light rail system is only part of the story. The benefits extend far beyond just those people because of reductions in traffic congestion, pollution, and motor vehicle accidents (1). I personally benefit each time a DART rider leaves his/her car at home, even though I live many miles away.
OTOH, people whose livelihoods depend on the automotive and gasoline sectors do not benefit.
Note (1). It's not clear to me that DART has a net positive effect on automobile accidents because DART uses so many grade crossings. It may well be that DART causes more accidents than it prevents.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: As I mentioned in a previous post, there has been an increase in property development along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail system. However, there is no evidence that the developments would not have occurred if the rail line had not been built. That is to say, there is every likelihood, given the growth of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, that the developments would have occurred anywayThere's probably never going to be any direct evidence to say what the reasons are for real estate development or passengers. Maybe the development would have happened somewhere else had the train station not been buil, but if it occurs near the train station I'd have to conclude that the train station had something to do with picking the location.
Samantha wrote: As I mentioned in a previous post, there has been an increase in property development along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail system. However, there is no evidence that the developments would not have occurred if the rail line had not been built. That is to say, there is every likelihood, given the growth of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, that the developments would have occurred anyway
As I mentioned in a previous post, there has been an increase in property development along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail system. However, there is no evidence that the developments would not have occurred if the rail line had not been built. That is to say, there is every likelihood, given the growth of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, that the developments would have occurred anyway
There's probably never going to be any direct evidence to say what the reasons are for real estate development or passengers. Maybe the development would have happened somewhere else had the train station not been buil, but if it occurs near the train station I'd have to conclude that the train station had something to do with picking the location.
Undoubtedly the development of Mockingbird Station in Dallas was facilitated by the location of the light rail lines. The blue and red lines converge at Mockingbird Station.
It is important to remember, however, that the fastest growing areas of Dallas (residential and commercial) are not taking place near any of the light rail lines or for that matter the commuter rail line between Dallas and Fort Worth. They are taking place in Uptown, Victory Station, Oak Lawn, and Oak Cliff. However, it is anticipated that the opening of the Green and Orange lines will promote addition development in the areas that they serve. They will run through some of the more depressed areas of Dallas and the Metroplex.
The increased property taxes associated with Mockingbird Station don't offset the sales taxes revenues required to build and operate the light rail lines in the Metroplex.
Sales taxes are paid by most residents in the communities that make up the transit district. But only two per cent of the people in the Metroplex are able to use the light rail system or the commuter rail system. As a result the few who are able to use it get a large subsidy from the many who don't use it or cannot use it.
Things like this:
http://www.silossouthend.com/
Are popping up like weeds at most of the new light rail stops here in Charlotte.
There is absolutely no doubt that the location was chosen for it's proximity to the light rail.
Toronto's Yonge St subway north of Bloor St was built in an open trench, subsequently the transit commision got paid for air rights to put buildings on top of the subway. Again, we don't know if the buildings wouldn't have gotten built somewhere else if there was no subway, in fact since they're between the stations as opposed to at the stations it looks like the subway as transportation was not a factor. Nevertheless it is appropriate to allocate the revenue for those buildings to the subway instead of general community funds.
Philadelphia's 30th St to Suburban station tunnel (late 1950's?), and Boston's Amtrak-MBTA Forest Hills to Back Bay station (late 1990's?) are both cases where we took rail lines on an embankment and put them in a tunnel. In Philadelphia's case they put 2 apartment buildings and 2 office buildings, in Boston's case a park, on top of the tunnel. I'm pretty sure somebody tried to make urban renewal part of the decisions for these projects.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.