My Kind of Book
Sometimes the publishing house PR people do a good job of deciding who needs review copies of what, and thus I recently opened up a package to discover My Kind of Transit My Kind of Transit: Rethinking Public Transportation in America. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but in the interests of rewarding those who send me books I’m actually interested in, why not offer you some PR copy:
In America’s car-dominated landscape, public transit has long played second fiddle, but rising gasoline prices and the global warming crisis point to a need for alternative means of transportation. Darrin Nordahl sets the stage for these efforts by proposing that the experience of public transit and the quality of the ride are pivotal to the success of public transit.
My Kind of Transit explores America’s most beloved transit systems and how they work. From San Francisco’s cable cars to Pittsburgh’s funiculars to the streetcars of New Orleans, Nordahl recounts a transportation history of both short-sighted planning and visionary policies, and reveals that current American transit systems contain many key elements for successfully expanding public transport. My Kind of Transit explains the characteristics of ideal transit, or “passenger enrichment,” such as transit vehicles that offer views of the surrounding landscape and systems that enable diverse peoples to interact.
Successful public transport must be a uniquely enjoyable experience for riders, My Kind of Transit contends, and it offers a new vision of civic engagement that occurs when we step out of our cars and onto the train.
At first glance, I do think that this sort of issue is oftentimes under-appreciated. Streetcar systems have some substantial advantages over buses. But I don’t think that reciting those advantages, in a technical sense, fully captures the difference. Something like the Barcelona Tram is cool and futuristic, and the MetroBus in DC is not. On some level, it’s just impossible for a bus to replicate that—no bus can ever be as quiet or smooth. But DC’s Circulator bus actually does a pretty good job of capturing some of that “cool and futuristic” appeal while running alongside WMATA’s generally unappealing main bus service.
83 Responses to “My Kind of Book”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Why yes, just the other day I decided to take the bus instead of driving so that I could get better views of the surrounding landscape and interact with diverse peoples.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The views of the surrounding landscape from a subway car are particularly stunning.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
It’s not obvious to me that’s true. People put up with the extreme unpleasant crowding or bizarre weekend disruptions of New York subways, as well as the slow pace and bunching of New York buses. They also put up with the endless sitting in traffic of automobile commutes on, say, the roads leading into New York and the Peninsula in Northern California.
Why? I’d say the more obvious factor is having to get to work. That and such things as cost and relative speed. His other factors even seem counterintuive, as one appeal of cars is privacy, not passenger enrichment. I had a perfectly pleasant train ride to and from Yale last week, but never once did I see strangers talk or look much out the window except to see where they were or because their mind drifted. When, in asking a New Yorker whether to take Lexington Avenue bus or the subway downtown, did you ever hear, “Oh, I like the view”?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Why would we be surprised by this.
Americans spend an extraordinary amount of money on their cars, and especially the amenities in their cars–Leather, electronics, etc. etc. Clearly there is a preference for luxurious, sleek, and modern forms of automobile travel.
Why would the same preferences not hold true for public transit? Make public transportation faster, cleaner, sleeker, and more luxurious and people will like it better. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Nobody talks to strangers on public transit. I certainly presume this book doesn’t presume that people do.
Pittsburgh’s funiculars work pretty well as tourist attractions. It’s technically part of the local public transit system, although I think the number of people who actually use it to commute is in the double digits per day.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Here in Portland I have spent time commuting by both bus and light rail. I decided that I like the bus better.
The light rail is a bit of a lawless zone, with the conductor locked up front. I don’t know if that is the reason, but I found other riders on light rail to be more difficult to tolerate. Yes, I’m typically talking about teenagers or young people who travel in packs and don’t understand the concept of volume. Also, there is a big problem with fare violators. (Not to mention very real instances of violence on or around our light rail.)
At least on the bus, people tend to sit down and keep quiet, and remain better behaved with the driver in the same compartment. Though teenagers are still teenagers.
The problem with improving the rider experience is that transit is already a cost sink. If we can’t afford our current flawed version, how will we afford a dressed up version?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I just finished a competition entry where I outlined a plan for Bus Rapid Transit in LA. Our proposal focused on a public-private partnership where the city would provide the infrastructure (dedicated bus lanes) but private industry would be free to create different levels of fare & services to respond to market needs. In a country where the average new car is ~$30k, I think it’s hard for the government to meet everyone’s expectations with one class of service.
If you find the concept of private-public transportation to be elitist and divisive, think of the way an airplane works- the overpriced first class seats help finance the cost of travel for everyone else.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“Darrin Nordahl sets the stage for these efforts by proposing that the experience of public transit and the quality of the ride are pivotal to the success of public transit.”
Remember what the mayor of Seattle told Campbell Scott’s character when he shot down Scott’s “Super Train” proposal? People like their cars. Great coffee and great music won’t make them like the Super Train more. Have we learned nothing from Singles?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Trolleybuses can be pretty darn quiet. In fact, any electric bus is going to be pretty quiet.
The vehicle itself may be quiet. The passengers, not so much. And most transit buses are not electric buses, anyway.
Anyhoo, it certainly seems to me to be correct that “the experience of public transit and the quality of the ride are pivotal to the success of public transit,” and there is a lot of potential for improvement in those areas.
What specific investments do you propose to significantly improve the “experience” of mass transit and the quality of the ride? Where’s the money going to come from?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Deeds asks:
The problem with improving the rider experience is that transit is already a cost sink. If we can’t afford our current flawed version, how will we afford a dressed up version?
Get with the program!
We just have to so tax private car usage as to make them feasible only for the rich.
And when we have taken all the private cars away, except for those of our Overlords, then we’ll just up transit fees to whatever we need.
So what if you pay $50 for a subway ride?
Just think of all the beautiful scenery and stimulator conversations you will have with the thugs on your car!
Oh Brave New World thy name is ObaLand…
March 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I like the DC Circulator and use it when I can. I’m not in DC enough to know or remember where any of the other buses go but the Circulator is quite simple.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I take the bus every day. One obvious advantage is that you can work (esp. read) on public transit; you can’t work and drive.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
and if you’ve a mind to stay abreast of what’s up with mass transit in smaller or less cool locations (relative to the book’s TC), Mass Transit Magazine is a good choice http://www.masstransitmag.com/
March 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Ted, I see people driving and texting all the time, always the young people too!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Nobody talks to strangers on public transit. I certainly presume this book doesn’t presume that people do.
This is a vast overgeneralization. Some people do talk to strangers on public transit. Most people do their best to avoid those people.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Well, potentially revenues would actually improve with improved quality enough to more than make up the costs of improving quality.
“Potentially.” Keep hope alive. If improving quality would actually save transit authorities money, why haven’t they done it already?
One obvious advantage is that you can work (esp. read) on public transit; you can’t work and drive.
And yet the vast majority of people continue to drive, which suggests that the value to most people of this supposed advantage is small. Perhaps nonexistent.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
DTM,
Yes. It might be interesting to view the inclines as part of transit history. But since we are talking about Pittsburgh, we might also include a discussion of the current state of affairs. Which includes a new light rail tunnel under the Allegheny River. it was supposed to carry a bajillion people and cost about $400 million. Now it seems that it will hardly carry anybody, as it will only connect the skyscrapers to the stadia. And it will cost at least 30 percent more than anyone thought. And now they are out of money and nobody knows who will pay to finish it, even WITH new stimulus money.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09074/955761-52.stm
It’s so bad that even staunch transit supporters are wondering what the hell happened. Like Govenor Rendell. Who called it a “tragic mistake.”
Whoops! Looks like someone decided to use MY’s strategy of misleading people about ridership and cost numbers. and the result is that even people who SUPPORT transit now feel burned and are rethinking their positions.
As far as strategies go, it seems that lying isn’t a very good one. Go figure!
March 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
And yet the vast majority of people continue to drive, which suggests that the value to most people of this supposed advantage is small. Perhaps nonexistent. Of course, what this fact actually suggests is that the vast majority of people don’t have a transit option. When there is actually transit service from where people are to where they want to go, it’s very popular – to the tune of 95% of morning peak hour trips to Manhattan being via transit.
People will crowd onto smelly little trolley cars instead of driving – or even owning – a car, if they can get to where they need to go on the trolley. Take the money you would have spent on the more expensive viaduct with the nice views, and add a couple more stations on the line instead.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
One of the greatest revelations of visiting London was the English public transportation system. There’s simply no reason to use a car in London.
I didn’t talk to many strangers, though I did a few times, but keeping to oneself has its advantages too. It always gave me the chance to clear my head or sneak in some reading, which is difficult-to-impossible when having to focus on the road.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“if they can get to where they need to go on the trolley
Thar she blows! The necessary condition, I think. With comparable costs, it might even be the sufficient condition for many travelers.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Looks like someone decided to use MY’s strategy of misleading people about ridership and cost numbers. and the result is that even people who SUPPORT transit now feel burned and are rethinking their positions.
Sounds like the people of Pittsburgh are actually getting off easy, relatively speaking. The biggest current light rail fiasco is the Denver FasTracks project. It was sold to the voters in 2004 on the claim that it would cost “only” $4.7 billion. By 2008, the cost projection had skyrocketed to $7.9 billion. This meant there would be a budget shortfall of $2.1 billion. Because of the economic situation, the latest cost estimate has shrunk to “only” $7 billion. Unfortunately, projected sales tax revenues have shrunk even more, meaning the budget deficit has grown to $2.2 billion. And now the project’s proponents are squabbling about how to try and make up the shortfall.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Of course, what this fact actually suggests is that the vast majority of people don’t have a transit option.
No, it doesn’t suggest that at all.
When there is actually transit service from where people are to where they want to go, it’s very popular – to the tune of 95% of morning peak hour trips to Manhattan being via transit.
Ha ha ha ha! Manhattan, you say. And peak hours. Yes, that sure tells us something meaningful about cars vs. transit in general. Because, of course, the rest of America looks just like Manhattan, and no one goes anywhere outside peak hours.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Whoops! Looks like someone decided to use MY’s strategy of misleading people about ridership and cost numbers. and the result is that even people who SUPPORT transit now feel burned and are rethinking their positions.
Not really. The cost overruns on the North Shore Connector (NSC hence) are mainly due to material cost increases due to last summer’s oil spike and an increase in construction cost in the region overall. Anything petro got real pricey. That having been said, the NSC is a hot button issue. Most transit fans in the area agree that getting the light rail system across the Allegheny River is a good idea, though many fume that the tunnel was a bad idea while others would have set other system priorities higher.
In any event, the NSC is not, as it is often billed, simply a connector for the stadia. One of the big benefits of it will be getting most North-bound buses off the downtown street grid. They’ll dump everybody off at one of the North Shore stations to finish their commutes via the trolley.
There are other considerations as well. I won’t go into all of them here, but besides the stadia, the new stops service several hotels, and parking facilities. And since it’s across the river already, its a lot easier to push the system up into more neighborhoods.
The NSC is one part of a much larger system overhaul happening in Pittsburgh.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
One of the greatest revelations of visiting London was the English public transportation system. There’s simply no reason to use a car in London.
Yes, that must be why so many people do use cars in London that the city decided to impose a congestion charge.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
One of the greatest revelations of visiting London was the English public transportation system. There’s simply no reason to use a car in London.
Bendy (articulated) buses are futuristic, but unsuited to London’s roads and roundabouts, and hazardous to cyclists. Of course, that’s in the context of an established system where there are legacy values to the old Routemaster or its modern equivalents, not least because riding on the top deck gives you the sightseeing experience.
Where that legacy model doesn’t exist, there’s clearly a need for some “enrichment”. In cynical honesty, though, I think that TV screens and cupholders are more likely to work, at least when you’re selling it to the American public.
Still, the idea of ignoring crazy people with multiple personalities who talk to themselves should definitely be extended to these threads.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
No, it doesn’t suggest that at all.
Gee, chuckie, you decided not to go for “nuh-uh?” Impressive logic as always.
No, seriously, between the single-digit % of transit riders in the nation as a whole, and, oh, I don’t know, that time you stuck your head out of your mom’s basement, you didn’t notice that most people don’t live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop?
Smart lad, aren’t you?
Ha ha ha ha! Manhattan, you say. Yes, it’s a magical place, outside of your mom’s basement. Ho ho ho, hilarious!
Yes, that sure tells us something meaningful about cars vs. transit in general. It sure does. It tells us that people take transit in overwhelming numbers when it provides greater utility than driving. People, chuckie; you should meet some.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
DTM – There used to be a few inclines in various places around the city. I can’t remember how many exactly. Of the two that remain, one is almost purely used for tourism. The other, closer to the downtown business district, is still very much a commuter conveyance. It grabs the tourist traffic as well (especially on nice nights in the summer which drives regular users a bit batty), but for hundreds of us, its the way we get to work and back.
There was talk a few years back about putting another incline on the other side of the city, but I don’t think it went anywhere.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I and many of my arugula-eating friends would take the train to work gladly if they ran more than every 2.5 hours. And that’s in the LA Basin.
If they’d put more trains in service and more buses that stop only infrequently, ridership would go up (at least by 4, I can say).
It’s stupid. I can drive to work in 29 minutes. Or I can take the train and it takes 2 hours and I get to work 90 minutes early.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
To gripe a bit more:
“I don’t know, that time you stuck your head out of your mom’s basement, you didn’t notice that most people don’t live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop?”
I live right next to the tracks that go within 2 miles of my place of work. The bus ride from the station to work (university) takes longer than the train ride. And the train runs infrequently.
It’s frustrating when the freakin’ rail infrastructure exists, but it’s being used in a boneheaded manner.
(Then again, CA can’t pay its teachers, so I don’t know why I expect better-run public transportation in this totally-effed state.)
March 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
There’s no reason to use a car when visiting London, but all sorts of reasons if you live there. There are also plenty of reasons that the transport system is quite adequate if you live there (and a monthly or weekly pass reduces the one off fare enormously). The London Transport Museum is always fun to visit http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/
March 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
RoboticGhost:
So care to explain why Rendell, a strong supporter of the NSC, is calling it a tragic mistake? Or why the Post-Gazette, also a strong transit supporter, is running stories like the one that got linked?
The idea was to serve commuters. Which a spine line to Oakland might have done. Or various other things might have done. As it stands, this connects workers to the stadia. It might make sense as a white elephant. That is, maybe this will be such a political disaster that the only political option would be to continue dumping billions of dollars into the system in hopes that it will eventually be useful.
Anyone interested can scroll up and hit the link I provided. Remember. It’s not from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute. It’s from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Here’s the second paragraph.
“Even Gov. Ed Rendell, whose administration has played a key role in advancing the subway extension, has chimed in, saying, ‘I guess you’ve got to finish it, but it’s a tragic mistake.’”
And Ed Rendell ain’t Newt Gingrich.
What RoboticGhost fails to mention when discussing cost is that the original estimate was for $350 million. And sure, fuel prices have gone up. But while that was happening HUGE PORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT WERE ABANDONED. So the $350 million estimate should have been way high. Or maybe a scratch, given the rising costs. But instead, it turns out the cost (so far) is $550 million. Imagine what it would have been if they had decided to build the whole thing.
People offered unrealistically optimistic ridership and cost estimates. which is exactly what MY says they should do. But instead of being a boon to transit riders everywhere, we have a Democratic governor who strongly supports transit calling his own decision to support this project a disaster.
Seriously. Read the PG article. It’s comical, really.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
But DC’s Circulator bus actually does a pretty good job of capturing some of that “cool and futuristic” appeal while running alongside WMATA’s generally unappealing main bus service.
Huh? I ride the Circulator every day from Union Station to my office. But that’s because it costs $1 as opposed to $1.25 for a regular Metrobus. And also because the Circulator departs from the upper, covered, bus deck at Union Station instead of being out in the rain like the D6 Metrobus, which is what I’d take instead of the Circulator. Oh, yes, and also because the Circulator makes limited stops, unlike the D6, which stops at every corner.
It also doesn’t help that the D6 goes right by the DC Homeless shelter, which means, of course, that you might have to share the ride with dirty Poor People. Which gets to the heart of why suburbanoid “middle class” wants nothing to do with transit — transit is for the inner-city riff-raff, and who wants to associate with them? That was the whole point of the Circulator — to have a bus for the yuppies so they wouldn’t have to rub shoulders with the riff-raff.
I blogged about the class and pyschopathological aspects of our transportation choices 2 years ago:
http://green-gearhead.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
Nothing has really changed.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
No, seriously, between the single-digit % of transit riders in the nation as a whole, and, oh, I don’t know, that time you stuck your head out of your mom’s basement, you didn’t notice that most people don’t live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop?
Since your last dose of anti-psychosis medication, you didn’t notice that most people do in fact live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop? They’re called “buses” and most large metropolitan areas have lots of them. The reason people don’t use them is that com pared to driving they’re slow, uncomfortable, inconvenient and inflexible.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Do you have any evidence that this assertion is true?
March 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
It sure does. It tells us that people take transit in overwhelming numbers when it provides greater utility than driving. People, chuckie; you should meet some.
No, it sure doesn’t, chuckie. Manhattan is about as unrepresentative of urban development in the United States as you could find. The reason so many people in Manhattan use transit is that, thanks to its hyperdense concentration of housing, workplaces and retail, road congestion in Manhattan is terrible and the cost of parking is exorbitant. If you are proposing to remake the rest of the United States into a collection of Manhattans, good luck. I doubt you’ll attract much support.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Do you have any evidence that this assertion is true?
Yes.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Ok….can you link it here?
March 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Um, how to put this. Well from a European perspective, the reason why public transport is comfortable and civil is because we’re a crowded continent, so have to maintain what small space we have relatively quietly, whereas in the US because you have so much space the volume rises. NYC, DC, Chicagoland, places like that are relatively congenial for public transport because of the busyness of the bus/tram/metro. People have to respect each other’s limited space. Having rode the bus in smaller places in the US I’ve found it more difficult to read a book….
March 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Ok….can you link it here?
Yes, I can do that.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Then please do that.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Then please do that.
Sure, just as soon as joe provides evidence that “most people don’t live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop.”
March 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Mixner has at least nine hours to fill with trolling today, and he intends to drag it out as long as possible.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
You’re not fooling anyone ‘Benny Lava’.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Sam M,
I’m not necessarily defending the NSC project per se, but trying to frame it in a larger context. Digging the tunnel was a questionable move that was kind of shoved down the pike from on high as I understand it. A light rail connection from downtown to Oakland makes 1000% times more sense in the light of day, so I reckon plenty went on in the dark dating all the way back to Larry Dunn. A Spine Line would benefit many, many more people in the near term. Including me. It’s a shame, really.
As for the project that happened (sort of)… The NSC project was a victim of terrible management and worse timing. Energy cost overruns and the commodity bubble did some serious damage in a way nobody could have predicted. Cost overruns should have been factored in to the original contracts, as is typical in cases like this. Costs would have gone up, but maybe not so much. Anyways, these contracts were a joint effort with the two biggest fish in the pond being the Bush Administration displaying further their deft hand at governing and Ed Rendell. They had the biggest stakes in the kitty and signed the contracts. Not PAT, not the City, and not the County. If they did cede too much control to a local authority and didn’t provide oversight, shame on them. Now Eddie’s playing reindeer games. He’s adopting the Washington tone of scold so prevalent these days. In happier times he’d be singing a merrier tune.
Bah! What does it matter anyways? The damn thing’s half built and doesn’t have to be worthless. Unclogging downtown a bit, providing more direct Convention Center access to North Shore hotels and amenities is worth something.
And every bus between Oakland and Downtown is still clogged. Lawrenceville’s on deck.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Sure, just as soon as joe provides evidence that “most people don’t live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop.”
So that’s a “no” then. OK.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
If they’d put more trains in service and more buses that stop only infrequently, ridership would go up (at least by 4, I can say).
They can’t afford to run more trains. If they did, they’d have to cut buses or raise fares. And they’ve been down that road before. In the 1980s, low-income and minority bus riders in Los Angeles sued the MTA for diverting money to boondoggle rail projects that attracted few riders and served mainly middle-class commuters. The bus riders won and the MTA was forced to increase spending on the bus system. By spending so much on rail and neglecting buses the MTA has actually driven riders away from transit. Poetic justice.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
most people do in fact live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop? They’re called “buses” and most large metropolitan areas have lots of them
Most people live in metro areas with a bus system, but that doesn’t mean the bus system provides service to where they get their groceries, or even less likely, where they work. Metro area bus systems run a limited number of routes, while the auto-dependent development patterns of mid-to-late-20th-century suburbs scatters workplaces and homes across the landscape.
It’s funny – Mixner is always going on about the greater flexibility of the private automobile, the way it can provide connections between a much larger number of points than public transit, which is indeed its strength. Ironically, such people never seem to realize that the development patterns enabled by this flexibility serve to undercut the usefulness of transit systems.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Josephine, how do you know that “most people don’t live near a public transit system that takes them to the places they work and shop?”
You don’t know, do you? You’re just making things up. Same as always.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
1. Because it’s blindingly obvious.
2. Because it’s the sort of thing that’s covered in coursework when you earn a masters degree in regional planning.
3. Because it’s the sort of thing you learn for yourself when you spend the better part of a decade as a practicing municipal planner.
So, Chuckles, have you figured out what the term “design capacity” means when discussing roadways? Please, talk down to me some more.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Chuckles will now switch tacks, from arguing that I am not to be taken seriously because I’m too uninformed about planning and transportation issues, to arguing that I am not to be taken seriously because I have too much formal education in the field.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Yes, Josephine, that’s right. You have a degree. Uh huh.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
DTM,
Yes. I recall your take on MY’s proposal to exaggerate ridership numbers and present unrealistic cost estimates. I remember you saying something about the dangers of that strategy. Dangers which seem to be coming true in this case.
Pretty soon, someone is going to come up with a good idea for transit in Pittsburgh. And the people with the money are going to say, “But wait. We just spent $550 million on a mile of light-rail tracks for you guys. And nobody rides it.”
And they will be correct.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
After more than 20 years of these boondoggle urban light rail projects voters may finally be getting the message that the costs of these projects far exceed the benefits and that they’d be much better off with buses. Because of the huge costs of light rail, between $20 million and $100 million per mile, the projects that have actually survived the political process and gotten built are generally very small, and provide only a token amount of transportation. Light rail provides less than 4% of total passenger-miles of transit in the United States. And only an infinitesimal share of total motorized passenger transportation. The New York subway alone carries almost six times as many passengers as all the light rail systems in the United States combined.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:51 am
voters may finally be getting the message that the costs of these projects far exceed the benefits
Or maybe, in the real world, voters in L.A. County (not just the central city… the county as a whole) passed Measure R in November with more than 2/3 of the vote.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Shorter Matt:
Public transit in Europe is full of Europeans — cool!
Regular buses in D.C. full of non-Europeans — not cool …
March 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am
charles Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Yes, Josephine, that’s right. You have a degree. Uh huh.
Meanwhile, you don’t even realize that most suburbs have poor transit systems.
Because of the huge costs of light rail, between $20 million and $100 million per mile, the projects that have actually survived the political process and gotten built are generally very small, and provide only a token amount of transportation. Of course, as we established last week, it requires only small amounts of the traffic on the roads to be eliminated by transit in order to provide huge benefits to the system, as congestion develops only as tipping points of volume are surpassed, and a single-digit % reduction in volume can eliminate all or most of the road congestion.
Light rail provides less than 4% of total passenger-miles of transit in the United States. Dishonest people use passenger-miles instead of trips to count rail’s share of transportation, in order to distort the true share. A resident of city who is able to live a mile from her job because of the urban development pattern allowed by the subway succeeds in getting to her job JUST AS MUCH by taking rail 1 mile as someone who drives 30 miles each way from his subdivision to his office park – but a passenger-mile analysis would count that latter person’s trip as providing 30X as much bang for the buck.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“you have to be a little bit careful about who the “you guys” actually were in this case”
I don’t think so. “You,” to the funders, means “Pittsburgh.”
Pittsburgh got a boatload of transit funding for these projects, and expended a ton of political capital to secure it.
But who klnows. Maybe next year, someone proposes a rail spur to Oakland. And maybe the people who control the money (The FRA, ISTEA, etc) will make really fine distinctions and say, “Well, OK then. We had no idea Tom Murphy has moved on! Those were OTHER Pittsburgh people who took $350 million from us last year, then came back for anouther $200 million. Please, build your rail spur. It’s a wonderful project.”
Or maybe they will say, “Hey. We just gave you $550 million. Get back in line.”
Yes, they will be using the wrong “you.” But I suspect that’s exactly what they will say.
As to whether or not this would have been MY’s preferred project, that doesn’t matter. One suspects that he would have preferred some of the other options because of things like ridership and cost considerations.
But he can hardly take NSC proponents to task for exaggerating their project, right? He said it irresponsible to NOT do that.
I would obviously prefer a situation in which people are honest about projections so we can select the best projects. We would of course have to guard against bad actors who exaggerate, but that’s the price of doing business.
Sadly, that price goes up when people actively encourage dishonesty in this regard. Which is what MY has done.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
A transit post here is always like the Devil’s Birthday with a full cast of people you’d rather not share a bus with. Fortunately, by their account, you never will. There’s Charles, who is actually fairly easy to tune out, as you can skip everything that follows his name. And let me just say, Matt, that putting the name of the commenter at the top of the comment is cutting-edge stuff.
Then there’s Sam M and his perseveration about how Matt told people to lie. Sam M might have something worth reading, or his intellect might just be twisted and likely to roll under your foot like a rope you step on in the dark. Always hard to tell with people who perseverate on something that’s unimportant but makes them feel better than somebody else.
A lot of you guys should sniff the coffee and admire the roses. When I lived in NY and rode the subway I looked out the window all the time. Going through the ghost stations was like traveling in time. Where I live now we talk to each other and often know peoples names. Migod, it’s not like they’re going to track dirt on your carpet.
Unfortunately, the random-noise generators like Charles leave a depressing feeling about the thread that probably is not justified. How great would it be if we could filter the thread, choosing which commenter we didn’t want to see and generating an ‘edited’ thread with more grain and less chaff? My vote is for ‘truly great indeed’. Maybe some cool web developer could make a few bucks by making that happen.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
You know, if New York had based their decision to build subways 100 years ago on the market share of various transportation alternatives, they’d probably still have horse-drawn cabs, traffic would be worse than it is now (and outside of Midtown, even Manhattan traffic isn’t all that bad), and New York would probably be a minor secondary port town in the Jersey City Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. All the “fiscal conservatives” bitched about the money New York sunk into the subways, but over the last 100 years, it’s been a wise investment, indeed.
The real waste of money has been the building of superhighways, especially the ones that have enabled suburban and exurban sprawl. Of course, most people drive cars, they don’t have any alternative. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t spend money to provide alternatives. The benefits of getting people to drive less are obvious enough to make the expense worthwhile.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I am not saying they will be confused. I am saying they won’t care. Pittsburgh got $550 million for a rail project. I think it highly likely that decision makers will take that into account the next time they are doling out money for rail.
You don’t think so? That would seem to fly in the face of everything we know about the impact that regionalism has on politics. Pennsylvania has some finite amount of money available for transit. People fight over it. It is very often doled out for good reasons and for bad. But people do, in fact, track where it goes.
How often do you thin the state senator from Philly is going to keep voting “yes” on projects that send millions of dollars to Pittsburgh?
Do you think that he, as a legislator, makes completely rational decisions about the “worth” of these projects? Or does he occasionally think, “Time for my people to get theirs?”
This does not seem so controversial to me.
Do a thought experiment. Transfer this to another issue. Say, welfare. Lets say that in year 1, someone comes up with a great idea to save “the children” by instituting midnight basketball. All legislators jump on board. It does not work.
The next year, someone cooks up a scheme to spend even more millions on, say, free high speed internet for poor people.
The next year, it’s something else. Then something else. Then something else.
Now, let’s say that in year 25, someone actually comes up with a fantastic idea that seems like it will do the trick. For real this time. By year 25, do you think that ALL of the legislators will analyze that proposal on its merits? DO you think ANY of them will be suffering from some kind of welfare fatigue? DO you think that any of them wil succumb to political pressure from constituents who claim that they have already been dumping millions of dollars, year after year, down that hole? DO you think that the people making the proposals will have burned up any of their political capital? Will have called their political judgment into question?
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Buy Viagra…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra…
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
bookmark it
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
hello
just thanks
March 24th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
March 24th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/eVAJ Buy Propecia Online…
March 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
hello everyone…..
[url=http://www.buypenisenlargement.com]penis enlargement pills online[/url]
March 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
It sounds like you’re creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place. Look at this: look at penis pills.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://ypxoiea.com/ovyrqqv/4.html
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Very nice site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Hello very nice site! sitemap