  Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 719 Registered: 07-2004 |
PG, here are some facts from Trimet in Portland. You have to base a transit on the whole system and not one line. Here are the facts. As you can see transit does make a difference in Portland. ---------- Bus and MAX ridership averaged: 329,800 trips a day. Each weekday, MAX Light Rail eliminates 72,000 car trips off our roads. TriMet’s MAX and buses combined eliminate 201,800 daily car trips, or 63.2 million trips each year. MAX Light Rail carries 26% of afternoon rush-hour commuters traveling from downtown on the Sunset Hwy. and Banfield Fwy. corridors. Choice riders Nearly six of every ten riders (59%) have cars but prefer to take TriMet. Another 11 percent choose not to own a car because they prefer to take transit. In all, 70 percent of riders choose TriMet over driving. 40% of adults in the region use TriMet at least twice a month. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4545 Registered: 03-2006 |
Dan - I am posting hard data to back up my opinions. Sorry the facts doesn't correlate to your narrative. Light rail's disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The obvious drawback is that it a fixed route with no flexibility, a bus can go pretty much anywhere based on evolving commuter patterns. Even if I buy your claim that it has lower operating costs, the initial investment is huge as compared to buses. You claim that you can move greater numbers of passengers, which is not really valid because buses could be added or subtracted based on demand at any given time. In addition, buses can come closer to a "door to door" experience because of the flexibility of the road system. The other thing you are ignoring is that the dollars needed to build and operate light rail will ultimately siphon dollars from maintaining the bus system. As any light rail line will need to be supplemented by buses to feed it, this seems to be a concern. Basically what you are proposing is that the taxpayers should fund a light rail system that would cost 100's of millions of dollars because the trains are "nicer" than the existing mode of transport. Given the scarcity of public funds in this state and the daunting challenges the city faces, that does not appear to be the best use of that money. The average commute time for mass transit is twice as long as personal transportation. In addition, because of commuter patterns, any rail line will need to be supplemented by other forms of transportation. The Howell-Ann Arbor line is a great example, given the layout of those 2 communities, there will be no way you can get to and from your destination by rail alone. The other problem is that the rail service may not comport the the work schedules of the commuters or their need to make additional stops/run errands along the way. So what you are asking people in Howell to do, who already have cars, is to drive to the rail station, ride a train that will take twice as long (probably well over an hour with stops) and then try to find a way to get to their actual workplace on arrival in Ann Arbor, all while juggling their personal belongings and standing around in the cold waiting for trains. Based on what I know about people in the burbs, this mode of transport is a non-starter. Sure, a few people will ride for the novelty of it but it will not decrease congestion on US-23 one iota. Miketoronto - Say what you will about light rail in Portland, not matter how you want to slice and dice the numbers the overall impact is not significant enough to justify the expense of the system. quote: Combining 2 modes of transit to make your case? The buses could carry all of those passengers and the expense of the rail line could have been saved. quote: Only a proponent of mass transit would be impressed by that statistic. The transit riders of Portland should be thanking motor vehicle users for funding their little used light rail system. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3624 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: This from someone who never rides a bus, let alone rail. That's precious. Your "statistics" are misleading, as others have posted. If I-75 sees 200,000 cars a day, that's less than 5% of the area's population. Better get to work bulldozing it. quote: As the Detroit area is finding out, evolving commuting patterns aren't necessarily a positive, creating traffic problems in areas that were never intended to have such traffic. The flexibility of buses is actually a negative, for reasons you'll never understand because you never actually ride transit. I ride buses and rail--trust me on this one. quote: This is willfully stupid on your part. Rail cars can be added and removed at any time as well. If I'm on a subway train, there could be 1200 other people on it. If I'm on a bus, there are a maximum of 40 other people. Do the math. The one question you still refuse to address, is that if Detroit is doing everything the correct way, and every other city is wrong, then why does Detroit LAG everywhere else? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3625 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Hmmm. Seems to me that anyone who endures such a hellish commute has made a personal choice to do so, no? quote: No, it won't decrease congestion. The reason is, because driving is essentially a "free good", there is an infinite demand for roadway capacity. This is also why the 20-lane Highway 401 in Toronto is jammed at rush hour. You can't pave your way out of congestion. The people on the train, however, will be working, snoozing, or having a cup of coffee as they blow by the traffic jams. PG, fess up. You have no understanding of transportation policy. You're just committed to forcing people to live how you do. Interestingly enough, since rail is "so expensive" as you claim, you might like to know that bus-only DDOT has some of the highest operating expenses and lowest farebox recovery rates in the nation. Maybe it's because the buses aren't all you crack them up to be? Build a decent, robust rail system, and people will ride. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4550 Registered: 03-2006 |
Dan - It is a classic chicken and egg question. Do prosperous cities have transit because of their prosperity or are they prosperous because they have mass transit. In NYC I would agree that it is probably both, but most cities (and certainly not Detroit) compare to NYC. What you are saying is that replacing an existing system up Woodward with what you think is better at an enormous cost will guarantee new development. It might happen but only if the other massive issues the city has failed to get a handle on were addressed as well, e.g. public safety. IMHO, getting the crime index down to the low 300's would have a far greater positive impact on the city and should be priority 1 because it is the #1 problem that holds the city back from attracting new residents and business. If this were successful, growth would come and maybe then you could start looking at smart alternatives to expand the transit choices in and around the city. I never claimed to be an expert on mass transit but of course you are not one either. I know how to read a report, analyze data and add and subtract though. I only wish people in government could do the same. You clearly have an agenda Dan so accusing me of the same thing falls flat. I won't ride the trains no matter what so personally it won't affect me much either way. You are the one obsessed in seeing your vision carried out no matter what the cost and who pays for it. The problem is that if yours was the majority view, we would be seeing more action on the matter. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3627 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No shit. Think about why that might be. quote: It's happened everywhere else they've built rail. Why not Detroit? Unless you have a problem with increased investment and rising property values, this is a no-brainer. By putting more "eyes on the street", development will help to reduce crime. quote: All big cities have crime. What holds Detroit back is the incredible expense and effort necessary to get anywhere. Don't believe me? Try getting from the airport to downtown without driving. quote: To the extent that I've ridden many different systems, am a daily bus and subway rider, and have studied the issue extensively over the past ten years, I'd say I'm qualified enough. You're just pushing an anti-tax ideology, without even considering facts that may challenge your viewpoint. quote: Other cities ARE seeing action on the matter, and even Detroit is making some headway. Here's something to consider: quote: http://www.smartgrowthamerica. org/narsgareport2007.html | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2044 Registered: 04-2006 |
I always find it funny that people think NYC is an anomaly. It's actually American cities that are the anomaly. Look at Toronto, London, Paris, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Seoul, etc., etc. American cities are the only ones that question whether transit is a necessity for a city. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4553 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Why not? Because generally folks don't like to get stabbed at the rail station. Of course you have inadvertently stumbled into another argument against your ideas which is the affordability of housing. In the areas that impose the restrictions on development that you are proposing, housing costs have skyrocketed. As the median income in Detroit is about 30 grand, this will be a concern. So if your supposition would come to pass, and that is a big "if," in this city, poor people will be ejected from the areas along the line. Of course you will argue that there will be increased opportunity for them to raise their incomes, which would be fine if 1/2 of them weren't functionally illiterate and many of them didn't have criminal records. We have seen this problem played out already with the casinos. quote: I have been a frequent air traveler and that doesn't make me an expert on the airline industry. What I am pushing is the sensible use of public funds. I have read and considered the data you have posted, and I appreciate you have done so. Most people on this forum just make claims and don't back them up. Yet the facts about light rail are inconvenient to your point of view. The total cost per mile is higher than buses when all factors are considered and the fares generally cover only 20-30% of the operating costs. Clearly no private business would ever build a system based on that scenario, why does government think it is a good idea? The motorist bears far more of the cost of his/her chosen mode of transportation. With light rail, the benefit is concentrated into relatively small areas but the cost is dispersed widely. In the end, the train heads on this forum proclaim any mode of mass transit a success as long as somebody is using it. This is a very simplistic notion. By that measure, highways are an OVERWHELMING success. Going back to Portland for a moment, the overall percentage of people who use mass transit actually went DOWN after the light rail line was built because the costs of operating it forced them to cut back on bus service and raise fares. As Portland is widely cited by proponents of mass transit as an example of success, clearly there are different standards of what success means here. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3628 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Yes, because stabbings are regular occurrences at transit stations all over the nation. Do you live in a cave or what? Detroit doesn't have to worry about affordable housing. I will say, though, that even though housing values in DC are far greater than those in Detroit, it's actually cheaper for me to live here, since I don't need a car. Again--I choice that I have here, whereas in Detroit, I would be required to own a car and piss away thousands of dollars a year on car insurance and gas. quote: SOURCE? Please elaborate. Are you talking capital or operating costs, or both? Are you comparing equivalent service levels and capacities? Does development factor into this? Have you accounted for rail having a higher farebox recovery than buses? quote: SOURCE? Let's see actual numbers. quote: Free goods are always successful. Look at Detroit--virtually no transit and tons of freeways: the paragon of success. quote: SOURCE? Again, numbers are helpful. Hint: your claim is more credible if you don't include population on the fringes of the metropolitan area where there is no transit service. Just thought you might like to be honest about this. Your propaganda is tiresome. Do some research and get your facts straight. AGAIN: Why does Detroit LAG every other region in the U.S. if it's doing everything properly with regard to transportation? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1555 Registered: 07-2004 |
Enjoying the entertaining argument. It seems clear to me that PG doesn't see value in light rail, but that's OK. If everybody agrees, somebody's not thinking. But I suspect his views are more psychological than ideological, Dan. Maybe he feels threatened by it. Maybe he hates the idea of sharing a public space with his fellow man. Notice this irrational fear of being killed by people in public. You can show a person like that a statistic that most victims of homicide know their attacker well. That doesn't stop them from fearing people, or clicking the locks when they drive around in their tanklike cars. Whatever. I just wish we could discuss light rail as a driver of urban development more. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3629 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Sorry. I've been busy stopping the bleeding from the stab wound I suffered this morning. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4555 Registered: 03-2006 |
The Economics of Transportation Costs For example, fare revenue covers only 28.2 percent of operating costs in St. Louis, 19.4 percent of costs in Baltimore and 21.4 percent of costs in Buffalo.2 Nationwide, annual light-rail operating costs ($778.3 million) far exceed fare revenue ($226.1 million); the balance ($552.2 million) is paid for with tax dollars. Note that these numbers refer only to operating expenses. With such large annual losses, no light-rail system could possibly recoup its construction costs, which can amount to several hundred million dollars. No privately owned system would ever be operated (or even be built) with such a dismal balance sheet. http://www.stlouisfed.org/publ ications/re/2004/c/pages/light _rail.html I have already posted the numbers relative to the costs born by motorists for the highway system. As for Portland, again the data is here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/j tw/jtw4.htm There were more people using transit in 1980 than now because of bus service expansion in the 1970's. As the rail line was being built, bus service was reduced and the overall percentage went down to 4.7% in 1990. It has increased a whopping 1% since 1990 to 5.7% but has never recovered to the 7.2% from the 1990's or 9.8% of the 1970's. quote: More accurately, you guys fell threatened by someone who does not follow the company line on this forum. As I said I have no personal interest in the matter either way, it won't alter my lifestyle one bit. Clearly the remark about being stabbed was sarcastic but of course I know many who were in fact victims of violent crimes in Detroit. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1556 Registered: 07-2004 |
I don't feel threatened by you, PG. Like I said, if everybody agrees, somebody's not thinking. But just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're thoughtful, either. ;) | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 218 Registered: 07-2007 |
Still waiting on PG to address the subsidy for local roads that isn't covered by his constant repetition of federal highway statistics. I know it's an "inconvenient truth" for you. Please try addressing it. | ||
Det_on_nation_365 Member Username: Det_on_nation_365 Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2007 |
quote: “Why not? Because generally folks don't like to get stabbed at the rail station.” People often fail to accept the dangers presented by auto travel almost to an extent as if they don’t exist. Statistical information proves that auto related fatalities far out number the chances of death from a violent encounter. Even for high crime cities like Detroit, likelihood of random violence is rare. But the ability to drive personal transportation seems to inflate a person’s sense of control over dangerous situations. It’s the same astonishing mentality that led some people to prefer highway travel over air travel after the events of Sept. 11th. Critics are always trying to uses the crime argument in hopes of reinforcing the xenophobic perceptions that created the sprawling mess that is metro Detroit. As indicated by our current budget woes, SE Michigan can no-longer afford to sustain the opportunity costs of not having a viable mass transit system because of such asinine notions. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4556 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Novine - you have made statements and quoted figures that you have not backed up. Please provide the source material and I will be glad to comment on it. Your interpretation that the cost of the the M-5 connector translates to a "subsidy" for the residents of Novi quite frankly does not hold water. So if you would provide the backup data for your numbers we could talk more. quote: The crime "argument" is a valid one. The stats don't lie. You have reinforced the notion that the new definition of the word "racist" is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal. You attempt to assign some sort of venal intent to someone who is merely quoting actual statistics is ludicrous. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3630 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: http://www.lightrailnow.org/ | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4562 Registered: 03-2006 |
Of course this conveniently leaves out the growth in population, which within the city limits alone grew by almost 170,000 since 1980. As a percentage of overall commuters, the rate has gone down. This flies in the face of the argument, as there was increased population and economic growth yet overall mass transit use as a percentage of the population went down. Shouldn't the opposite be happening, Dan, based on your premise? (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1558 Registered: 07-2004 |
This thread has its unintentional humor. When rail raises housing values: Oh shit, transit causes housing costs to skyrocket! When people flock to a city with transit: Oh shit, the relative percentage of people using transit is plummeting. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3631 Registered: 10-2003 |
From Perfectgentleman: quote: RE: St. Louis quote: St. Louis's transit ridership is approximately 53.3 million per year, with over 40% of the trips on rail. Rail ridership has grown 31.43% in the past year, while bus ridership has decreased 2.97%. The reasons for this? According to a ridership survey conducted by Bi-State Metro: *New Shrewsbury I-44 extension--69% of bus riders and 73% of rail riders say the new line improves service. *Viable alternative to driving: 65% of riders are choice riders. Source: www.metrostlouis.com By comparison, DDOT's farebox recovery ratio for its bus-only system is a miserable 13% (www.ntdprogram.gov). | ||
Billpdx Member Username: Billpdx Post Number: 52 Registered: 05-2006 |
Good point, PG... That huge growth in population came due to the increase in transportation options, which helped create a densely populated neighborhoods filled with homes, condos, retail, and jobs. You can see Michigan licence plates on the road every day in Portland (whereas I've never seen another Oregon plate outside of my own here in Detroit). I assure you: All of those people and jobs didn't move out to Oregon for the freeways and parking lots. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 720 Registered: 07-2004 |
PG, the number of people using transit would still go down even in a growing region, if transit was not attracting people. Yes the % of people using transit to get to work might have gone down, and I agree that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Usually the issue with % of people taking transit going down, has to do with job sites being located in suburban areas where transit can not compete as well with the car. So to raise the %, you gotta locate the jobs near transit again. There is no doubt American cities Portland included need to do better on the % front. PG why don't you look at other cities though. Calgary has an LRT system that carries over 250,000 people a day, in a region smaller then Portland. The LRT does not eat up massive amounts of funds, and actually does not cost that much to operate either. I think the problem you have is that these American systems are seeing lower ridership and high costs. That is a no brainer. America has ruined its transit networks over the last 50 years. And it is going to take money to bring these systems back. Will ridership be low at the start, maybe. Will it cost lots of money to operate these systems? Yes it will. But you have to start rebuilding again, and as the years go by, these systems will mature, people will get use to taking transit, and the costs will go down to operate them. But American cities are basically starting from scratch in the transit department. If you don't like trains, fine. But to say cities should not invest in transit is stupid. You need a balanced transit network. And like I said, it does not cost that much money to operate transit. Cry me a river because your property tax bill has a $100.00 on it for transit. Big deal. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1415 Registered: 02-2006 |
I will admit that public transportation is a subsidized nightmare waste of time, as soon as we all can admit that: Despite not commuting by car to downtown Chicago, I pay $75 a year for a city vehicle sticker. This pays for roads that I do not drive on. Suburban commuters who drive to the Loop do not have this sticker, yet use "my" roads free of charge. I do fly quite frequently. But many do not. And yet, they HEAVILY subsidize my flight. And yes kids, despite living in Illinois, I paid for I-96 to be reconfigured in Novi. This does not benefit me in the least. | ||
Det_on_nation_365 Member Username: Det_on_nation_365 Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2007 |
quote: “The crime "argument" is a valid one. The stats don't lie. You have reinforced the notion that the new definition of the word "racist" is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal. You attempt to assign some sort of venal intent to someone who is merely quoting actual statistics is ludicrous.” PG, once again you are wrong and you didn’t provide any valid statistics. The crime argument is one that is based on fallacy!•• There is no statistical information that provides sufficient data on automobiles improving personal safety. It is merely a delusion base on perceptions of half-truths. In 2004, the homicide rate was 5.5 per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04 /offenses_reported/violent_cri me/murder.html). If you juxtapose that with vehicle fatality data from that same year (14.59 per 100,000; http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Main/index.aspx) you would clearly see that automobile related deaths were ten times more frequent. So obviously you are unaware of the risk excessive driving poses or xenophobic. The fact that everyone has to drive in the region make you concerned about own safety. Inexperienced teenagers, elderly, and economically challenged drivers who cannot afford insurance need a viable options so that they don’t have to become your road hazards. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4565 Registered: 03-2006 |
Dan- Regarding St. Loius, why constrain the time period of the analysis to 1996-2005? To hide the $465 million initial capital cost? The rest of the figures don't jibe either with other sources, the was another $339 million expansion in 1998 and $75 million more in 2003. So as long as we can forget about the initial costs and isolate the analysis to a few years, LRT comes out 15% better than bus transit? I like this line: "Bus pavement has a shorter life than rail track infrastructure, and their salvage value is basically nil." "Bus pavement" in other words ROADS, are maintained using money from motorists. quote: This part is a little sketchy don't you think? Seems like alot of assumptions and the old "various sources" bit. Bottom line, as of 2000 the percent of commuters using rail to get to work is .2% and 2.1% for bus. So we have initial costs north of a billion dollars to build the system and nearly $30 million per year in operating costs for a system that 99.8% of people don't use to get to work? quote: Not supported by the facts I am afraid. The percentage went down, if transit were the reason, it would have gone up. quote: I have never said that. I just think some common sense needs to be applied. There is this assumption that all light rail projects make sense and are justified, clearly that is not the case. quote: And taxpayers in Michigan subsidized similar projects in your area. OVERALL however, highways are more than paid for by motorists. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4566 Registered: 03-2006 |
Det_on_nation_365 - The homicide rate per 100,000 in Detroit is currently 47.3, 3 times that of your quoted traffic fatality rate. http://www.city-data.com/city/ Detroit-Michigan.html Sorry to blow you out of the water so quickly, but you can't use an overall rate country wide when my point specifically mentioned Detroit. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3634 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: It was the ten year period for which data most recently available. If you CHOSE to read, you'd see capital costs were already accounted for--that's the ENTIRE POINT of the post. quote: And everyone else as well, including non-drivers, through income taxes and property taxes, as we've already discussed. quote: No. I regularly ride on railcars that were part of the original DC Metro system in 1976. These are currently undergoing mid-life rehab. How many 30 year old buses does DDOT have? quote: Asinine, misleading bullshit. Zero percent of Detroiters ride the subway to work. Why? CAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE, DUMBASS! You have a source for your numbers? Otherwise, I'll assume you made this up too. quote: Still waiting for a second source on this. The politicized Bush Administration bullshit propaganda you posted is the only source that has ever claimed gas taxes cover the costs of highways. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1559 Registered: 07-2004 |
quote: "'Good point, PG... That huge growth in population came due to the increase in transportation options, which helped create a densely populated neighborhoods filled with homes, condos, retail, and jobs.'" "Not supported by the facts I am afraid. The percentage went down, if transit were the reason, it would have gone up." What about: All the cars transit takes off the road? The dense environments light rail helps create? The improved air quality we all benefit from? The sense of urbanity and community it engenders? The feeling of division and conflict it takes away? That farebox mentality is short-sighted. Looking at cashboxes, we can't weigh what we call "externalities" when it comes to light rail or cars. That is, we all get to get the benefit of the pollution (asthma and runoff), conflict (road rage), sensibility (concrete everywhere), architecture (strip malls and park-in-front buildings) that automobiles create. Same with light rail. People move enjoy being offered a CHOICE. Does that mean they always take advantage of the choice that's offered? No, but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy the benefits it confers. We all do. It's not going to change your mind, PG. You'd have to remove those blinders to do that... *sigh* Any aerial photos of development over time so we can SHOW the changes? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4567 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Why leave out the actual amount of the capital costs? Sounds fishy to me. quote: So your personal experience riding rails allows you to know for certain the exact lifespan of every car on the line? Nope. quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S t._Louis_MetroLink Namecalling Dan? quote: The DOT is the definitive source. You have proven no politically meddling by Bush and nobody is disputing those specific numbers but you. You said yourself that in 2009 the Highway Fund may see a shortfall for the first time which by implication means it has been in positive territory all along. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1416 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: Thanks for proving my point. |
