Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Rio Grande is not conducive to a Riverwalk type of development. One of its main charms is the natural, no concrete sidewalk environment it now has. In fact, because it is so shallow and is really not navigable in any commercial way, it has been spared the concrete channel construction so common along larger rivers. Viva the difference! Even the rivers in Denver, the Platte and Cherry Creek, as shallow as they are got concrete lining a long time ago and have not retained their original environment. The biking trails and cafes are great but trees are even better.
How's a street car any different than a bus exactly?
A street car runs on 150-year old technology.
A bus is much more modern technology and is not limited to
the shiny metal that gets people who tout rail all excited.
A bus can run on dirt. A bus can run on the road the next block over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloo66
Dedicated track,
True. A drawback, actually. See note above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloo66
more consistent schedule,
False. Prove it, or stop saying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloo66
cleaner.
False - again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloo66
Buses feed the rail line improving routes off of the station.
So what? Bus lines are also fed by other bus lines. Again, so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloo66
Buses have routes that serve the community better.
Um, so why use streetcars that serve the community less well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Everyone makes the same mistake of only considering the construction costs.
No, actually, slow rail advocates always make the same mistake of BLOWING OFF the construction costs.
That is because most people don't understand depreciation. That's why they buy new cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Let's take into consideration fuels, ...
FUELS? I"m getting ready to take a trip back to my home town of Dayton.
Dayton, OH, has an original bus line that runs on electricity.
Just STOP with that fuels crap. If enough people are riding the mass transit it doesn't matter if you use coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Let's take into consideration ... tire replacement, shorter lifespans,
Rail has lots of costs that busses don't have.
The reason that rail cars in most towns are nicer is because they have a much much larger maintenance budget.
If the bus systems in the cities were maintained on that level, they would all be wonderful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Let's take into consideration ... public perception of buses.
Oh BFD. So we need to spend money on trains so a bunch of elitists will climb out of their Mercedes and ride the rails now and then?
If busses were maintained well and schedules were kept, perceptions would change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
I won that argument and a street car down Central is a nonstarter.
I don't think so Mort, I think the city council beat you to that...
How do you know that my arguments were not used in their final decision?
The Rio Grande is not conducive to a Riverwalk type of development. One of its main charms is the natural, no concrete sidewalk environment it now has. In fact, because it is so shallow and is really not navigable in any commercial way, it has been spared the concrete channel construction so common along larger rivers.
Bingo. River development can definitely make sense in some cities, but I am not convinced its appropriate here.
Great. It's obviously a working model. Modern engine-driven bus systems are just barely younger (encyclopedia's worldwide verify this).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
A bus is much more modern technology and is not limited to
the shiny metal that gets people who tout rail all excited.
Again, engine-driven bus systems are just barely younger. What examples can you provide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
A bus can run on dirt. A bus can run on the road the next block over.
Valid in theory, but it sounds like you're reaching...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
True. A drawback, actually. See note above.
Limited, yes. But not necessarily always a bad thing, either. Ever sit in a line of cars for 45 minutes simply waiting to get from Broadway to University? I wouldn't mind zipping up the middle of all that crap in a train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
False. Prove it, or stop saying it.
Can you prove it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
False - again.
Again, can you prove it? Both leave a pretty bad ecological footprint. Trains use coal (nonrenewable resource that pollutes in all stages of its use) for electricty and buses burn petroleum products (I think everyone's well aware fossil fuels are ultimately doomed). But is one cleaner than the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
No, actually, slow rail advocates always make the same mistake of BLOWING OFF the construction costs. That is because most people don't understand depreciation. That's why they buy new cars.
Obviously it goes both ways. Depreciation of what? Are you comparing products (e.g., train cars and buses)? I'd love it if someone could actually provide some comprehensive stats on how much it costs to maintain buses annualy vs. trains. Are those up-front rail construction costs really worth it? Maybe trains pay their building costs off in the end? Who knows? Do you? I sure as hell don't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
If enough people are riding the mass transit it doesn't matter if you use coal.
It doesn't matter if you use petroleum products either. What's the point here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
Rail has lots of costs that busses don't have.
What are they? And then what are costs for buses? Did you do some research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
The reason that rail cars in most towns are nicer is because they have a much much larger maintenance budget. If the bus systems in the cities were maintained on that level, they would all be wonderful.
Fact? Is this on paper somewhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
Oh BFD. So we need to spend money on trains so a bunch of elitists will climb out of their Mercedes and ride the rails now and then? If busses were maintained well and schedules were kept, perceptions would change.
From a study done on Portland's city train and bus systems:
"Recent reports have documented the need for increased security in parts of the MAX system. Indeed, while crimes against mass transit customers have dropped steadily in recent years, incidents on MAX trains continue to outnumber those on buses by about 3-to-1."
Despite the numbers above, this seems subjective - I'm not sure I'd consider either one safer than the other. I've certainly ridden some horribly unsafe buses and also been on really unsafe trains filled with nasty people. I think the same study also said that out of something like 310,000 commutes a day between both trains and buses in Portland, only three incidents are reported on average. Rates are pretty low on both sides no matter what your perception is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
How do you know that my arguments were not used in their final decision?
Who the heck cares? Did you get a city-data award? If so, what does it look like? I feel like city-data would probably go for handing out bowling-style trophies with a little gold figure on top. Maybe not? Plaque?
__________________________________________________ _____________
Whatever the case may be, it's great to see people so concerned about public transportation. Hopefully this means more people are using it.
Yep, seen Light Rail and street cars work in Portland. Dedicated tracks don't necessarily have to be on streets only, a transit mall could work. No one said Central Ave.
No traffic to deal with unless someone turns into a train, hence a reliable schedule. No diesel to burn. Buses feeding the rail line lead to improve bus service around the station, lowers maintenance cost on buses cause less miles are driven.
Run the train right down the center of 25 or 40. Comprehensive transit system work better than mono modal ones. Go to Portland, a pedestrian transit and bike friendly city to see it work.
It's like your boyfriend being knocked by your girlfriends-Albuquerque
will never live up to real cities. I've been waiting on this city for over 20 years and everytime we think we are getting Nordstrom..well it never happens. Sad too, since many people here get on a plane to PHX, DEN, LAX, DFW just to shop! Weird too, being a native, I wanted that for the Q-BUT, we now have people that are very wary of the Californicators that drove up the prices in Santa Fe, Taos, and now the Q, AND they don't want the big city they just moved from. When we do get something "new" it's another
Dollar tree or Mattress firm. Commercial and residential Property crimes are
a big problem as well as vandalism, angry people that don't want change (and can't afford to shop there, eat there, etc) It's a shame, but probably an issue of demographics, culture, backward politics, lots of opposition on growth.
I think the ruggedness of the bosque is unique and should mostly be left alone if possible. And I think the idea of creating a traditional "riverwalk" might be far fetched. However, it might be possible to create a longer, commute-to-fun river trail system. This idea has a less urban-focused model, but I've seen it in action in places like Missoula, MT and Indianapolis, IN and it's great. I think we sort of have that now, but what if we took it a step further...
If you can create access points - say, for instance, the mostly blank ground space at the corner of Avenida de Cesar Chavez and the Paseo del Bosque trail - where people can park cars and put bikes on the trail and head out for day-rides or whatever, and then open coffee shops, cafes and other related businesses at those points, you might be able to create a functioning point-to-point pedestrian river trail system that offers lots of socially gratifying and family-friendly options. So, rather than having to find the trail, bike up it to some other road and then ride off on some street to a restaurant 10 blocks away, you just get your fix right on the river. Of course, if you wanted to, you could still ride off-trail to your favorite little cafe on Rio Grande or wherever.
The goofy shop/train station at Tingley is a poor example and doesn't really do the job, so I'm not tossing it into the mix. But we've already got the zoo, aquarium, bio park, botanical gardens, National Hispanic Cultural Center, Old Town, Rio Grande Nature Center, etc. all directly along the Paseo del Bosque system. Open up some northern, southern and central retail/food stopping points that integrate with the already present city road access and bike-friendly corridors off the trail and into the surrounding communities, and we could have a really unique, working model here.
I'd love to jump on my bike at the NHCC, ride up to my favorite on-the-trail bistro somewhere near Paseo, and then ride back. Maybe? I don't know. Sounds fun, anyway.
Whatever the case, I really like the bosque the way it is and would be fine if it just stayed that way. It's pretty amazing.
Last edited by Cornflakes; 05-05-2011 at 09:07 AM..
I think the main benefit in the Rail vs Bus debate is that people tend to want to live near train stations and are willing to pay more to do so(at least in other cities). Which to tends to stimulate private development and investment around those stations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.