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.
Light rail is a money pit from the 1800s. A lot of the fascination stems from contractors looking for lucrative projects presenting pie in the sky figures. Anyone interested in such systems should read the news from London England for a few months. They have developed rail infrastructure and REGULAR loss of service for various reasons, increasing fares, and miserable crowded trains and stations.
To add to that, the medical community has finally fully recognized that mass transit makes people sick. The close contact spreads diseases like the flu (this is now documented), and if something more contagious, such as measles or worse, were to be epidemic the system would have to be shut down for public health.
When busses replaced light rail it was for a reason. They are less expensive, have flexible routes that can adjust to demand, and equipment is not limited to a single line and can be rallied from across the system to meet a special need, such as a major event.
We are on the verge of self-driving vehicles. To go back to a system that was antiquated almost a hundred years ago is a poor choice.
So, are airports also antiquated? Certain cities strongly benefit from heavy rail, New York, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia etc, and self driving cars are not the replacement for rail in those cities. It could be the future and one of the answers to cities like Birmingham, cities that could benefit from more options in transit, but also cities that do not need urban rail.
Light rail is a money pit from the 1800s. A lot of the fascination stems from contractors looking for lucrative projects presenting pie in the sky figures. Anyone interested in such systems should read the news from London England for a few months. They have developed rail infrastructure and REGULAR loss of service for various reasons, increasing fares, and miserable crowded trains and stations.
To add to that, the medical community has finally fully recognized that mass transit makes people sick. The close contact spreads diseases like the flu (this is now documented), and if something more contagious, such as measles or worse, were to be epidemic the system would have to be shut down for public health.
When busses replaced light rail it was for a reason. They are less expensive, have flexible routes that can adjust to demand, and equipment is not limited to a single line and can be rallied from across the system to meet a special need, such as a major event.
We are on the verge of self-driving vehicles. To go back to a system that was antiquated almost a hundred years ago is a poor choice.
I wanted to believe that this post was dripping with sarcasm but then I realized you really mean that.
I travel 70% of the time for work into major metros. Most of those said metros have light or heavy rail and it's quite convenient. The job that requires all the travel, is in automotive manufacturing. Your statement about self driving cars being the answer is comically far fetched.
Last edited by JesseRohr; 02-06-2019 at 08:16 AM..
I wanted to believe that this post was dripping with sarcasm but then I realized you really mean that.
I travel 70% of the time for work with into major metros. Most of those said metros have light or heavy rail and it's quite convenient. The job that requires all the travel, is in automotive manufacturing. Your statement about self driving cars being the answer is comically far fetched.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I think that if (when?) self-driving cars become commonplace, it will cause the total number of cars/SUVs/light trucks manufactured to drop by a lot. Like... it would impact sales far, far, far more than you could ever dream light rail or subways or buses would ever do. 50% or more I would think. The key is to make them friendly to the environment. Or at least as friendly as the market will allow.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I think that if (when?) self-driving cars become commonplace, it will cause the total number of cars/SUVs/light trucks manufactured to drop by a lot. Like... it would impact sales far, far, far more than you could ever dream light rail or subways or buses would ever do. 50% or more I would think. The key is to make them friendly to the environment. Or at least as friendly as the market will allow.
That timeline is insanely far down the road. The autonomous car will take decades to become common place even in major metropolitan areas. Then there is the liability and insurance portion of the equation that hasn't even begun to take shape yet. I.E. if a self driving autonomous car hits a pedestrian or another car, who's liable? The automaker, the owner who's chilling in the back seat reading the paper, the pedestrian?
I've spent a tremendous amount of time around them and working with/for people making strides in the tech, but we are far off.
Also, the next time you're cruising around town take a tally of the average age of vehicles. It's not like everyone is driving a brand new car. Average vehicles on the road are 12 years of age in most places, in rural areas they are much much older. Now think about how long it takes to cycle through ALL of the driver driven vehicles to make way for the autonomous vehicles. Decades...
Rail makes an immediate impact both economically and environmentally for a lot of metros plagued with traffic. Something the self driving car will not do for years to come.
That timeline is insanely far down the road. The autonomous car will take decades to become common place even in major metropolitan areas. Then there is the liability and insurance portion of the equation that hasn't even begun to take shape yet. I.E. if a self driving autonomous car hits a pedestrian or another car, who's liable? The automaker, the owner who's chilling in the back seat reading the paper, the pedestrian?
I've spent a tremendous amount of time around them and working with/for people making strides in the tech, but we are far off.
Also, the next time you're cruising around town take a tally of the average age of vehicles. It's not like everyone is driving a brand new car. Average vehicles on the road are 12 years of age in most places, in rural areas they are much much older. Now think about how long it takes to cycle through ALL of the driver driven vehicles to make way for the autonomous vehicles. Decades...
Rail makes an immediate impact both economically and environmentally for a lot of metros plagued with traffic. Something the self driving car will not do for years to come.
I noticed you didn't come out and say it, but do you feel like Birmingham is plagued with traffic? I agree that rail has a use and a place in many cities. I'm just not sure how successful or needed it would be in Birmingham. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other American cities around 1 million MSA population that have commuter/light rail service through the city, that aren't already part of a larger and denser CSA i.e. North-Eastern cities.
I noticed you didn't come out and say it, but do you feel like Birmingham is plagued with traffic? I agree that rail has a use and a place in many cities. I'm just not sure how successful or needed it would be in Birmingham. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other American cities around 1 million MSA population that have commuter/light rail service through the city, that aren't already part of a larger and denser CSA i.e. North-Eastern cities.
Sorry for the broad strokes. I was speaking generally and not to Birmingham specifically. I think Nashville would be better suited for light rail than Birmingham currently, as its traffic is much worse.
Birmingham's traffic (to me) isn't as bad as where I previously lived (Lexington KY). I purchased a home near where I spend the most time (Glen Iris) and I don't commute anywhere other than to the airport when I am home. I am the exception, not the rule. If I had to drive 280 into the city every day I think I'd lose my mind.
I suspect that many of you don't fully understand packet switching, but it is what makes it possible to complain about my cold water drench of your cherished dream. Packet switching is the type of movement in automobile traffic. If there is a traffic accident on 20th street, traffic naturally flows around it using 18th and 22nd street. Each car or packet uses the network of roads in a unique way to reach a destination.
Packet speed can be improved in a few ways when longer distances and congestion are involved. We know the Interstates (trunk lines) work, but decreasing packet size can also speed a network.
Traditional rail and light rail passenger transport assumes an able bodied human carrying a minimum of baggage. That might work for the senior with the tiny two wheel grocery cart, but try transporting a sofa or 60" tv on light rail. A robust and useful transport system needs more flexibility.
Rail, in any form, is a type of serial communication. It is plagued by ANY disruption along the entire line creating a stoppage. Rail in England gets stopped regularly by leaves on the tracks, labor strikes, signal problems, and even suicide victims that have to have parts removed from tracks and trains. Each disruption brings hundreds or thousands of commuters to a screeching halt - often for hours. What about all of the urgent plans those people had? What if one was on way to hospital? Here's a clue - have you ever heard of a railroad ambulance being dispatched? Rail FORCES people to conform to what designers made - often years earlier before new industry or changes in housing.
Rail made it into the latter half of the 20th century largely because of two things - coal transport and containerized freight. The standard shipping container was one of the most brilliant inventions of the era. The contents are safe, can use a variety of forms of transport, and are - like autos - "packets," just without any means of propulsion.
It is past time that we recognize human movement is more than just the human, but the human and accompanying baggage of everyday life. Ignore that baggage and humans will ignore your transport system, and rightly so.
What no one has seen fit to do is define a standard "packet" or container for a human that fits within a larger transport network seamlessly. With smart cars and electric cars that is now achievable.
This is from years ago. The image links no longer work, but you can get the concept from it.
Birmingham traffic is not as bad as other cities so I don't see a need for such an infrastructure. One, maybe two roads, are considered bad (280 and I65) but the max commute is normally about 40-45 mins to get from downtown to Greystone. Those are your biggest traffic nightmares and I have not heard of any plans on adding lightrail here, where it would be most needed. Also, I don't foresee anyone from the Greystone area using it. That's just not that bad and Birmingham's just not big enough.
It's a nice thought but there needs to be some serious growth/need before investing in that.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,466,576 times
Reputation: 12187
Seems like being a state capital boosts metro area growth. Atlanta, Nashville, Raleigh, Austin are all state capital boom towns. Indy and Columbus OH outgrow nearby metros that aren't capitals. I think it's one factor giving Nashville a leg up on Memphis, Birmingham, and Louisville.
I think Birmingham has a lot of positives. Scenic mountainous topography, nice older core around Five Points, and location with mild winters but no hurricanes.
That timeline is insanely far down the road. The autonomous car will take decades to become common place even in major metropolitan areas. Then there is the liability and insurance portion of the equation that hasn't even begun to take shape yet. I.E. if a self driving autonomous car hits a pedestrian or another car, who's liable? The automaker, the owner who's chilling in the back seat reading the paper, the pedestrian?
I've spent a tremendous amount of time around them and working with/for people making strides in the tech, but we are far off.
Also, the next time you're cruising around town take a tally of the average age of vehicles. It's not like everyone is driving a brand new car. Average vehicles on the road are 12 years of age in most places, in rural areas they are much much older. Now think about how long it takes to cycle through ALL of the driver driven vehicles to make way for the autonomous vehicles. Decades...
Rail makes an immediate impact both economically and environmentally for a lot of metros plagued with traffic. Something the self driving car will not do for years to come.
Why don't you take a look at pictures of 5th Avenue in New York City in the early part of the last century and see how quickly it went from >95% horses to >95% automobiles. Once a jurisdiction takes the plunge with autonomous, the gained benefits will be obvious and adaptation will be rapid. It won't take long for other dominos to fall.
Also, I think you may be missing a major point with self-driving cars. People won't have to buy them. Maybe a wealthy person buys a fleet of 50 of them and puts them to use 24 hours a day (or as close to it as possible) instead of 500 people buying 500 cars and putting them to use less than 1 hour a day.
We have gotten pretty far off-topic though so I will stop.
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.
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.
