[Beeker2211]

Many things can be true in conjunction: that ConnDot has been far more forward thinking about intrastate rail than MassDOT has and that if there's a system that we shouldn't look to in the long term planning aspect is the MBTA (unless seeing 40 year old rolling regional rail stock setting ablaze is something to emulate). It can also be true that ConnDot is being much more myopic about the massive upside of a more interconnected rail/dedicated mass transit system could help the economy here than it could be.

Honestly with how unique the system is in CT, and the reality of it's development pattern is here, there aren't too many Mass Transit systems in the US that we even CAN look to and try to emulate and get guidance from. The closest may be BART with it's multi-polar centres of commerce and population. Again do not want to harp on it more but CT has no primate city that makes it easy to focus Mass Transit resources to: we have 5 regional centre cities that abut eachother... is it right or politically palatable to devote a large pile of state money to get at or below grade rail for Stamford but not Hartford, for Bridgeport but not New Haven? Massive bus infrastructure improvements for New London/Groton but not Waterbury?

Originally Posted by JayCT

Jim Cameron summarizes some of the testimony given at last weeks hearing on train service cuts planned by CTDOT. All are very valid points. Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2023/10/08/talk...r-10-7-23-jim/

Very interesting. Pretty much what many here have said: for people to use the system they want assurances not only can people get to their destination but they can easily get back. I don't think those people are talking idly... the reduction of service times affects their choice to not use the system.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

We need Charlie Baker to move here and be our next governor.

Sorry Charlie has a much better paying job with less worry and a WFH in MA situation. Besides, he kicked the can down the road WRT to transit just like everyone since Dukakis.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

. Pretty much what many here have said: for people to use the system they want assurances not only can people get to their destination but they can easily get back. I don't think those people are talking idly... the reduction of service times affects their choice to not use the system.

As it exists, the system fails to allow for commuting, during rush hour, to most of Ct.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

As it exists, the system fails to allow for commuting, during rush hour, to most of Ct.

Oh come on now, this is completely false. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Oh come on now, this is completely false. Jay

No, Jay, as a rider, it stinks, except for the line to NYC.

The accurate line in the story refers to running it to fail, which we are.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

No, Jay, as a rider, it stinks, except for the line to NYC.

The accurate line in the story refers to running it to fail, which we are.

That isn’t what you said. You said the system “fails” which it doesn’t, not by a long shot.

Just because Shoreline East doesn’t run a lot of eastbound trains in the morning, a direction the vast majority of commuters are NOT going, doesn’t mean the system is a failure. It means it’s run as cost efficiently as possible. I’m sure most taxpayers appreciate that.

One thing that you seem to fail to understand is the cost implications of running eastbound trains in the morning. It would place a large number of trains far from where you need them to be. It also means you have to hire additional staff to man those trains and for what? A couple random riders? Talk about wasting money and resources. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

SLE is being run to fail then, just as people at the meetings indicated. Their comments were harsh, but true, and long-term, only the New York line will last.

The initial press conferences for SLE btw were talking of its capabilities in BOTH directions.

It's not just Ct. Our nation fails by not expecting to heavily subsidize mass transit for a few decades in order to get it fully functioning, and less subsidized.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

That isn’t what you said. You said the system “fails” which it doesn’t, not by a long shot.

Just because Shoreline East doesn’t run a lot of eastbound trains in the morning, a direction the vast majority of commuters are NOT going, doesn’t mean the system is a failure. It means it’s run as cost efficiently as possible. I’m sure most taxpayers appreciate that.

One thing that you seem to fail to understand is the cost implications of running eastbound trains in the morning. It would place a large number of trains far from where you need them to be. It also means you have to hire additional staff to man those trains and for what? A couple random riders? Talk about wasting money and resources. Jay

The journey to Rome starts with a single step and tomorrow's dollar is more expensive than todays dollar (inaction has a cost). And I'm not picking on you in specific but the general philosophy of commuters first/foremost and the general dual standard of transit priorities: we'll harp about a million dollars a year extra about hiring more conductors (putting aside from the recruitment issues most systems are facing) but we won't think twice about spending $100m life-cycle cost replacing an off ramp or $20 million per mile life-cycle for milling and repaving a portion of the numbered local route system. Highway construction workers make about the same as conductors and the highway system requires far more manpower by it's nature.

There are loads of CT numbered routes with less throughput than SLE and are just about as expensive to upkeep, and we don't argue about the cost of that upkeep because those that rely on it it's their lifeline to the wider state, and because it does need to be done. It's easy to forget that car-based infrastructure is a money pit: for every $1 of general use dollars for auto-based infrastructure (besides initial connections) there's an estimated $.75 ROI in economic activity... for any MT $1 is estimated to generate $4 of economic activity. Not saying that highways and local road systems are not needed, they are, but we can be honest and also see that MT in almost all forms is a relative steal life-cycle cost... but we look more to the day-to-day operations when we just don't with personal auto use infrastructure costs. If we acted on the Danbury Line mass improvements when the final study came out in the early 2010s it would've cost about $30m, what's the current cost of the realigning of less than 1/4mi loop that is 27a on i95 going now?

It's why CT needs to reimagine it's mass transit system core general philosophy from a commuter based mindset and a general people mover. Look at the impasse between New Haven and the State... the city figures (rightly) that the prime parcels of land is being dedicated too much to parking but the state wants to believe that the surrounding suburban residents should not suffer the indignity of using MT to get to MT.

If it's a people mover and a source of general wealth then using prime real estate as automobile storage en masse makes no sense... even some of that state owned property can be real income generating parcels for the system (not unlike the PANJNY and quasi-private Tokyo Prefecture System).

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

The journey to Rome starts with a single step and tomorrow's dollar is more expensive than todays dollar (inaction has a cost). And I'm not picking on you in specific but the general philosophy of commuters first/foremost and the general dual standard of transit priorities: we'll harp about a million dollars a year extra about hiring more conductors (putting aside from the recruitment issues most systems are facing) but we won't think twice about spending $100m life-cycle cost replacing an off ramp or $20 million per mile life-cycle for milling and repaving a portion of the numbered local route system. Highway construction workers make about the same as conductors and the highway system requires far more manpower by it's nature.

There are loads of CT numbered routes with less throughput than SLE and are just about as expensive to upkeep, and we don't argue about the cost of that upkeep because those that rely on it it's their lifeline to the wider state, and because it does need to be done. It's easy to forget that car-based infrastructure is a money pit: for every $1 of general use dollars for auto-based infrastructure (besides initial connections) there's an estimated $.75 ROI in economic activity... for any MT $1 is estimated to generate $4 of economic activity. Not saying that highways and local road systems are not needed, they are, but we can be honest and also see that MT in almost all forms is a relative steal life-cycle cost... but we look more to the day-to-day operations when we just don't with personal auto use infrastructure costs. If we acted on the Danbury Line mass improvements when the final study came out in the early 2010s it would've cost about $30m, what's the current cost of the realigning of less than 1/4mi loop that is 27a on i95 going now?

It's why CT needs to reimagine it's mass transit system core general philosophy from a commuter based mindset and a general people mover. Look at the impasse between New Haven and the State... the city figures (rightly) that the prime parcels of land is being dedicated too much to parking but the state wants to believe that the surrounding suburban residents should not suffer the indignity of using MT to get to MT.

If it's a people mover and a source of general wealth then using prime real estate as automobile storage en masse makes no sense... even some of that state owned property can be real income generating parcels for the system (not unlike the PANJNY and quasi-private Tokyo Prefecture System).

The difference is that drivers on those roads are paying for them with their gas taxes. Riders of mass transit don’t nearly cover the cost of mass transit with the fares they pay.

In theory your people mover system sounds great but again who is going to pay for it? Even buses don’t pay for themselves, especially in suburban areas like those you want to service. Jay

[robr2]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The difference is that drivers on those roads are paying for them with their gas taxes. Riders of mass transit don’t nearly cover the cost of mass transit with the fares they pay.

In theory your people mover system sounds great but again who is going to pay for it? Even buses don’t pay for themselves, especially in suburban areas like those you want to service. Jay

I respectfully disagree. Gas taxes haven't covered the cost of road building and maintenance since 2008. Through 2020, $140 billion from general revenue has been spent over the amount raised by the federal gas tax. The Highway Trust Fund had about $35 billion in gas and diesel tax revenue and another $7 billion from truck sales and tire excise tax.

80% is spent on roads and 20% on transit.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...ow-it-financed