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.
Empty trains and empty buses use a lot more fuel than a car with one person. Any kindergärtner could tell you that. In most U.S. cities mass transit doesn't work and drains needed money from the highway system.
Here is the BTU per passenger mile breakdown according to our government (note our current administration seems to have removed the source material from the public, only older links to it seem available). See - Ascription is an Anathema to any Enthusiasm › Energy per passenger-mile (http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2008/08/energy-per-passenger-mile - broken link)
A but is worse to take than a car in terms of energy efficiency, nationally. IF every bus were removed from the U.S. and people took cars instead, there would be a net reduction of consumed energy. A bus is about the worst method of transit available from an energy and environmental perspective.
Rail makes the most sense for intercity transit, I don't see a breakdown, but I'd bet the commuter rail numbers are skewed by cities like New York that accounts by itself for about 30% of all mass transit usage in the U.S.
Of the various alternatives, the vanpool is by far the best. Any city serious about cutting pollution and saving energy should seriously look to encourage vanpools. They are inexpensive to establish, and very energy efficient. They just don't put tremendous political power into a politicians hands.
Other than the fact that it came from the Seattle Transit Blog, tell me how a coyote in Portland has anything to do with light rail in Seattle.
I take it that you would take all funds away from public transit and use those funds on highways instead...what a shortsighted and absurd idea.
Roads and highways pays for themselves via the highway trust fund. Every gallon of gasoline has an 18 cent tax dedicated to rebuilding our roads. The more we use, the more we pay.
For interstate highway building, perhaps. This tax does not cover municipal roads, which funding comes from the city's general fund for the most part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird
I toddle google to see how the Chicago Transit system is doing.
Income is about half a billion, operating loss is about a billion. They lose $2 for every $1 they get, Chicago mass transit passengers only pay 33% of the true cost of moving them around. That is not a viable business model for anything but the government. You can see the disaster that is the Chicago Mass Transit budget here - http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...et/2008_FS.pdf
Denver received 92 million from fares, but spent about 500 million which came from taxes. In other words for every dollar in revenue Denver Mass Transit takes in, it spends another $4+. Passengers only pay 20% of the true cost of service. See - http://www.rtd-denver.com/PDF_Files/Financial_Reports/Fin_08_whole.pdf (broken link) it's well buried on page 34.
Atlanta Mass Transit makes about 114 million from passenger fares and ads. The expenses are 400 million dollars. People who travel Atalanta Mass Transit get about a $3+- subsidy for every dollar they spend. The report is hidden here - http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFile...A%20Budget.pdf you'll want to visit page 16.
What Mass Transit system would you care to try next? Can you find one that is self funding based on passenger fare and ads?
I did not say they were self-sufficient. (I believe the RTD in Denver is supposed to collect 1/3 the cost of a ride in fares, BTW.) I said they're working. We voted ourselves an RTD tax to pay for the bus system. It's very comprehensive over the metro area.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
You know; I actually think there are a lot of conservatives who do support better public transit. However, one problem is that a lot of them reside in suburban areas that won't necessarily see a direct tangible benefit (at least at first) from a new system, or a system extension.
Usually, planning emphasis has focused on using downtown as a hub and sending out lines into the suburbs as spokes, while overlooking suburb-to-suburb transit.
But in turn, one reason that happens is because people take themselves out of the planning process from the start.
It's important to get involved early during the planning process, and then to stay involved to help direct the system's growth and implementation.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl
Because u play the game of the socialists...
They want to psychologically castrate u from having a property,an asset,a valuable,that is...a private car.
They want to keep u in a primitive barbaric status,where u r transported like an animal to the slaughterhouse...
To be infected by viruses,TB,hepatitis,Asian flu,pig (...u bet ) flu....
To smell the fart of every punk...To be harrassed by anyone...
To rub shoulders with paroled murderers,junkies,psychos, like those "homeless"...
That's why the socialists are so fanatical & in the communist countries they persecuted the car as much as they could.
If u r not a socialist.don't play their game.The mass transport thing is not "innocent "or neutral.
Find 5K & buy a car...
Not everyone can or should drive. I ride mass transit daily and don't encounter all that negativity that you are spouting about. Think of what more transit would do for the literacy rates in this country as more folks will have time to read.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Actually it never started off great. It started off with a false premace that conservatives are against public transit, and then continued as a bash fest, with absolutely no examples or data to back it up other than.. "I believe"...
Sorry but I have read threads on CD where many conservatives posted against public transit and rail. Also, I have visited many conservative areas in Southern California and in other states and found the public transit lacking. My premise is not incorrect as you can see from the conservatives that are posting in this very thread.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Public transportation
1. works on the east coast, becuase it is crowded
2. does not work in the midwest, south, and west, as things are spread out too much
3. No one who has a dime to thier name will ride a bus. Trains have an appeal in a crowded urban area, but require a central buisness destination.
4. Americans love thier cars, as they enjoy the privacy
I am considered middle class and ride buses and other public transit as my sole means of transportation. I know others who earn a good living utilizing public transit as well.
I know Americans enjoy their vehicles and it is sad how much money the average person spends on car payments, gas, registration, upkeep, parking fees, wear and tear, etc. Also, how healthy is it sitting in bumper to bumper traffic each day - this is enough to make anyone's blood pressure rise unnecessarily.
I understand about public transit not being viable in areas that are rural and have low populations but where I live (Southern California) there is just too many folks on the road traveling in all directions (not just to Downtown LA). This turns our freeway system into nothing but a heavily congested parking lot. There is NO MORE ROOM to expand our freeways and with our ever growing population, we cannot continue accommodating one vehicle per person.
bek advocates of the mass transit ignore what has happened to france and what has happened here. the streets-- thru massive immigration and excessive civil rights ACLU type bantering-- have become very very mean and just plain dangerous. the safe option is some sort of car for most. getting mugged on the subway or to and from is ignored by most advocates of mass transit.
which would you rather....... I live 12 miles from work...........
1) to drivewhen there is no traffic (maybe 2am) it would take me 15 minutes.....but during rush hour it takes me almost 1 hr, I use a tank of gas (14 gallons) a week (at $3/gallon, that's $42 a week or 168 a month)....................
.......
or.....
.....
2)...to take mass transit I would have to DRIVE 3 miles to the trainstation(belmore), then wait for a train, to get to the terminal (jamaica station) to wait to get picked up the subway (to flushing), then hop on a bus to get to work, and it would take me over 2 and a half hours......and a monthly ticket for the long island railroad is over $300 a month...plus the subway and the bus
that is the problem with mass transit ( its at least twice the time and 4 times the cost) unless you live and work only blocks away
Not if its done correctly. Where I live reliable parking in certain parts of the town can easily run you $50 a month (if you can even get it). For me taking mass-transit requires walking 5-10 mins to a bus stop and then riding a bus for another 10-20 mins to get where I am going and that is the case for most people in town. On top of that the buses here are paid for by student fees and town taxes so at the point of sale the cost is $0. I also live in a suburban area so yes mass transit can work in non-urban areas.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
There seems to be a disconnect among conservatives about transportation funding. For some reason roads are acceptable to build using government money, but anything beyond that is interfering in the free market. I think even some Libertarians will agree that while the government shouldn't be involved in much, transportation is one of those areas in which the government can be beneficial.
You raise a valuable point here. If public funding for mass transit is considered socialism, then so are funding for roads and other infrastructures. The reason why many conservatives are supporting one over the other is just because it meets their preferences but it only serves to demonstrate their hypocrisy. Until the roads are completely privatized, their use of public roads is their tacit approval of socialism.
Sorry but I have read threads on CD where many conservatives posted against public transit and rail. Also, I have visited many conservative areas in Southern California and in other states and found the public transit lacking. My premise is not incorrect as you can see from the conservatives that are posting in this very thread.
Yep, we had to drag T-Paw into making concessions up here. Things like building new bridges with an extra space for future light rail expansion.
Also, I live in a large, upper middle-class suburb that is over 70% Republican and this city's public transit is virtually non-existent, even though we have some huge shopping malls and adjoin a gigantic nature preserve (27000+ acres). Everyone drives here. Mostly SUVs and pick-ups.
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.
