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.
I still think most of it is commuter traffic. There are people who live in Manhattan that have reverse commutes to Jersey and Westchester. And then there are people who work in the outer boroughs who have to pass through Manhattan to get to work. Why else would so many people be in cars during rush hour in Manhattan?
This NYC study says there are 2.85 million workers in Manhattan, though that includes Harlem and Washington Heights. If 14% of those drive, that's 400,000 drivers. I saw 2.2 million for south of 59th street from another source, that would make 300,000 drivers. The link says 143,000 drivers enter the "core" —*Manhattan south of 59th street during the weekday AM rush hour (7-10 AM). But for an entire weekday 750,000 vehicles entered the core. If the numbers are right (how do you calculate it?) only half of the cars in Manhattan (the CBD part, at least) are there because they work in Manhattan, the rest are entering for non-commute reasons or passing through to commute elsewhere. Of those, half are not entering at rush hour, so either may be working in a job with unusual hours (maybe some that requires driving as part of the job — though except for deliveries I'd assume most of those would locate outside Manhattan).
I didn't change the subject. This is what I asked you.
Your response was that streetcars have greater capacity and would therefore take more cars off the road. But that's ridiculously flawed logic since it assumes those people driving their cars would even be able to arrive to their destination via streetcar. If I'm passing through Manhattan on the way to Brooklyn, or doing a reverse commute from Manhattan to Newark, then clearly the streetcar is useless for my commuting purposes. And if you're driving a car in NYC to begin with, then you've already weighed your commuting options (there are many), and determined that driving is the best one. A streetcar is not going to take any people in NYC out of their cars.
I think he thinks buses are what needs to be taken off the road rather than cars. Anyways, that's 10 buses in 3 blocks, not 12 on 1 block, and I have my doubts that it's typical. I'm having a hard time locating where the picture was taken... there are only so many overpasses that carry cars in high density looking parts of New York, but I couldn't find it in Manhattan. Maybe it's near a bus terminal or something? Based on streetview that kind of concentration of buses doesn't seem very typical.
Edit: looks like it was likely taken from here http://goo.gl/maps/OdliO
And the buses were mostly clustered around 42nd and 3rd ave, which don't look that busy with buses on streetview. Also because of the zoom, you don't realize that you're looking at an entire 1/2mile stretch, everything is compressed by the zoom and it feels more like 1/8 or 1/6 of a mile.
Of course the actual cost of the system doesn't figure into this concept of "efficiency."
I predicted long ago on this site that no comprehensive streetcar network would ever be built in the U.S. The city with the most ambitious streetcar plans, to my knowledge, is Washington, DC, and I'm absolutely convinced that system will not be built out. When you look at the bang for buck, it's simply not worth the cost. I mean, Virginia is spending $7 billion dollar for a 11 mile subway line that connects Dulles to the rest of the region by rail (plus adds 11 new stations to the system). Worth it? Absolutely. DC wants to spend $3 billion to construct a 37 mile streetcar network that covers routes already covered by buses. Worth it? No, it's redudant. Plus, when you force residents and business to endure years of agonizing construction for a mode of transit that doesn't get them anywhere any faster than the old one, it becomes unpopular very quickly. If you have to rip up the streets of Adams-Morgan (again), then people are going to want a subway stop with connectivity to the rest of the region, not a glorified bus.
Federal money is paying for most rail projects. The problem is you still have to fund them. Even Portland which has basically stopped all road maintenance can't afford to keep paying for the federally-built rail it has. But they're, of course, still planning to further expand the Streetcar which is almost 95% subsidized.
Was there really no development whatsoever before in Kansas City's core before the streetcar project came up? Not even a renovation? I could see there being more with the streetcar, and with the reduction in red tape, as well as the general trend towards revitalization that is happening even in city cores without streetcars, but was there really nothing?
No, but that's not what I claimed. Just nothing that met the barometer for density and proximity set forth by those planners. Anyway, it's a very striking contrast even if it's been finagled to suit the pro streetcar bloc. It proves that private developers in KC were waiting for rail-based transit before investing in capital expenditures. Every city/situation is different but this adds to the overall picture.
Federal money is paying for most rail projects. The problem is you still have to fund them. Even Portland which has basically stopped all road maintenance can't afford to keep paying for the federally-built rail it has. But they're, of course, still planning to further expand the Streetcar which is almost 95% subsidized.
It seems that the Feds have committed to funding small segments of these systems. Are the Feds pledging to fund the construction of 30-mile streetcar networks in other cities?
I just think the streetcar is one of those things that sounds good on paper but falls short on real benefits. I think it would be hard convincing taxpayers to shoulder the cost of additional build outs once they see it's doing the same thing the bus did. And it will be even harder once people see that the streetcars aren't even running at max capacity. One of the most potent arguments for the streetcar is that it has greater carrying capacity, but I doubt that fact will be relevant in the vast majority of cities where it's being implemented. I don't see Atlanta streetcars being packed to capacity any time in the near future. Not even their HRT is packed to capacity, but somehow a streetcar is going to complete the task that HRT couldn't? Yeah right.
No, but that's not what I claimed. Just nothing that met the barometer for density and proximity set forth by those planners. Anyway, it's a very striking contrast even if it's been finagled to suit the pro streetcar bloc. It proves that private developers in KC were waiting for rail-based transit before investing in capital expenditures. Every city/situation is different but this adds to the overall picture.
I don't think the requirements for density and proximity are so stringent that they would have excluded much pre-streetcar development. It seems to include everything within 4 block of Main St, which is where I would expect most pre-streetcar development would have taken place. As for density, the land values were pretty high already, it's not as if there were any big box power centres or acreage estates built in KS is it? Of the 33 developments, most are renovations/conversions. There's also a parking garage included and what seems like a new bus terminals, they even included the closing of a movie theatre that is considering relocating elsewhere downtown...
The u/c+ proposed projects that would involve new construction are...
One Light Residential Tower (26s?): 318 units, received cash subsidies + tax abatements
River Market Housing: 225 units, 60,000sf office
River Market West: 137 units
Downtown YMCA
Courtyard Marriott: 257 rooms, no tax incentives
1914 Main: 45-50 apartments + ground floor retail
UMKC Music Conservatory looking at potential sites
1515 Walnut: 8 units, received tax abatements
Arvest Bank: 3700sf branch with drivethru in a parking garage
So just 9 of them, and 2 were subsidized, 1 wasn't, the rest I don't know. The remaining 24 are renovations and conversions, the parking garage and a new bus terminal. Seems like about 2/3 of the renovations/conversions received subsidies of some sort. Since the downtown area has grown by about 3000 people between 2000 and 2010, I'm sure there were some past developments. I don't know if the subsidies are new or if they were available to pre-streetcar projects, but the article you posted did mention that the streetcar was being accompanied with the cutting of red tape. Some of the renovations/conversions are important and its great that they're happening, it's just that it's harder to tell how much of that occured in the past since you can't tell just based of whether the building is new. I'm still far from convinced that the increase in development was any greater in KC than in cities without a streetcar... most cities have seen increased core/downtown development lately.
Omaha just completed an Alternatives analysis, so I thought it could be a good contribution to drop here. Most notably, the study expects far more development/job creation to come from a shorter Streetcar than a longer BRT.
Simple math. Streetcars have much greater capacity than buses. More people can fit more comfortably inside of a light rail train or streetcar than a bus. Instead of running 10 buses you can move the same amount of people with 3 or 4 streetcars, reducing traffic congestion and noise. Instead of 10 bus drivers you only need 3 train operators. It's also more economical in terms of labor costs and fuel efficiency, etc.
streetcars are also much noisier than buses, interfere with the traffic flow of other vehicles, become stationary when someone double parks on the track, are prone to pedestrian accidents since pedestrians have a real problem judging the speed of the street cars, are run by a single entity, and can't adjust to changing growth.
Much better to have a good street system and allow private businesses to run one or more bus systems.
Federal money is paying for most rail projects. The problem is you still have to fund them. Even Portland which has basically stopped all road maintenance can't afford to keep paying for the federally-built rail it has. But they're, of course, still planning to further expand the Streetcar which is almost 95% subsidized.
America at its finest. Let's build it because someone else pays for it. Let's neglect it because we can't afford to maintain it.
Public officials should not be trusted with these decisions.
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.
