Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-26-2008, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,164 posts, read 27,087,177 times
Reputation: 10428

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Tex it all depends on population density and how much of a hassle mass transit is. When it's economical and not a pill to use, people use it more. The trains on long island were always expensive to use, and ran infrequently. When bridge tolls jacked up, ridership went up. Gas prices and parking went up, ridership went up. The price never came down though. They've been crying poor and living on pork subsidy for as long as I can remember.
Contrast that with manhattan proper, very cheap ways to travel through extensive subway and bus systems networking together... it just doesn't pay to have a car in NYC. Chicago is similar situation. I really liked the BART system in san francisco, but not sure if that was paying for itself or not.
Rural & suburban settings that have less concentrated economic centers don't make as much sense unless zoning for future growth builds that infrastructure prior to the growth when it's cheaper and land is more flexible. Even cities like LA are so sprawled out that public transport systems would cost a fortune to operate. Basically what lord was saying is true. Planning and zoning intelligently would help facilitate public transportation as more economically viable, but it can't materialize without population volume support.
Denver, where I live, is building an extensive light rail system throughout the metro area. Zoning is changed along LR routes and future routes, especially at stops and proposed stops, to allow high density, mixed-use development. Eventually, there will be many people living near the LR lines, and there will be jobs, entertainment, and shopping at stops to attract people. The end result will be a denser metro are rather than the continued sprawl. I currently live near a future line in a new urbanism community that's fairly densely populated already but the LR line won't be built for a few more years. This seems to be the most logical way to add LR to a metro area and plans for a future where cars will be less economical and mass transit will become very necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2008, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,112,923 times
Reputation: 4936
Light Rail will kick off in Phoenix December 27 with a 22 mile long "main" route. There are plans in the works for "extensions" to other areas of the Phoenix Metro area.

I would think that the planners of this initial route are .... "giddy" inasmuch as the opening is corresponding with high fuel prices - so ridership may start off high - and if people get use to it, they will continue to use it.

I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2008, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,642 posts, read 15,529,334 times
Reputation: 1680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Light Rail will kick off in Phoenix December 27 with a 22 mile long "main" route. There are plans in the works for "extensions" to other areas of the Phoenix Metro area.

I would think that the planners of this initial route are .... "giddy" inasmuch as the opening is corresponding with high fuel prices - so ridership may start off high - and if people get use to it, they will continue to use it.

I, for one, am looking forward to it.
You'll love it as much as we do ours!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2008, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,523 posts, read 13,882,320 times
Reputation: 3906
One of the advantages of rail transit is precisely the difficulty of changing it once the tracks are laid down. In other words, once the routes/tracks and stations are built, you can pretty much rely on those routes to be permanent. Developers know this and are more likely to invest in transit-oriented developments near rail transit stations as opposed to near bus stops which can be here today gone tomorrow.

Well-designed rail transit systems lead to enormous amounts of private investment. Of course, it takes a little bit of lag time before the private development takes off. Its a bit like building a freeway into the boondocks because you know the residential and retail development will eventually follow. When properly planned, this development leads to increased tax revenue and increased ridership.

Of course, poorly-designed transit, just like poorly-designed highways, can be a huge waste of taxpayer money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2008, 10:09 PM
 
4,135 posts, read 10,767,250 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Limited number of riders makes T inefficient - Tribune-Review

Port Authority of Allegheny County spends twice as much to run a T car than a bus, yet fares from the light-rail system netted just 2 percent of the authority's total budget in 2006, federal data shows.

The 25-mile T system opened in 1984 at a price of $937 million and the goal of bringing rail service into Downtown. The light-rail line awkwardly serves only communities in the southern and western suburbs and does not extend north or east, where most of the authority's riders live.

Bus revenue topped $56 million in 2006, while the T generated $6.5 million -- enough to pay just 2 percent of the agency's total expenses, according to federal transit data.

So they spent $937,000,000 on to build a rail system that generates $6,500,000 a year GROSS? At that rate, it would take 150 years to pay for it even if operating it was free, but I guess its ok since it was taxpayer funded!! (anyone who does investments would understand that this is a negative $100+Million a year loss and might find it interesting that they just spent hundreds of millions more to expand the system a few more miles.
We have had one in Buffalo since the early 1980s. It is not useful unless you have a 6 mile trip going downtown to the city itself... and you still have to get to where it has stations. Waste of money -- we could have improved the buses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2008, 01:31 AM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,724,059 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
Denver, where I live, is building an extensive light rail system throughout the metro area. Zoning is changed along LR routes and future routes, especially at stops and proposed stops, to allow high density, mixed-use development. Eventually, there will be many people living near the LR lines, and there will be jobs, entertainment, and shopping at stops to attract people. The end result will be a denser metro are rather than the continued sprawl. I currently live near a future line in a new urbanism community that's fairly densely populated already but the LR line won't be built for a few more years. This seems to be the most logical way to add LR to a metro area and plans for a future where cars will be less economical and mass transit will become very necessary.
I remember denver, and I've seen tremendous growth in papers for them- it makes way too much sense, especially in early phases of growth, to earmark routes prior to eminent domain issues getting ugly. Where states and municipalities were too lax with zoning and failed to plan ahead only meant that it had to bite everyone in the butt decades from that moment.

I think the problem with political decision makers of today is that they want the accolades and applause for NOW, short attention span public wants immediate gratification, and methods of reporting job performance are dubious. If voters don't see it/feel it immediately, they take their vote elsewhere as if the guy were sleeping on the job. We'd do better to become more informed & know who is doing what in our best interest for long term goals before making superficial judgements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2008, 01:36 AM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,724,059 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloTransplant View Post
We have had one in Buffalo since the early 1980s. It is not useful unless you have a 6 mile trip going downtown to the city itself... and you still have to get to where it has stations. Waste of money -- we could have improved the buses.
Sad place when I lived there- I was stationed at CG group buffalo underneath that skyway bridge for a spell. The economy was heartwrenching. Hope things improved since then, or just another lagging statistic of rustbelt? I don't know how those folks make it through those horrific winters, but I found them to be down to earth people at the mercy of an economy that stalled in 70's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2008, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,521,434 times
Reputation: 24856
FWIW - The Los Angles basin was developed in the early 1900 around a light rail transit system. The system was disassembled and transit switched to auto in the 1930s and 40s. Similar things happened in southern New Hampshire. The trolley from Derry to Chester closed in 1938 and rail connections through Derry stopped in (IIRC) the early 1950s. If fuel prices continue to hold at this level or climb, I figure these will be rebuilt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2008, 07:34 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,814,416 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukwoo View Post
One of the advantages of rail transit is precisely the difficulty of changing it once the tracks are laid down. In other words, once the routes/tracks and stations are built, you can pretty much rely on those routes to be permanent. Developers know this and are more likely to invest in transit-oriented developments near rail transit stations as opposed to near bus stops which can be here today gone tomorrow.
Very valid point...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 10:10 AM
 
1 posts, read 1,614 times
Reputation: 10
Check out Norfolk, VA's lightrail project. Historically red, although it swung blue for the Obamanation period. A city run by conservatives, yet delivering light rail because they see the social need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top