Portland light rail's mixed track record (Houston, Austin: 2013, buying, school)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But it's just flat-out, objectively, undeniably not true. There are very specific advantages that rail has that buses cannot duplicate.

Now whether those advantages are worth it, and a fit for Austin, is a different question. But to claim that buses are better in _all_ cases is just false.

Notice you didn't tackle the "cheaper" or "faster" claims ...

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Notice you didn't tackle the "cheaper" or "faster" claims ...

If buses can't do it at all, then obviously they can't do it cheaper and faster.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If buses can't do it at all, then obviously they can't do it cheaper and faster.

What a circular argument. Let's look at "it".

#1. "Higher maximum capacity for a given driver." Only if the vehicle - LR or bus is at capacity, and only on the trips that are at capacity. There are waaaaay too many factors - starting with the non-existent density on the proposed route - for anyone to tout that as a universal advantage. Only a TINY fraction of the proposed LR system will ever run at capacity. Also have to consider the 2X operating cost disadvantage for LR over bus, especially when not at capacity.

#2. "More attraction to "choice" riders." Put another way, wanting the government to pay for their commute, but loathe to ride a bus, middle class professional commuters demand shiny light rail systems. Just as Portland has proven, rail systems - especially poorly sited ones like this, requiring huge operating subsidies - tend to crowd out buses, reducing service to the original target group of the working poor and instead giving the middle class and college students access to enormously subsidized transportation.

3. "Ability to run on electricity, eliminating local emissions." Nice how you popped that "local" word in there, because the emissions happen somewhere - like La Grange - just not here. Besides, BRT can run on NG and cut the emissions to almost zero. Finally, if you want to spend a fraction of the LR capital cost, you can put in catenary and also run BRT on electricity.

None of these "virtues" come close to being a need - they are a want. And tax dollars should be about needs.

When it comes to "needs", BRT can do "it" better, cheaper, and faster.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by scm53

What a circular argument. Let's look at "it".

#2. "More attraction to "choice" riders." Put another way, wanting the government to pay for their commute, but loathe to ride a bus, middle class professional commuters demand shiny light rail systems. Just as Portland has proven, rail systems - especially poorly sited ones like this, requiring huge operating subsidies - tend to crowd out buses, reducing service to the original target group of the working poor and instead giving the middle class and college students access to enormously subsidized transportation.

None of these "virtues" come close to being a need - they are a want. And tax dollars should be about needs.

When it comes to "needs", BRT can do "it" better, cheaper, and faster.

I view rail and mass transit as a lot like parks, libraries and golf courses. Parks are not a need, they are a want. The government deals in wants all the time.

The government deals in quality of life issues that individuals or companies cant really take on *because* the nature of the operation doesnt function well run as for-profit.

Transportation is one of them. The criteria of paying for itself is a non-criteria. Parks dont pay for themselves directly, libraries dont and neither do golf courses.

I still will vote against all rail proposals, but they arent as negative as the naysayers make out.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But it's just flat-out, objectively, undeniably not true. There are very specific advantages that rail has that buses cannot duplicate.

1. Higher maximum capacity for a given driver.

There's an excuse to spend a few billion dollars

Originally Posted by Novacek

2. More attraction to "choice" riders.

So do you mean "people you don't mind sitting next to" or "people that have alternatives". The first is more than a little snobby. As to the latter, it would be better to exercise the alternative choice than to insist upon contribution of a couple billion dollars of other people's money to spend on trains.

Originally Posted by Novacek

3. Ability to run on electricity, eliminating local emissions.

(BRT can approach, but not equal, some of those. But then you're talking similar capital expenses).

Really stretching here - and what you are really saying is you want the benefit but want someone else to bear the burden. (A statement that can be applied to the train transit and communitarian promoters in general). Your statement certainly isn't one about "conservation" or "protecting the environment".

In addition, "running on electricity" doesn't necessarily eliminate anything locally (not that it would have a material impact). Diesel trains "run on electricity" - the diesel engine is used to generate electricity to drive the DC motors that drive the train.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Now whether those advantages are worth it, and a fit for Austin, is a different question. But to claim that buses are better in _all_ cases is just false.

Didn't see any meritorious advantages to train in this list and certainly not in addition to bus.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

What a circular argument. Let's look at "it".

#1. "Higher maximum capacity for a given driver." Only if the vehicle - LR or bus is at capacity, and only on the trips that are at capacity. There are waaaaay too many factors - starting with the non-existent density on the proposed route - for anyone to tout that as a universal advantage. Only a TINY fraction of the proposed LR system will ever run at capacity.

As I said, whether the advantage is worthwhile for Austin is a different question. But it undeniably _is_ an advantage that buses (even BRT) can't match.

Originally Posted by scm53

Also have to consider the 2X operating cost disadvantage for LR over bus, especially when not at capacity.

Uh, LR has an operating cost _advantage_ over bus. That's the whole point, higher capital costs but lower operating costs (with the hope/expectation that the later makes the former worthwhile).

Originally Posted by scm53

#2. "More attraction to "choice" riders." Put another way, wanting the government to pay for their commute,

You mean like all the drivers that want the government to pay for their roads, parking, etc. ?

Originally Posted by scm53

but loathe to ride a bus, middle class professional commuters demand shiny light rail systems. Just as Portland has proven, rail systems - especially poorly sited ones like this, requiring huge operating subsidies -

Again, the operating subsidies for buses are _higher_.

Originally Posted by scm53

3. "Ability to run on electricity, eliminating local emissions." Nice how you popped that "local" word in there, because the emissions happen somewhere - like La Grange - just not here.

non-local emissions are _always_ easier to control, easier to cleanup, and easier to switch over to a greener source when available.

Originally Posted by scm53

Besides, BRT can run on NG and cut the emissions to almost zero.

Better, but _far_ from "almost zero". A centralized combined-cycle NG plant will have better thermodynamic efficiency than a bunch of NG engines running around.

Originally Posted by scm53

Finally, if you want to spend a fraction of the LR capital cost, you can put in catenary and also run BRT on electricity.

Adding the caternary _is_ one of the main capital costs. Plus, now you're talking about non-standard buses, which is an additional capital expense.
Which is why no one runs overhead caternary electric buses except in very specific, isolated circumstances.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

So do you mean "people you don't mind sitting next to" or "people that have alternatives".
.

Choice riders is a term in transit, and its the later.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The first is more than a little snobby. As to the latter, it would be better to exercise the alternative choice than to insist upon contribution of a couple billion dollars of other people's money to spend on trains.

You mean spend billions of dollars of other peoples money on roads?

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Really stretching here - and what you are really saying is you want the benefit but want someone else to bear the burden. (A statement that can be applied to the train transit and communitarian promoters in general).

Or anything else the government _ever_ spends money on. I don't have kids, why should my taxes go to schools.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

In addition, "running on electricity" doesn't necessarily eliminate anything locally (not that it would have a material impact).
Diesel trains "run on electricity" - the diesel engine is used to generate electricity to drive the DC motors that drive the train.

The material impact is the non-local aspect, and the cleaner power generation (as well as removing some of the volatility in fuel prices).

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

I was going to vote yes, but I would rather see the money put aside for road improvements throughout the Austin area starting with IH 35. Something needs to look be done rather soon than wait 20 years down the road.

Anything that gets done with IH 35 is similarly a long way down the road. The Urban Rail system is supposed to be in service in about 7 years.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

I was going to vote yes, but I would rather see the money put aside for road improvements throughout the Austin area starting with IH 35. Something needs to look be done rather soon than wait 20 years down the road.

Sadly Texas 130 was sold as the way to alleviate traffic on I-35.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Uh, LR has an operating cost _advantage_ over bus. That's the whole point, higher capital costs but lower operating costs (with the hope/expectation that the later makes the former worthwhile).

Not even close. Since someone pointed to DART as a great system, let's look at their bus operating cost - $120/operating hour. LR - $355/hr. I don't know what unicorn land $355 is less than $120, but hey ...

I understand you want to look at per trip - but if they aren't full (which they only rarely will be due to Austin's awful, in-dense duplicative route), then it doesn't matter. And that was the point - when they aren't full, LR is MORE expensive to operate.