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 don't know much about the Phoenix system but 90% round-trip rides sounds about right. In places like NYC it's more like 50 or 60%. Again, it just really depends on the sort of network you have.
FYI - every transit company collects data the same way. Just b/c your newspaper prints it as 55,000 trips (or whatever word) doesn't mean that the transit agency doesn't call them "boardings" (which is the standard industry term.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchie_az
Look, I'm just as glad as everyone else that ridership is above expected. I hope standing-room only is the norm. I hope ridership of the current phase qaudruples. That way, those of us who don't ride the light-rail (non-users) aren't on the hook for paying the operating costs (for the users). This would be especially helpful considering the budget woes found in our cities, counties and state governments.
So I'm hoping that actual ridership (not those phony ridership numbers) rise to about 100,000 for daily (M-F) averages. I'd be very happy about that. In fact, if that happens, I'd be willing to have some of my tax money pay for the next phase (even though I won't use it).
(However, my pessimistic side says that will never happen).
FYI - operating costs grow with ridership. If you have more people riding you need more trains, more drivers, more police, more housekeeping and maintenance. 100% fare box recovery (for operations) might happen on one or two lines in NYC and a few in Tokyo. But it's all one system and the system still operates at a loss . . . and of course, if you cut the feeder routes that are losing money then the trunk routes wouldn't have the ridership that they need to be operationally profitable.
Point is - transit adds capacity to the transportation network in ways that more roads or wider roads can't. Interstates are great at moving people and goods from Phoenix to LA but not so great at moving people from 10th St. to 60th St. Frequent and heavy merges (on-ramps) and people slowing down to exit (off-ramps) slows the whole system down.
To think of it another way, let's assume that 25,000 people decide to drive to work on the same 3-lane expressway all at the same time. They're driving at the metro standard of 1.1 people per vehicle. So that's about 22,500 cars. Even with dangerous tailgating that's a 35 mile long traffic jam.
Of course, not all of those people were driving before but I think it's safe to say that at least half of them were.
People don't realize how few cars it takes to create a serious traffic jam and that most freeways run relatively well up to about 2300 cars per lane per hour but try to go just a few cars over that and the entire system fails.
So while your attitude might be "i don't use it - i shouldn't have to pay for it" it's still a benefit to you whether you use it or not . . . and i'm sure people in other parts of your state complain about the gas taxes they pay that get spent disproportionately in the Phoenix area.
"The freeways are paid for by taxes that everyone pays and gas tax as well, whether or NOT one uses the freeways. I rarely use freeways and when I do it is primarily I-10. I don't remember being charged a user fee for getting on that freeway however."
You use the freeways sometimes. Even someone who lives in the hills outside Wikenburg will use the freeways every once in a while. And even if one never uses the freeways, they still buy stuff from stores, and those goods travelled (at one point or another) on (you guessed it) one of the freeways. So even if someone never drives the Loop 101, they've still benefited from the use of the Loop 101.
So, yes, freeways are paid for by those who use the freeways (freeway users) and those who benefit from the use of the freeway. The light rail has been paid for mostly by people who don't ever ride the light-rail (non-users) and people who have received zero benefit from the light-rail. What benefit have I EVER received from the light-rail (since I've never used the thing)?
We've been over this time and again, and this argument comes up every time. The above illustrates why it is an "old" and "broken down" argument.
"Point is - transit adds capacity to the transportation network in ways that more roads or wider roads can't.¬"
How's that? Seems to me (from what I've seen and what has been said on here) is that traffic is actually worse on and near the light-rail route. Perhaps if that was the goal, they shouldn't have placed it right in the middle of a road.
"To think of it another way, let's assume that 25,000 people decide to drive to work on the same 3-lane expressway all at the same time. They're driving at the metro standard of 1.1 people per vehicle. So that's about 22,500 cars. Even with dangerous tailgating that's a 35 mile long traffic jam.
Of course, not all of those people were driving before but I think it's safe to say that at least half of them were."
I figured this out once before. At the highest estimates, the light-rail has removed 1 in 100 cars off the freeways each day. I don't think that number is true, but even if it is true that's a really small number for 1.6 billion and millions annually. One could have accomplished more (as far as reducing traffic congestion) by turning the HOV lanes into regular traffic lanes (using the pavement more efficiently). What would that have cost? Or if they had used the money to give businesses an incentive to have employees telecommute--wouldn't that have done much more to reduce traffic and emissions?
But, no, we "needed" the light-rail, and now essentail services are being cut. I guess it's true that you reap what you sow.
Last edited by Ritchie_az; 02-01-2010 at 05:35 PM..
The first segment of this light rail is in, running, and exceeding expectations. In other words, it is working. Now, more segments to enlarge it are going to being started. As one who has been supporting a mass transit system like this for decades, I'm glad the Nay Sayers did not stop this rail system this time.
"The freeways are paid for by taxes that everyone pays and gas tax as well, whether or NOT one uses the freeways. I rarely use freeways and when I do it is primarily I-10. I don't remember being charged a user fee for getting on that freeway however."
You use the freeways sometimes. Even someone who lives in the hills outside Wikenburg will use the freeways every once in a while. And even if one never uses the freeways, they still buy stuff from stores, and those goods travelled (at one point or another) on (you guessed it) one of the freeways. So even if someone never drives the Loop 101, they've still benefited from the use of the Loop 101.
So, yes, freeways are paid for by those who use the freeways (freeway users) and those who benefit from the use of the freeway. The light rail has been paid for mostly by people who don't ever ride the light-rail (non-users) and people who have received zero benefit from the light-rail. What benefit have I EVER received from the light-rail (since I've never used the thing)?
We've been over this time and again, and this argument comes up every time. The above illustrates why it is an "old" and "broken down" argument.
Using your logic: all of us use railroads, airports, etc. not just freeways.
As for the Light Rail: the people voted for it. I certainly use it from time to time----------and, I have a driver's license and access to several vehicles.
"The freeways are paid for by taxes that everyone pays and gas tax as well, whether or NOT one uses the freeways. I rarely use freeways and when I do it is primarily I-10. I don't remember being charged a user fee for getting on that freeway however."
You use the freeways sometimes. Even someone who lives in the hills outside Wikenburg will use the freeways every once in a while. And even if one never uses the freeways, they still buy stuff from stores, and those goods travelled (at one point or another) on (you guessed it) one of the freeways. So even if someone never drives the Loop 101, they've still benefited from the use of the Loop 101.
So, yes, freeways are paid for by those who use the freeways (freeway users) and those who benefit from the use of the freeway. The light rail has been paid for mostly by people who don't ever ride the light-rail (non-users) and people who have received zero benefit from the light-rail. What benefit have I EVER received from the light-rail (since I've never used the thing)?
We've been over this time and again, and this argument comes up every time. The above illustrates why it is an "old" and "broken down" argument.
Same argument for light rail; you benefit from it some way or another and in the future from growing populations and the ability to expand transit options taking people off the streets and freeways. Mobility as commerce! A HUGE plus for a city and one that plans to grow. This is how cities continue to be feasible; by having the infrastructure to remain relevant we all benefit. This is why your argument is "old" and "broken down."
Same argument for light rail; you benefit from it some way or another and in the future from growing populations and the ability to expand transit options taking people off the streets and freeways. Mobility as commerce! A HUGE plus for a city and one that plans to grow. This is how cities continue to be feasible; by having the infrastructure to remain relevant we all benefit. This is why your argument is "old" and "broken down."
Not sure of the Phx area; but, vehicle registrations were down nationwide about 2% in 2009 vs. 2008 (10 million new vehicles sold vs. 14 mil taken out of service). Read that the popularity of cars and trucks is starting to diminish--------especially in light of so many young folks not bothering with learning how to drive.
Not sure of the Phx area; but, vehicle registrations were down nationwide about 2% in 2009 vs. 2008 (10 million new vehicles sold vs. 14 mil taken out of service). Read that the popularity of cars and trucks is starting to diminish--------especially in light of so many young folks not bothering with learning how to drive.
There was also a story in the AZ Republic that showed a percentage of families in Central Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa selling their second and third vehicles and becoming one car families instead using light rail and mass transit to save thousands upon thousands a year! Instead of losing their home due to reduced income/loss of income/or just to pad their incomes, many have opted to switch modes of transportation...sounds reasonable to me.
How's that? Seems to me (from what I've seen and what has been said on here) is that traffic is actually worse on and near the light-rail route. Perhaps if that was the goal, they shouldn't have placed it right in the middle of a road.
maybe traffic is worse than it used to be near the light rail . . . but it's probably better in other places.
Quote:
I figured this out once before. At the highest estimates, the light-rail has removed 1 in 100 cars off the freeways each day. I don't think that number is true, but even if it is true that's a really small number for 1.6 billion and millions annually.
well, first, as with your issue in "trips" vs. "boardings" for transit ridership we have the issue of "trips" vs. "cars" for auto trips. The only effective way to quantify auto use is by monitoring vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Every time you get in the car and put it in drive it's considered a trip. It's why comparing auto and transit usage puts transit at a competitive disadvantage.
If I take the train to work downtown, grab a bagel outside out my office, walk to lunch, head home and get off the train near my house and pick up some milk along the way that only counts as one trip . . . or, perhaps, 10 passenger miles for the transit system.
If you drive to your office bldg. in the 'burbs, stop off for a breakfast burrito on the way, drive to lunch, and on your way home stop at the store that's 4 trips and maybe 30 VMT. We both did the same thing - yours just cost a lot more and was a lot less efficient. But the way the DOT looks at it, you use your car more than I use transit so transit must not be very important. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote:
One could have accomplished more (as far as reducing traffic congestion) by turning the HOV lanes into regular traffic lanes (using the pavement more efficiently). What would that have cost? Or if they had used the money to give businesses an incentive to have employees telecommute--wouldn't that have done much more to reduce traffic and emissions?
But, no, we "needed" the light-rail, and now essentail services are being cut. I guess it's true that you reap what you sow.
Making it easier for people to drive rarely discourages the habit. Adding more lanes of road or more transit routes only increases the capacity of the network. See "induced demand" We've known about this in regards to highway constructions since the late 30s.
The way to reduce traffic and emissions is for people to drive less. The only way that's possible is if people have alternatives. You can't build a place where people can drive less if transit isn't part of the equation.
I don't like paying for interstate highways in states that no one lives in. I don't like subsidizing air travel for people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere. OTOH, I like fresh fruits and vegetables and whatever the heck they grow in the Dakotas so I recognize the importance of having them connected to the rest of the economy.
I can't believe we're still debating the light rail issue well over a year after it has opened, and has proven to be successful. Even I was a doubter of the system until I saw the statistics that people ARE using it. I'm still not 100% supportive of publicly funded light rail for different reasons, but I do support the fact that the voters were given a chance to approve or reject this in two different phases ... and they passed both times!
The naysayers who adamantly oppose this had the chance to be heard at the voting booths in 2000 and 2004. If they weren't here during those years, too bad & so sad. Therefore, it's about time to put this issue to a rest. Light rail is here, and it isn't going away.
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.
I certainly use it from time to time----------and, I have a driver's license and access to several vehicles.
Instead of losing their home due to reduced income/loss of income/or just to pad their incomes, many have opted to switch modes of transportation...sounds reasonable to me.
