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 think everyone hates light rail. Most feel that it has it's role- and that role is limited. For example having light rail that goes from a few set collecting points around the metro area going into downtown (or other major job centers) would be great so people can quickly get to work and back without fighting traffic. However it won't be all that useful for anything else- and the massive cost turns most people off.
The problem is not the suburbs- cars are not a "problem" at all. What is frustrating is how so many people see cars as a bad thing, as if a city doesn't have enough trains that somehow it has bad transit. The fact is that most cities have great transit- they are called roads and highways- since almost everyone has a car, they have their own form of transit- and that transit gets them from any place on a map to any other place on a map they need to get to. No waiting for trains, no switching lines once or twice to get to an odd-ball location, etc.
And those subsidies are in large part paid by the people who actually drive cars- yes, that is a fact- so it's not like drivers are getting fat handouts from the government to continue some bad habit. Only recently have highway costs exceeded the income from gas taxes- and part of that is because rather large amounts of gas taxes are now being used in most areas for other projects. Here in Washington state, for example, a hefty portion goes to mass transit, and some goes into the general fund. So of course now the government says that we are only covering about 50% of our highway costs with gas taxes. Since it is drivers that are paying those taxes for the roads they use, that money actually needs to be directed back to roads- all of it. And if there is still a shortfall, then we need to raise gas taxes a bit to cover that cost.
Anyway, that is why a lot of people are against spending billions on light rail in areas that don't yet have it- because it just doesn't seem terribly necessary except in the most congested areas.
In the Philadelphia area, they are planning on building a light rail line from Philadelphia to a suburb in Glassboro, NJ. Though the proposed light rail line is only 18-miles long, the estimated cost is expected to be about $2 billion. In most other countries, they would be able to build multiple subway lines in a major city with $2 billion of transportation funding.
In Japan the Yokahama Minatomirai 21 Line is only 2.5 miles long and cost $2.5 billion to build. That is $15K per inch. since light rail is about 5 lbs of rail per inch (2.5 lbs each side) that is unbelievably expensive (somewhere near 100X the price of copper). It also took 11 years to build.
But I've never heard of anybody anything like that for transit. Even high speed rail is under a billion dollars per mile.
The original light rail project in the USA was the line from southern end of central San Diego to Tijuana (12 miles). It was a simple plan that was to replace an old train that ran in the 1930's. The stops were no thrills parking lots, not much nicer than most bus stops. The whole project was less than $100 million and was completed in a year. You also had a motivated group that was coming across the border to work, and didn't have cars.
The later segments of the San Diego Trolley cost well over $100 million per mile (similar to Glassboro project).
IN Mexico City and Las Vegas NV, the newer concept is called "bus rapid transit". It's a bus system but with many features of light rail. For most of the trip you have guided transitways, you can't buy a ticket onboard, there are multiple doors to enter with no steps, computers guide the buses into the terminals so that there is no gap, and there are fewer stops than a typical bus route. Also if a traffic light is absolutely necessary they are computer controlled so as not to slow down the BRT.
A BRT is not cheap to build, but it can be modified much easier than light rail.
Is this actually true though? I think the post in regards taxation and government spending plays a part in this for some, but I wouldn't generalize in regards to the topic.
In Japan the Yokahama Minatomirai 21 Line is only 2.5 miles long and cost $2.5 billion to build. That is $15K per inch. since light rail is about 5 lbs of rail per inch (2.5 lbs each side) that is unbelievably expensive (somewhere near 100X the price of copper). It also took 11 years to build.
But I've never heard of anybody anything like that for transit. Even high speed rail is under a billion dollars per mile.
The original light rail project in the USA was the line from southern end of central San Diego to Tijuana (12 miles). It was a simple plan that was to replace an old train that ran in the 1930's. The stops were no thrills parking lots, not much nicer than most bus stops. The whole project was less than $100 million and was completed in a year. You also had a motivated group that was coming across the border to work, and didn't have cars.
The later segments of the San Diego Trolley cost well over $100 million per mile (similar to Glassboro project).
IN Mexico City and Las Vegas NV, the newer concept is called "bus rapid transit". It's a bus system but with many features of light rail. For most of the trip you have guided transitways, you can't buy a ticket onboard, there are multiple doors to enter with no steps, computers guide the buses into the terminals so that there is no gap, and there are fewer stops than a typical bus route. Also if a traffic light is absolutely necessary they are computer controlled so as not to slow down the BRT.
A BRT is not cheap to build, but it can be modified much easier than light rail.
Still doesn't have the same cachet though. These projects are so expensive in developed countries because labor and land acquisition is expensive. It's somewhat cheaper in developing nations where property rights may not be as strong, and labor is cheap.
The US doesn't hate light rail - those with the loudest voices do. But many larger cities have strong contingents that advocate for it, and when it is built, people do use it. For those who don't "see the point," light rail projects take pressure off of highways, which means less traffic for those who don't ride light rail, which means fewer new highway projects.
The Mexico City buse rapid transit run an average speed of 12 mph, doing 37 mph as maximum. Doing so, travel times along the corridor are reduced up to 50%.
Transports 850,000 passengers daily.
# 1 (19 mi) 45 stations initial section opened on 19 June 2005.
# 2 (12 mi) opened on 16 December 2009.
# 3 (11 mi) opened on 8 February 2011.
# 4 (17 mi) opened on 1 April 2012.
# 5 (9.3 mi) opened on 5 November 2013.
That's about 20% of the passengers carried on the Mexico City Metro:
Number of stations 195
Daily ridership 4,408,220
Began operation 4 September 1969
Number of vehicles 390
System length 140.7 mi
The maximum design speed limit is (50 mph/rubber and 62 mph/steel)
Average speed 22.1 mph for rubber-tyred rolling stock and
Average speed 26.4 mph for steel-wheeled rolling stock.
As I remember the San Diego Trolley averaged 30 mph, and did a top speed of 55 mph.
I'm inclined to like light rail. I like urban environments and public transportation. But almost everyone in the United States, seemingly, hates light rail and has convincing arguments for why every project is an expensive boondoggle.
The U.S. has had the automobile industry dominate thinking, and influence the gov't to build more highways, create suburbs, and on and on.
It's just been a few generations of mindwashing that anything NOT CAR is somehow negative.
I find it frustrating as well, as having a car-free existance can be the most liberating feel anyone can possibly have. Particularly socially. I mean, being car free anywhere outside of the U.S. Being car free in the U.S. is like a prison sentence, as the nation and govt has made the people incredibly car dependent, so much that you can't even buy a Coca-cola or rent a movie, without needing a car to do so.
I think because they created such a car-centric environment, that no light rail or train or metro system can possibly fix it. Figuring that multitudes would need to cross over a dangerous highway, or walk along the side of dark unlit road without sidewalks, simply to get one store-bought item, how can you possibly connect that type of society by any public transit?
In short, the U.S. is a train wreck of a system, without any hope in sight.
It depends on how fast that mid-sized city is growing. If the city is steadily growing at a fast rate in a decent size metro area, then that city should consider building a rail system for the future population as those areas will become more densified. Major US cities like Houston are now paying the price for not investing in rail transit infrastructure decades ago. Now the city of Houston is playing catch up, as its rail service can't keep up with its growing population. As a result, Houston has the worst mass transit for a city of it's size. It's far behind other major cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, etc.
In what sense is Houston "paying the price?" It's certainly not in terms of longer commute times. Sunbelt cities have shorter commute times than the legacy transit cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Here is the % of commuters by metro who have commutes in excess of 30 minutes.
Washington, DC - 56.3%
New York - 51.0%
Chicago - 49.2%
San Francisco - 48.2%
Atlanta - 47.9%
Boston - 47.5%
Houston - 46.2%
Miami - 45.4%
Los Angeles - 45.3%
Philadelphia - 43.6%
Dallas - 42.6%
And here it is by city proper.
New York - 67.6%
Chicago - 58.1%
Philadelphia - 53.4%
San Francisco - 52.5%
Boston - 51.4%
Los Angeles - 48.4%
Washington, DC - 45.6%
Miami - 40.7%
Houston - 40.5%
Dallas - 38.9%
Atlanta - 34.2%
In what sense is Houston "paying the price?" It's certainly not in terms of longer commute times. Sunbelt cities have shorter commute times than the legacy transit cities.
It goes a lot deeper than just work commute times. It's about the city's infrastructure in general. The city of Houston is too sprawled out that you need a car to get around the city, even in it's downtown area. Not many people walk or ride bikes. You have to drive everywhere to get to all the city's amenities. Houston is one of the worst cities when it comes to traffic.
You can only build so much roads before it starts to become impractical as the population continues to grows and densifies. One of a key attributes of a World Class city is having efficient mass transit. Cities like London, Tokyo, and New York City would not be the same if those places didn't have great infrastructure which includes an efficient transportation system. Those cities had great planning that goes back hundreds of years. Houston on the other hand is a poorly planned city. The main problem with Houston is that its infrastructure is built more like a giant suburb than an actual city. Sure that's great if you want your city to be a suburb but if you want it to be an actual city, there are certain attributes that you must accomplish to have efficient city infrastructure. Even a city like Los Angeles is starting to heavily invest in its transportation infrastructure. Unless Houston actually addresses it' infrastructure issues, it will continue to fall behind other US cities like Chicago and Philadelphia. It will only get worse in the future as Houston's population continues to grow.
It goes a lot deeper than just work commute times. It's about the city's infrastructure in general. The city of Houston is too sprawled out that you need a car to get around the city, even in it's downtown area. Not many people walk or ride bikes. You have to drive everywhere to get to all the city's amenities. Houston is one of the worst cities when it comes to traffic.
Not everyone views the ability to walk to amenities as the holy grail (as so many on this forum do). So what cost is Houston really paying?
Traffic in Boston is worse than it is in Houston at both the city and metro level. Washington, DC has higher commute times than Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and Houston despite being the second most transit-oriented city in the U.S. after NYC. And its metro area easily has the worst traffic in the nation with longer commutes than the Tri-State.
Not everyone views the ability to walk to amenities as the holy grail (as so many on this forum do).
It's not a coincidence that the majority of the World-class cities on this planet are very walkable and pedestrian friendly. It's one of the key factors that make a great city when it comes to infrastructure.
Quote:
So what cost is Houston really paying?
I already explained it. The city has to play catch-up with its infrastructure. Just simply building more highways isn't going to solve the problem long term when it comes to improving Houston's transportation efficiency.
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.
