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.
That isn't to say rail can't be economical, but you need a lot more users than 4,500 weekday boardings on a ~100 mile system. BART does fairly well. It covers about 5x as much of the operating costs, but then it has more like 375,000 weekday boardings on roughly the same system mileage. You really need that massive economy of scale for rail to make sense.
The problem is density, or lack of. North American cities tend to be very spread out and suburban-centric. Pretty hard to make rail work very well in suburbia. Or more like impossible in most cases. Can't get economies of scale when everything is spread so far apart.
From Toronto, if anyone was wondering what city this was.
As to the OP, transit could only reduce congestion if lots of people are starting and ending their trip within a short distance of the route. Possibly other destinations could accessible via transfer, but that'd be unlikely attract many riders. Many if not most of the cars could be just using the road as a through street.
Where do you get the idea that the gas tax pays for highways? That's never been true and especially not now, covering 50-60% of only the cost of the freeways/state highways.
It's provides even less coverage when you think about how the gas tax is charged when you drive on all roads and even when you're cutting your grass!
Where do you get the idea that the gas tax pays for highways? That's never been true and especially not now, covering 50-60% of only the cost of the freeways/state highways.
It's provides even less coverage when you think about how the gas tax is charged when you drive on all roads and even when you're cutting your grass!
I'd guess reality, which is the same place you got the exact same idea. You have a very strange way with words considering you just said exactly the same thing I did but apparently want to sound like you disagree.
If the circuituity of the bus routes is high enough, the buses can result in more congestion, not less. Plus buses act basically like chloresterol in the road system.
Once you reach a certain point, having busses can appear to increase congestion if you get stuck behind one, but I'm not sure how significant the net effect is. Whenever you pass a bus, you just end up behind other cars a hundred feet ahead--you only gain a few car lengths. The road is congested in the first place because of too many cars, not because of busses!!! Without the busses, the road would be just as congested, or more congested.
That said, you really should make some dedicated infrastructure improvements at that point...assuming you don't have the money for light rail. Bus lanes, queue jump lanes, bus bays, signal prioritization are all relatively cheap. In a situation with many intersections in close proximity, "share" the right lane by makng it right turn only with busses allowed to go straight through. Or no parking on the busy side of the road during rush hour, use the lane as a bus lane. Paint is cheap! It can be done. But it takes coordination between the DoT and transit agencies, which rarely exists...
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.
