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.
First, such a system is being built, and assuming continued investment in infrastructure, can easily be completely built within the next few decades, assuming resources are properly allocated. Secondly, one can walk 1/2 a mile, bike 2 miles, that can cover most of the nation's major metro areas.
Where is such a system being built?
Quote:
Very few Priuses are electric. Most get 40-60 MPG.
Fine.
Quote:
People consistently pick the most convenient option. Back when there were efficient streetcars, most people picked those. Once they were replaced with freeways, most people chose those. Nowadays, when new rail is opened, most people choose it because the freeways are choked with congestion.
Where, other than NYC, do more people use rail transit that other forms of transportation? I want numbers.
Quote:
Absolutely. In my situation, I can easily go to the California Coast, Redwoods, Grand Canyon, Channel Islands, Yosemite National Park, and Lake Tahoe without a car. We have a cool thing called Amtrak instead.
Good For You!
Quote:
People will walk 1/2 a mile for fast rail, because the decreased rail journey times make up for the extra time walking. Therefore, a grid of rail every 1 mile is reasonable in most urban settings, and is certainly more cost-effective than freeways or the opportunity costs of doing nothing.
There is no evidence that's true. It's all conjecture. And what a way to mess up a city, with rail tracks every mile!
Quote:
It costs more to live in urban cores. Therefore, demand to live in urban cores currently exceeds the amount of people who live there, and the opposite is true for places outside the urban core.
Please provide some concrete proof.
Quote:
There is. In case you haven't noticed, voters in Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, Honolulu, etc. have approved hundreds of miles of new rail lines because we're sick of being in traffic instead.
Who's this "we" Kemosabe? And Denver doesn't count, for anything, remember? It's too "different". Plus, LOL, now RTD may be sued for not fulfilling its promise to build a rail line to Longmont, a promise it made when FASTRACKS was being campaigned for, to get Longmont's vote. Julia Pirnack: Can Longmont sue RTD over FasTracks? Let's find out - Longmont Times-Call
Quote:
Building cars and roads pollutes a lot.
And building rail cars and railroad track doesn't?
Quote:
I never said how I want everybody to live. I do recognize that high demand currently exists to live in urban cores and that rail can move people faster and more comfortably for less money than cars can.
Faster? Not always. More comfortably? Ditto. For less money? Not by a longshot.
Where, other than NYC, do more people use rail transit that other forms of transportation? I want numbers.
A number of large western European cities, Japan. Don't feel like looking up the numbers.
Quote:
There is no evidence that's true. It's all conjecture. And what a way to mess up a city, with rail tracks every mile!
There's no evidence people are willing to walk the same to a local bus as rail (or express bus). For it to be the same implies people don't care about transit time or speed, which sounds like an odd conjecture. Any city that has rail every mile would have grade separated in some way, doesn't mess up much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Who's this "we" Kemosabe? And Denver doesn't count, for anything, remember? It's too "different". Plus, LOL, now RTD may be sued for not fulfilling its promise to build a rail line to Longmont, a promise it made when FASTRACKS was being campaigned for, to get Longmont's vote. Julia Pirnack: Can Longmont sue RTD over FasTracks? Let's find out - Longmont Times-Call
He said Denver is an outlier in being isolated so doesn't "count" in that regard. Where'd he say it didn't count for anything? Denver built a lot of rail in the last five years; by track miles more any other city in recent years. The Longmont line is the one line out of many that didn't make it.
A simple illustration of the cost difference: http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/20...tyle=101286097
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
Consider -
In 2012, you could buy a Ford Focus for $16,500.00
In 2012, 30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard on NYC mass transit - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
(per annum = $ 1248 / $ 624)
$6,223 versus $624 /or/ $1248?
1. You are continuing to live in the past. It's 2017 not 2012.
2. The bulk of the U.S. population doesn't live in or near NYC so a "MetroCard" doesn't serve them in any way whatsoever.
3. NYC transit is in a severe financial crisis - you just refuse to see it.
Even an extreme lefty article notes a $22 billion shortfall in the funds https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../nyct-m11.html
4. Your analysis wholly ignores all the other taxes paid to support your "cheap" MetroCard
5. Your analysis wholly ignores the costs of living in NYC compared to the rest of the country
Here's a U.S. 2016 cost of living map. https://www.missourieconomy.org/indi...ost_of_living/ If you want to save money, the solution is to move away from New York not buying a MetroCard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
....
The fact that the infrastructure is at risk and in dire need of repair is another indicator of the EXORBITANT costs associated with the automobile, etc.
Lame logic. By that argument "the fact that the infrastructure is at risk and in dire need of repair is another indicator of the EXORBITANT costs associated with" rail. See, e.g., https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../nyct-m11.html
If you ended ALL subsidies and ALL taxes, rail trumps the automobile in just about every category, save convenience... and that can be ameliorated with intelligent multi-modal transit design as well as rail-centric urban design.
Your solution for amelioration reads a bit Agenda 21-ish.
Your example is NYC but NYC is probably the most "ideal" environment for transit because of the pre-existing concentrations of people and concentration of jobs (destinations). That doesn't really exist elsewhere in the United States. Even in this "ideal" (for transit) environment, transit in New York does not appear to be "sustainable". It's been crisis after crisis and it's in a big financial hole even now. The solutions proposed by lefties is that money should be simply taken from wealthier people to pay for it. That's not a solution and how long would that really last? Unsustainable Transit: New York City | Newgeography.com
What's "intelligent" about "multi-modal transit design"? What you really mean is further inconvenience and cost to the commuter.
Without taxes or subsidies the commuter rail can't make it - even in your ideal-for-transit environment.
A number of large western European cities, Japan. Don't feel like looking up the numbers.
There's no evidence people are willing to walk the same to a local bus as rail (or express bus). For it to be the same implies people don't care about transit time or speed, which sounds like an odd conjecture. Any city that has rail every mile would have grade separated in some way, doesn't mess up much.
He said Denver is an outlier in being isolated so doesn't "count" in that regard. Where'd he say it didn't count for anything? Denver built a lot of rail in the last five years; by track miles more any other city in recent years. The Longmont line is the one line out of many that didn't make it.
I was referring to US cities. We got a good view of the Japanese system a few posts up.
Rail track every mile is poor land use, IMO. And gosh, living in the city would be noisy if the train were always that close.
Many examples of Denver I've used have been dismissed as Denver being "different". The topic doesn't seem to matter.
Rail track every mile is poor land use, IMO. And gosh, living in the city would be noisy if the train were always that close.
I don't get why it's any worse than an arterial. As for noise, depends on the system. NY's elevateds are bad; but only really annoying if within one block.
I don't get why it's any worse than an arterial. As for noise, depends on the system. NY's elevateds are bad; but only really annoying if within one block.
It would not eliminate the need for roads. So you'd have a lot of land taken up for transportation. Not to mention, are these trains going to stop every half mile? That doesn't sound very efficient.
NY is "different".
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-29-2017 at 09:15 AM..
But if you want to build your light rail, Go ahead. Just dont tax me for it. Pay for it yourself. However that is not the in tent of people like you. They want to take and spend. Without any responsibility to the people whom they took the money from.
Ummm, then why do most places that have multi-billion dollar rail transportation packages generally pass them by large margins? I don't think you get how government and taxation works.
Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, and Honolulu are the big ones. Smaller projects are happening in San Francisco, San Diego, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Atlanta, DC, New York, Boston, Miami, and Minneapolis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Where, other than NYC, do more people use rail transit that other forms of transportation? I want numbers.
San Francisco, Vancouver BC, Boston, DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
There is no evidence that's true. It's all conjecture. And what a way to mess up a city, with rail tracks every mile!
Who's this "we" Kemosabe? And Denver doesn't count, for anything, remember? It's too "different".
Denver certainly counts when it comes to urban rail, but like other isolated cities--Calgary, Anchorage, Honolulu, etc., it will obviously have a low intercity rail mode share (and a low intercity car mode share), because more people will choose to fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
And building rail cars and railroad track doesn't?
Not as much, because less miles of track and rail cars are needed than miles of road and passenger cars to serve the same number of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Faster? Not always. More comfortably? Ditto. For less money? Not by a longshot.
Faster--yes, in most urban environments, which is relevant to most people.
More comfortably--not having to spend your time driving counts as more comfortable to me.
Less money--yes; of course. A transit pass for a whole year costs $1200. Owning a car for a year costs about $8000 per year.
New York does have a spending/union/management problem. That doesn't change the fact that it costs less per user to transport people in trains rather than cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Your analysis wholly ignores all the other taxes paid to support your "cheap" MetroCard
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Your analysis wholly ignores the costs of living in NYC compared to the rest of the country
Here's a U.S. 2016 cost of living map. https://www.missourieconomy.org/indi...ost_of_living/ If you want to save money, the solution is to move away from New York not buying a MetroCard.
It costs more because more people want to live there and use a MetroCard than want to live in some Midwestern suburb and own a car. The solution is to upzone everything and build a ton of new housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Lame logic. By that argument "the fact that the infrastructure is at risk and in dire need of repair is another indicator of the EXORBITANT costs associated with" rail. See, e.g., https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../nyct-m11.html
Roads are even more exorbitant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Your solution for amelioration reads a bit Agenda 21-ish.
Agenda 21 is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Your example is NYC but NYC is probably the most "ideal" environment for transit because of the pre-existing concentrations of people and concentration of jobs (destinations). That doesn't really exist elsewhere in the United States. Even in this "ideal" (for transit) environment, transit in New York does not appear to be "sustainable".
What's "intelligent" about "multi-modal transit design"? What you really mean is further inconvenience and cost to the commuter.
No. It means that switching modes is sometimes the fastest way to get somewhere. For instance, from my house to my job, I can either drive for 30 minutes in traffic, or else take the Metro for 10 minutes, then walk for another 10 minutes. In this case, the multi-modal option in faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Without taxes or subsidies the commuter rail can't make it - even in your ideal-for-transit environment.
Neither can roads.
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.
