Nobody sees that cheap mass transit and rail travel:
- is accessible to the working poor for all their needs,- increases employment of the poor,- increases city and near suburb property values,- is very green,- reduces air pollution- reduces noise- reduces foreign oil dependency- reduces suburban sprawl- reduces school transportation costs- reduces street, road and highway maintenance costs- reduces traffic- reduces delivery costs and related street impact (a delivery person with a small cart or dolly could use the handicapped access)
^jack, Clark, depends on where you are. Here in the Northeast Corridor mass transit definitely makes sense, even with rails. Perhaps especially with rails, since Boston has terrible traffic and roads but an excellent subway system. I take the T to work, and often elsewhere when going around Boston. It’s a big investment to build it, but then it becomes very practical and cheap.And in my experience the property value doesn’t go up near railed mass transit. Around here the wealthier people typically live a greater distance from mass transit and take commuter rail at best.
When in Portland, or big cities, I LIKE mass transit because I hate city traffic. I use a bicycle, motor scooter, or well, old-fashioned travel called “feet”, when “commuting” in my little town. Of course, considering the nearest Wal-Mart or Mickey D’s is 117 miles away- auto travel is kinda’ required. Yep, some areas of the country aren’t “mass transit” suitable, but the bad part is most that ARE, aren’t.
The problem is that despite huge increases in expenditures for mass transit over the last 20 years, ridership has remained essentially flat – according to information from APTA (American Public Transportation Administration). In 1991, operating subsidies were approximately $10B, with capital subsidies at a little over $5B. In 2009, the former was almost $25B and the latter, approximately $18B. Other sources show that across the USA, transit represents less than 5% of urban transport – for a large number of different reasons, including ease of use, cost to user, et cetera.In fact, rail transit often harms more than it helps. In LA, they lost 17% of their bus passengers when they started building rail transit (and were successfully sued by the NCAAP because of their building the rails to white suburbs, while cutting bus routes in poorer black neighborhoods). In San Jose CA (where I live), we lost almost a third of the ridership when funds were cut 20%. Rail transit is not only not a bargain (on average it comes in at 40% over budget, and carries on average 35% less than riders than projected), but is in effect, a tool of politicians that ultimately hurts the very people they seem to care about – the poor through ever inflating prices and lines going to economically better off neighborhoods.
Um…curtisis87…be specific, please. Most of the US is low population density, in which case most forms of mass transit are neither efficient nor inexpensive. As I said, in the Northeast Corridor, it is extremely useful and effective. You are generalizing based on too broad a set of data, then using California — one of the places where population density is particularly low — as a negative example.
bdaverin almost 13 years ago
Though sometimes cuts happen even with an increase in ridership if the other costs outpace the ticket sales.
DavidGBA almost 13 years ago
Nobody sees that cheap mass transit and rail travel:
- is accessible to the working poor for all their needs,- increases employment of the poor,- increases city and near suburb property values,- is very green,- reduces air pollution- reduces noise- reduces foreign oil dependency- reduces suburban sprawl- reduces school transportation costs- reduces street, road and highway maintenance costs- reduces traffic- reduces delivery costs and related street impact (a delivery person with a small cart or dolly could use the handicapped access)Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
^jack, Clark, depends on where you are. Here in the Northeast Corridor mass transit definitely makes sense, even with rails. Perhaps especially with rails, since Boston has terrible traffic and roads but an excellent subway system. I take the T to work, and often elsewhere when going around Boston. It’s a big investment to build it, but then it becomes very practical and cheap.And in my experience the property value doesn’t go up near railed mass transit. Around here the wealthier people typically live a greater distance from mass transit and take commuter rail at best.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Mass transit would be preferable to 8 mile back-ups at our tunnels.
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
When in Portland, or big cities, I LIKE mass transit because I hate city traffic. I use a bicycle, motor scooter, or well, old-fashioned travel called “feet”, when “commuting” in my little town. Of course, considering the nearest Wal-Mart or Mickey D’s is 117 miles away- auto travel is kinda’ required. Yep, some areas of the country aren’t “mass transit” suitable, but the bad part is most that ARE, aren’t.
rekam Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Now you’d be able to take Bart under the Bay and on to the Civic Plaza.
pirate227 almost 13 years ago
Toles is riffing on the new map that will include the Silver line.With all of the problems Metro has it still expanding out to Dulles.
d_legendary1 almost 13 years ago
You should see the Metrofail here in Miami. They’ve been expanding it so it can go to more places people don’t want to go.
curtisls87 almost 13 years ago
The problem is that despite huge increases in expenditures for mass transit over the last 20 years, ridership has remained essentially flat – according to information from APTA (American Public Transportation Administration). In 1991, operating subsidies were approximately $10B, with capital subsidies at a little over $5B. In 2009, the former was almost $25B and the latter, approximately $18B. Other sources show that across the USA, transit represents less than 5% of urban transport – for a large number of different reasons, including ease of use, cost to user, et cetera.In fact, rail transit often harms more than it helps. In LA, they lost 17% of their bus passengers when they started building rail transit (and were successfully sued by the NCAAP because of their building the rails to white suburbs, while cutting bus routes in poorer black neighborhoods). In San Jose CA (where I live), we lost almost a third of the ridership when funds were cut 20%. Rail transit is not only not a bargain (on average it comes in at 40% over budget, and carries on average 35% less than riders than projected), but is in effect, a tool of politicians that ultimately hurts the very people they seem to care about – the poor through ever inflating prices and lines going to economically better off neighborhoods.
Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
Um…curtisis87…be specific, please. Most of the US is low population density, in which case most forms of mass transit are neither efficient nor inexpensive. As I said, in the Northeast Corridor, it is extremely useful and effective. You are generalizing based on too broad a set of data, then using California — one of the places where population density is particularly low — as a negative example.
pirate227 almost 13 years ago
The DC Metro also works great for commuters. I rode it for 6 straight years until I got a job where it made more sense to drive.