You are wrong. I started this thread by illustrating how rail has helped me...and I ain't poor. I can't give you every fact about every city and every rail system in the country. But I can tell you how much money it has saved me. So everybody just automatically poo poo's the choo choo but that is simply because it hasn't help YOU. But don't be so quick to conclude that it isn't helping anybody. I'm not "poor" and it will save me thousands of dollars this year. So naysay all you want...I'm giving you a personal success story.
What is your defination of poor? To some on this board you could be very poor (it is all a matter of perspectives).
I notice you didn't mention what you save on parking (if you work downtown, that is) by taking the rail/bus. Seems like many of the parking garages downtown run about $75-100 per month.
I never called anybody a Republican because they opposed it. I DID say many are taking position similar to the way Republicans would do so. That being said, the organized opposition groups were all Republican. I don't have to do my own research. I'm living it. I am telling you how much money I will save in 2005 because of rail. So you'd have a hard time convincing me and the thousands of Houstonians that can take the same advantages as me would strong disagree with your "ten-fold" premise. Do you understand what "rhetoric" means? The silly argument about buying all the riders a car was a radio advertisement to dramatize and distract the public by "Texans For True Mobility." That is rhetoric. I am trying to argue point using real facts that I came up with myself...not regurgitated talking points. I'll grant you that. But does a regional transportation plan that covers all of Houston make it less important than the Katy Freeway expansion. Really? So you'd rather divert money away from Houston? If true, you just sound like a grump. It depends what calculations you use. Look at the economic development that is occuring. If after 15 years, the urban center has more vitality which in turn makes Houston a more friendly place for visitors and businesses, which in turn results in a wholesale economic benefit for the region, then your cost ratio's look a little different, huh? But again, personally, I'm saving a lot of money because of rail. So for me, the cost ratio looks pretty good. Please notice that this is an opinion...not fact...that you are expressing. To say that Houston will always be "a suburb city" cannot be a fact. City demographics are in constant change. Look at mid-town where 4-5 new residential developments have already opened and there several more in the planning stages. Another opinion. But nice CAN'T DO attitude. I thought Houstonians were known for their can do attitude. That isn't true anymore. Look how much money Katy Freeway is costing due to having to purchase right-of-ways. They are looking at I-45 expansion now out of downtown and the primary obsticle is right-of-way. We can't continue to built more roads. Besides, concrete is ugly. Can't we do things to enhance our city rather than more concrete? Not true. My wife is from Toronto who has a great rail system. She never used a car her whole life there. A good rail system can benefit people it the system is good enough. Just pointing out your assumptions and opinions that you accept as facts. You have a right to your opinion but just as long as you recognize your own opinions as opinions.
You take the skyway, high above the busy little one-way In my stupid hat and gloves, at night I lie awake Wonderin' if I'll sleep Wonderin' if we'll meet out in the street But you take the skyway It don't move at all like a subway It's got bums when it's cold like any other place It's warm up inside Sittin' down and waitin' for a ride Beneath the skyway Oh, then one day, I saw you walkin' down that little one-way Where, the place I'd catch my ride most everyday There wasn't a damn thing I could do or say Up in the skyway Skyway Skyway (sky away) -the replacements
I'm happy for you, but I don't think basing federal, state and municipal budgetary decisions on personal success stories is a wise way to govern. I've done work on rail transit, I'm very familiar with the literature, and I'm in the midst of a very comprehensive welfare analysis of the nation's rail transit systems. I have to be honest with you, before I started researching transit, I had exactly the same views as you and many on this board. But once I actually gathered data and started analyzing it, I was schocked. I don't pooh pooh transit because it doesn't help me. It probably helps me more than it helps you, because DC sucks on the government's teat for far more transit dollars than Houston, and I'm by no means in a high tax bracket. I'm getting a nice big subsidy through transit. But I'm willing to give it up, because I wish we approached urban transportation problems in a smarter way.
Thank you for helping me decide which CD to crank up when I get home from work and pour my first drink tonight. I haven't heard "Pleased to Meet Me" in a long long time, and "Skyway" and "Nevermind" are my favorites off that CD. Thanks!!
How much does rail cost? For some reason I was thinking it was 2 bucks each way... if that's the case it would be like 2 bucks for every 7 miles ... so not sure if that's really cheaper than gas.. I might have the cost way wrong though.. can you buy a day pass or something?
If I were living on the rail line, I would get a monthly pass for $150 or so, which less than I spend on insurance for the month, much less gas, maintenance, and stress from driving.
I don't have the numbers off the top of my head and I'm sure they very from city to city but if you think about the amount of $ it takes to extend infrastructure out to low density areas you're losing money because you're inefficiently using that infrastructure. In addition to just the infrastructure costs you need to consider opportunity costs from productive hours lost due to commuting. There's also a cost interms of providing mitigation to the environmental negative affects of sprawl such as flood control due problems with runoff from large impervious surfaces and air quality. IMO the economic benefits that I see of sprawl, low costs land and cheaper construction, are greatly outweighed by the costs. Can you say unambiguously that the benefits of sprawl outweigh the costs? I agree with that but the point of transit systems like LRT isn't to alleviate current congestion but to develop a framework for future development that won't be so congested. Its true that if transit is primarily powered by coal fired electric plants or diseal burning buses you're not going to get an improvement on air pollution but this is where the efficiency of transit can resolve the problem. Its going to be much easier for a transit system to switch to a fleet of low or non-polluting vehicles rather than rely on a mass shift among private automobiles. As for the electric power that can come from any number of sources and its also goign to be eaisier to retrofit even coal burning power plants to low emmissions than to count on changing the type of private autos out there. Air pollution isn't the only issue because roads themselves are a source of pollution from excess runoff of the impervious surface. Since transit lines can move the same amount of people with less impervious surface there is an environmental benefit there. While transit does help concentrate growth another benefit of that is providing connections between existing growth centers. One problem with our current development and transportation system is that poor people often don't have a way to get to service jobs out in rapidly developing areas and so those jobs either don't get filled or the cost of doing business increases because of the lack of available labor. Transit provides a way to both get commuters into the central city but also get poorer people in the central city out to service jobs in the suburbs. As for concentrating urban growth the benefits of that are the environmental benefits as stated above, but also economic benefits from bringing labor closer to jobs. There's also a sociological benefit of bringing diverse classes of people together preventing social stratification. I wouldn't consider it a transfer payment but investment in new infrastructure that helps all. I think your view of the benefits, and costs are vary narrow if this is what you think it is for because if anything LRT helps businesses and the wealthy by increasing property prices along the lines and making it very attractive for developers. Again I don't know where you get the idea that mass transit is somehow a wealth transfer system to the poor. It does help the poor but it also helps a lot of other people too. There is some evidence that it hurts the urban poor by encouraging gentrification. I agree we should do the other things but this isn't necessarily an either or situation because transportation and infrastructure always need to be addressed. Anyway if we are to help the poor out by shifting mass transit funds to help them buy cars we will still need transportation funds to build more roads to accomodate cars and as I've said repeatedly the costs for building more roads in central cities is nearly prohibitive. The fact is that many cities will continue to develop and its a mistake to pretend that we can continue with the existing development pattern indefinately. We need to consider shaping the pattern of development that helps the most people and is the most environmentally and economically efficient. In the long run transit is the only way to address that.
Stated perfectly. I'm happy the transit system works for you but the personal savings to overall cost ratio isn't that high, you are in the small minority. Light rails have failed in many ways that they should succeed. Portland's light rail was supposed to help revitalize parts of their city, and it has has failed miserably. The public transportation costs for light rail would be better spent on other mass transit systems. Our HOV lanes and Park and Rides are some of the most successfull in the nation, why not build upon those? I'm not sure if you've noticed but most of the park and rides are PACKED on a daily basis, and they can be implemented for next to nothing when compared to the light rail, not to mention the speed at which they can be implemented. No one is really arguing that Light Rail doesn't help congestion in some way, but the money would be better spent in countless other ways to help decrease congestion.
Okay, I wasn't sure about the pass. thanks for the info.. I guess it is cheaper than gas probably As for the insurance etc.. I really doubt that it causes many people to not have insurance though. I doubt many people got rid of insurance because they can ride the rail now and not drive. even if I lived downtown, I'd still be using my car I'd think
I know a lot of economists/urban planners that would disagree with that hyperbole. And there is little or no literature that supports the claim that transit is the most efficient way to address urban needs. EDIT - hey, sorry, I'm not good at the tags, but your stuff is in bold, and my stuff isn't. My bad.
If I lived and worked on the rail line, I would garage my Miata and we would become a one car family, reducing insurance as well as all other costs related to the second car.
I don't have time to read through your whole posts and will try to get to it later. I will say that there is plenty of economists and urban planners that agree with that hyperbole. Especially considering that like you I've worked on the transit and urban planning also. No prob. You can blame it on Clutch and Jeff for making the system so complicated.
Vik, the 2025 plan includes rail, HOV, park/ride, etc. Metro isn't saying it is the "most" efficient either. It is just one part of the bigger plan. But the naysayers tend to focus only on the LTR. Why is it relevant that is helps poor people more? I already demonstarted how much money I have saved using LTR. So in effect, I got a lump sum. Plus we get the added benefits that LTR brings including future development, less dependancy on oil, cleaner environment, etc etc. So you are advocating doing nothing and instead giving money back? Sounds nice but lets take a closer look. Houston is growing by something like over 100k people/year. So in a decade we'll have 1 million new residents. How does your plan address that considering Houston traffic is bad right now? BTW, more money in people's pocket? I already do have more money in my pocket and I outlined how. The best part of it, the extra money in my pocket isn't a handout. We know how Republicans hate handouts.
I didn't get rid of insurance but I changed my driving status to an occasional driver that doesn't use the car to commute to/from work. Furthermore, since my car is paid off, I dropped my full coverage to just liability. This has saved me hundreds of dollars anually. Not to mention, that I previously considered buying a new car to ensure I had a reliable vehicle. Now I don't care about that. As long as it runs, I'm fine with it. Talk about a savings!!!
