How do you propose to evaluate success of a transit route? How do we evaluate trade off options.
In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off?
When we talk of just making transit free, there is no talk of what’s the alternative to the environment if we just enable people to drive by getting them a car. Rail is a waste, China even admits to it off the books. Look at how much expressway / freeway they have build and how they are slowing / stopping high speed rail projects.
Transit is great when it is constantly evaluated for getting people from point to point. However, because of political issues (I want a large bus to make it appear my neighborhood is respected, when there are only two riders per day on it or I want a train stop near my house not near where all the users are at) we end up with less than optimal effects.
> In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off?
Hawaii and California already have massive traffic problems because cars are an insanely inefficient mode of transportation. Commuters in LA spend almost 13 full work days sitting in traffic per year [1]. 10 buses that are only a third full replaces 260 single commuter cars. A light rail running at 50% capacity carries more people per hour that 4 full lanes of highway [2]. Even if we build more and more roads, that just causes more traffic, not less [3]. Cars are a massive individual monetary sink compared to a transit pass and bike. However, when you decide to build another massive highway to “relieve” traffic instead of building safe biking infrastructure, dedicated lanes for busses, light rails that move throughout the city, trains that move people into and out of the city, or city centers that are friendly to foot traffic, then you aren’t really leaving people with a good option except a car.
Light rail is for the rich. Done. Every time the rich want light rail it needs a transit oriented development, pushes out the poor, and saddles the new rich with a development tax.
Your statistics work in high density areas. Yes, I can load a bus full of people if they want to go to the same area. That requires a suburb to a centralized factory.
Now think of all the startups, do they all work in a centralized location, nope, because any centralized location is running a huge facility and is a huge company. Think Facebook.
How does Joe O‘Reilly get from her studio apartment on the outskirts of town to their job as a janitor for said small start up? She needs to ride a bus and arrive their on the buses schedule. Not hers. Bus headway’s in non large urban areas are thirty minutes to an hour. Our heroine needs to wait up to an hour of her time for a bus. She is still in the traffic, but traffic plus an hour. And then she needs to drive an half hour in the bus to get to her actual destination.
Car = 30 minute drive
Bus = 30 minute wait for first bus + 30 minute drive to first stop + 30 minute headway waits + 30 minutes to destination = 120 minutes
Joe wastes 2.5 hours per day in the bus system. 2.5 hours x 262 working days = 27.29 days wasted. That’s 13 more than the car in LA, ask her which one she wants to pick. I am going to give her the car that allows her to pursue her opportunities in the city.
China is building roads. More and more roads. They get it. Traffic wanes once you build enough roads. All the traffic is pent up demand.
> Light rail is for the rich. Done. Every time the rich want light rail it needs a transit oriented development, pushes out the poor, and saddles the new rich with a development tax.
Wouldn't that indirectly decrease road congestion for those that need/choose to drive? If more people in a densely populated area are taken off the roads, that seems like a win for both the drivers and for the transit riders regardless of income. Lower income folks being displaced seems like another discussion.
> Now think of all the startups, do they all work in a centralized location, nope, because any centralized location is running a huge facility and is a huge company. Think Facebook.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Is it that startups can't afford to work in a central location? I personally have worked at startups in downtown areas, and know many others that do as well. Being somewhere central helps their candidate pool since some people are unwilling to drive when transit is available to them. Also I'm not sure how being in a central location requires a huge facility.
In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off?
When we talk of just making transit free, there is no talk of what’s the alternative to the environment if we just enable people to drive by getting them a car. Rail is a waste, China even admits to it off the books. Look at how much expressway / freeway they have build and how they are slowing / stopping high speed rail projects.
Transit is great when it is constantly evaluated for getting people from point to point. However, because of political issues (I want a large bus to make it appear my neighborhood is respected, when there are only two riders per day on it or I want a train stop near my house not near where all the users are at) we end up with less than optimal effects.