Support for expanded Electrification?

[goodnightjohnwayne]

I'm claiming that the lack of transportation options is discrimination against those who cannot drive.

There is no legal basis to that claim.

Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.

Please explain to me how it's a personal choice as to whether my friend P, largely confined to a wheelchair; my friend B, who has cerebral palsy and has limited mobility; my friend K, who is blind; and my friend E, who has epilepsy, operate an automobile or not. P used to drive, until her muscular disorder became severe enough that it was too difficult and painful to operate an automobile; fortunately, she now lives in New York City. B has never bothered to try to get a license, because she knows her reflexes are such that it would be tremendously unsafe even if she could pass a driving test; she relies on public bus systems and walking. K used to drive, until her vision deteriorated to near-blindness; there's no way she will ever pass the Massachusetts vision test for driving (or any other state's for that matter); fortunately, she lives near Boston and also has a spouse who can drive. And E used to drive, but was legally required to turn in his drivers license to the state of Maryland after a doctor's diagnosis of epilepsy following a grand mal seizure (and later found that California would not let him drive either); he too relies on public transportation and friends. Each of these friends would love to know how they can choose to operate an automobile! It would radically change their lives. Can you help them?

You obviously didn't read the next sentence:

Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints.

In other words, we all have limitations, whether they are physical, mental or financial.

 

[AlanB]

Now I'm not suggesting that we should force people out of their cars either. I won't go that far, but it does gall me when I see people complain about spending say $500 Million to restore the 3C's service in Ohio, while living in ignorant bliss about the fact that they had their highway ride subsidized too. And they bemoan leaving that $500 M debt for future generations, while somehow not noticing that this year alone so far, we've added $35.53 Billion just at the Federal level to debt for our highways.
I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood.

I don't support wasteful passenger rail projects, like 3C, but I also don't support wasteful highway projects, although in past decades there have been precious few expansions of the interstate highway system, with most funds going to upkeep of existing infrastructure.

Looking at the inextricable economic collapse in the rustbelt state of Ohio, I'm perplexed by projects such as 3C and the proposed Cincinnati light rail project that has even drawn criticism from civil rights leaders. These projects obviously aren't popular, aren't affordable and aren't likely to succeed in drawing sustainable patronage.

With respect, you need to keep better track of highway projects if you think that there haven't been many expansions of the interstate highway system, unless you mean by adding new roads that didn't even exist 20 years ago. But there are expansions going on all over, expansions in terms of adding more lanes. And there have indeed even been some totally new roads built, as well as others proposed.

Normally I would at this point direct you to this interesting link from Taxpayers for Common Sense, which details 10 of the most wasteful projects of the last few years. Unfortunately for some reason that link isn't currently working, I'm not sure if they're having server problems or if they are reorganizing their site.

One of the worst is the expansion of the beltway around Seattle, which is costing some $11 Billion just to add 60 lane miles.

As for whether or not a rail project is popular, I consider that irrelevant. Many people in Phoenix are unhappy with that city's new light rail system. But that doesn't stop 30,000+ people from riding it each day, more than was ever projected to ride it.

Yet another common misconception by many is the fact that buses can do anything that light rail can do for less money. They come to that conclusion because all they ever see in the news is how much it's costing to build the latest LRT line. But they never stop to do the math to see that it takes 2 to 3 buses to move the same number of people as an LRT car. They never stop to figure out that the average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years, while the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years, meaning that you need to buy three sets of buses to achieve the same results.
And they never stop to learn that rail is always cheaper to operate. One analysis that I did using numbers from Portland Oregon showed that basically after about 5 years of operations at their current levels, the city started saving $134 Million each year running LRT instead of using buses to perform the same task. The first 5 years, were spent negating the difference in captial costs between the buses and the LRT.

First of all, Portland is not a typical example and light rail expansion there is more a function of politics than economic or practical considerations. There are a number of people in that city that subscribe to a revisionist theory of light rail, claiming that the interurbans and trolley of yesteryear offered some sort of pre-automotive utopia, when the opposite was true. The people who actually lived through the electric traction bubble generally had very negative views of street cars and preferred personal use automobiles. As a federal taxpayer, I don't support the sort of false, revisionist and misleading agendas that squander my taxpayer money on vanity rail projects in places like Portland.

I do believe there is a time and a place for LRT systems, but I don't entirely trust the distorted example of Portland. When the local economy of Portland reaches a breaking point due to the high costs of living and doing business in that city, we'll just see how the taxpayers shoulder the burden of an overbuilt public transit infrastructure.

I'm sorry, but any system that double transit ridership is doing something right.

As for your Federal dollars being squandered, you couldn't be more wrong. Moving people 184 million miles a year is not a waste of money, especially when you're doing it for less money than it would have cost to move them by bus.

And that also applies to your final point, if they ever do reach the breaking point, they'll be happy that they do have light rail. You'll be seeing the cuts to the more expensive buses if that day comes, not to the cheaper light rail.

 

[wayman]

Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.

Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints.
In other words, we all have limitations, whether they are physical, mental or financial.

I read both sentences. And they are completely contradictory statements.

For people with certain limitations, it is not "a matter of personal choice".

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.

Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints.
In other words, we all have limitations, whether they are physical, mental or financial.

I read both sentences. And they are completely contradictory statements.

For people with certain limitations, it is not "a matter of personal choice".

Actually, the second sentence qualifies the first. Obviously, the operation and/or ownership of a personal automobile is both a personal choice and subject to the physical and practical limitations of of the individual. In Japan, you have to prove that you have an off-street parking space to buy most vehicles (except for Kei cars). That is an example of a practical limitation. I personally can't drive many sports cars because I'm simply too tall. That's an example of a physical limitation. We all have limitations, whether they are innate or imposed. The secret is to learn to live with those limitations.

 

[AlanB]

As for your Federal dollars being squandered, you couldn't be more wrong. Moving people 184 million miles a year is not a waste of money, especially when you're doing it for less money than it would have cost to move them by bus.

Expanding further on this point (money not being squandered and higher bus costs) now that I've got a few extra minutes, here are some facts from the National Transit Database regarding Portland's Tri-Met system from 2007.

First, those capital costs that you're lamenting. This comes from Tri-Met's Fact Sheet. Tri-Met spent $1.652 Billion building the light rail system that existed prior to last month's opening of the new Green line. That also does not include the new commuter rail line, which may or may not have been fully justified and well planned. But I'm just dealing with LRT here, in large part because numbers aren't yet available for those two new lines anyhow.

And remember as I pointed out in a prior post, that Portland moved 223.3 million passenger miles by bus in 2007 and 186.5 million passenger miles by LRT. That's about a 20% difference or about 35 million passenger miles less by LRT. To move those passengers requires 532 buses and only 81 rail cars.

So if Portland were to decide tomorrow to maintain the same LRT service levels with buses, basically they would need to run out and buy 532 buses. At an average cost of $650,000 for a new 60 foot hybrid bus, that's $345.8 Million in capital expenses. But we're not done yet. The average life of an LRT car is 30 to 40 years; the average life of a bus is 10 to 12 years. So to achieve the same longevity we need to buy three rounds of buses. That brings our total to $1.037 Billion in capital costs.

That's before adding in the costs of new parking lots, bus shelters, and new maintenance facilities. I'll throw in what I believe to be a very conservative $100M estimate for that. So already, we've spent $1.137 Billion in capital dollars, only a bit over $500 Million less than what was spent on LRT. I won't even try to factor in inflation increases to the prices of the second and third rounds of bus orders.

Now, we turn to operating costs. To move those passengers in 2007, Tri-Met spent $207,701,265 running the buses and $73,656,174 operating LRT. That's a difference of $134 million. So after 5 years, the difference in Capital costs will be negated. Over the next 25 years, Portland will have saved more than $3.35 Billion dollars. That's double the amount of money that you claim was squandered on the LRT system. I for one fail to understand how saving more than $3 Billion is squandering taxpayer monies. Not building the LRT would have squandered the taxpayers’ monies.

By the way, those operating costs for LRT are all in. They include tracks, wires, power, cars, salaries, and overhead. For the buses, it does include salaries, fuel, maintenance, and overhead. However, what it does not include is fixing the damage that all those buses cause to the roads and highways. And they don't pay fuel taxes, so that entire burden also falls directly onto the backs of the taxpayer.

Now I will admit that I'm presenting a bit of a pristine analysis here, as no one is going to run out and buy 500 buses all at once. But the fact remains that Portland is saving tax payer monies each and every day it runs those LRT trains instead of buses. It costs them 93 cents in operating costs to move one passenger one mile on a bus. It costs them 39 cents to do the same thing on an LRT train.

Finally, let me also mention that the LRT recovers 39.83% of its operating costs from the fare box. Buses only recover 21.55% of their operating costs from the fare box. So not only does LRT cost less to operate, it's also recovering more of its expenses from the fare box.

 

[volkris]

Discrimination is a hard thing. Why, just the other day McDonalds refused to give me a Big Mac just because I didn't want to pay. This discrimination against non-payers must be stopped!

EDIT: snarkiness aside, the point is that this sort of discrimination, meaning the literal notion of some having opportunities others don't have, is just a part of life and a consequence of the choices we make and, in the larger sense, reality. It's just a fact of life that often the world isn't going to be ideal for everyone. I don't believe the right solution is to punish everyone in an effort to make it equal, but that's precisely what's proposed when a person talks about taking away cars so that mass transit has more resources to work with.

We all have our faults and our challenges, and we all should do the best with what we have. All too many people give up and start whining before getting to the limit of what they could accomplish if they just hunkered down and dealt with the lot life dealt them.