Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You're already doing that by paying taxes into the general fund, which is partially used to build roads. So you're already indirectly paying for others to get to work. Presumably, if we properly allocated the costs of driving to each driver, some people who currently commute by car would no longer be able to afford it.
"Perfectly good", eh?
Have to admit, you've got me there.Should we only allocate a certain amount of BTUs that a person can consume per day in their diet and lifestyle? That might work.
BTW, I had a comment or two on this, but Smoo seems to have the "aggrieved socialist" angle locked down for the time being.
Nice! Individual carbon-trading credits. Good idea Andy!
There's probably a Bradbury or Vonnegut story in there somewhere.Nice! Individual carbon-trading credits. Good idea Andy!
How 'bout French Canadians? Can we make fun of them?
Denver Light Rail increased 4.5% from last year- what is strange in this MN report is the ridership to sporting events - is it due to the Twins not drawing fans? . Here in Denver the trains are pretty packed to all the games(even DU hockey) - and it goes to all of the major stadiums - one of the things we did right. I think it lets people know how easy it is to use and they take it on other occasions. We have a major West line coming in from Golden due to open soon as well - so it's looking good here. They just need to get the one to the airport done - that was our biggest misstep so far
Which project is it? Can't watch the vid here at work.BTW, I take it you are completely ok with the direct and indirect costs associated with automobile transportation? Yes, there are subsidies for most (almost all / all) public transit systems... but people act as if roads are free. To build, to maintain. To police. Then the indirect costs associated with an overemphasis on suburban sprawl without any balance to either housing product type (i.e. homes vs. multifamily) and place type (1 or 2 acre lots, no walkability, driving miles just for daily chores vs. transit oriented, traditional neighborhood design) - those costs ranging from the additional miles of utilities and the issues when there are major storm events, to garbage collection, school busing, snow removal, etc.
All of it. We've spent that amount across America for the last four years and have next to nothing to show for it.
Why would you say that? Of course roads aren't free. But from what I can tell they provide a return on investment.Not so much with trains. Which is specifically what I'm talking about in this thread. People read the title and not the subtitle of this thread far too often.
Curious how you are arriving at the conclusion that roads provide a return on investment but public transit does not. (and not trying to needle or be difficult, but sincerely want to know what you are basing that conclusion on).How much have we spent on roads in the same period, and can you demonstrate to me the return on that investment?
I'm not saying that public transit does not. I'm saying trains don't.There's plenty of examples of that. Watch the video when you have the chance.
Seems like a rare case of proper planning. +1 for that side.Where does it run from/to? How much did it cost to build?
It runs about 10 miles along a corridor that starts at a major shopping area and ends in our uptown area(that would be downtown to most folks but our is on a hill so they had to be dorks about it). It cost 465 million and opened in 2007. It is exceeding forecast ridership levels by over 50% last figure I saw and is expected to continue to do so.
I will watch the vid, but I know of plenty of examples where trains do. FWIW, I believe that the best bang for your buck is commuter rail, which can often be done in conjunction with less expensive light rail options. Second to that, inter-city rail with market viable routes provide advantages - think Northeast Corridor and the like. And as a developer, I can tell you flat out that no one (no one I know) invests because of buses. The real estate community WILL invest where there is fixed-transit nodes (namely: rail), providing the opportunity to marry that transportation to land use and real estate and allowing for significant job growth, economic development and efficiency.
Same story in DenverCondos, Stores and restaurants along the Denver rail line are all doing well - so much so that when the new line from Golden was built everyone was arguing that they wanted a stop nearby - and to build the stops on a particular side of the highway.
Businesses hate, hate having a bus stop in front of their place.
So is the one in Sacramento. The Bay Area would be better if the contracts weren't so heavily weighted towards the unions. There is very little accountability for employees. It's much better than nothing though.I really wish California had taken the federal money for the bullet train to Nevada and spent it on improving either the SD/OC/LA area or the Sac/SF/SJ area. Those are prime commuter corridors that could really use the extra money.
THIS is what it boils down to, and why I keep going back to the need to match transportation with land use and development.Charlotte is a good example. Some areas in and around LA are very good examples. Denver is a good example. There are good examples in the pacific northwest.
Yet another reason to support rail transit. In addition, modern communication technology (wifi, 4G) enables working on the way to work, thus cutting the overall working day, quite aside from dispensing with traffic hassles.
This
Improving transportation within the the LA to SD area is far more important than LA to SF. Trains simply can't compete with airlines on that route. If I could jump on a train and be in SD in less than 3 hours I would love that. The worst part about that drive is never knowing if what should be a 2 hour drive is going to turn into 4+.
Hopefully the Northeast extention works out as well. The corridor along the current tracks continues to grow rapidly. I don't have a link handy, but in the past I have read it costs much more to just buy the train cars in America compared to Europe. Not sure why that would be, but it certainly plays a role in how expensive transit projects are.
Yep. I think there is a lot of area for redevelopment along that route. It could really be a goldmine for the county if it works. I really want to see a line run down Independence out to Monroe as well. I also heard there is a new bus line planned for 51. It would run from 485 out to Mint Hill. Looking forward to that.
Pretty much an economy of scale thing - there are how many train line/cars in Europe compared to the handful here? - and they are all very different vs some standardization of car types in Europe
We don't have swipes either. But the cops do patrol and ask riders for their ticket. The fine is pretty high.
It's fine as long as the system is designed with that in mind. Not much point in paying for the high cost of speed increases with that many stops.
That's really not that bad. Used to take me about 35 minutes to go 17 stops on my daily commute to work, over a distance of about 8 miles. All those stops means it's easy to live near a station and easy to make a variety of trips by train, and in a cold-weather climate like Minneapolis, those are big factors.
