Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
> ... agree with Shmikker in that the RR is doing amazely well.
That' s because you are simply observing heads in the windows and not applying any real metrics to the equation.
> ... woman who commutes from Los Lunas by the RR ... told me that
> the seats on the RR are full.
Maybe it is and maybe she's lying. I know someone else who rides it daily from Los Lunas and he says the cars tend to be half-full.
Even if they were completely full, it would not be an indication that it is in
any way an effective use of funds.
Again, I'm all for the RR and support subsidizing it, but the numbers much be abhorrent or they would proudly be publishing them. I'm also for transparency in reporting this stuff and not making people outside of the service area pay for it.
recycled wrote:
> ... I enjoy streetcars, ... San Francisco which are a rolling museum ...
I like the term "museum" It's because they are ancient, outdated, and inferior technology when compared to a simple city bus.
> ... good mass transit system ... electric powered trolley buses, ... Dayton.
Those are great. I grew up in Dayton and I know them. They are far superior to the light rail systems with their inflexible routing and hugely expensive rolling stock and fantastically exorbitant cost of route construction (the rails themselves).
There is nothing inherently wrong with clean diesel city busses however - especially when combined with hybrid drive technology. We have some of these in Albuquerque.
> Too bad no US companies build electric trolley buses ...
That wouldn't be an issue if some cities installed them. It's not that much of a stretch to build them from the existing framework of normal city busses that are built here in this country.
trappedinNM wondered:
> > .... chic, trendy light-rail that connects The westside to Tijeras.
> What streets would you run the rail on?
I-40.
soo you saying im lyingtoo? haha the nerve, howabout you ride and see for yourself. so your saying that just because i see more heads in the windows and more ppl at the stations that its not filling up fast? so then if my beer is half full and the bartender came and filled it up it means he actually didn't?
im confused or maybe you don't make much scents
schmikker, mortimer isnt doubting that more people are riding the RR. What mortimers point was, it doesn't matter how many people ride it, it cost too much to provide too little. Mortimer's whole point was that those funds could have been used on much more urgent items (ie. Paseo and I25 crossing). Mortimers other point was that it doesn't matter how many people ride, it is how much money it loses or makes.
I wonder if having kids taking busses to school for so long creates the objections to mass transit commuting. They are a mark of being children. Having your own car and driving it to work is a signal to everyone that you are an adult. Taking mass transit is admitting you are still dependant on somebody else doing the driving and are symbolically still a child.
Personally I have always taken mass transit wherever it was available. This not because I dislike driving, I love to drive but not in heavy commuting traffic. I currently commute by bus from southern NH to Boston for less cost than parking my car in Boston.
schmikker, mortimer isnt doubting that more people are riding the RR. What mortimers point was, it doesn't matter how many people ride it, it cost too much to provide too little. Mortimer's whole point was that those funds could have been used on much more urgent items (ie. Paseo and I25 crossing). Mortimers other point was that it doesn't matter how many people ride, it is how much money it loses or makes.
...well I'm sure that it matters how many people ride, especially to the people who actually ride the RR and the buses, and other public transportation if these are their only means of getting from point A to point B. Spending all of that money on building more roads does not necessarily equate to less traffic and better spent money.
I wonder if having kids taking busses to school for so long creates the objections to mass transit commuting. They are a mark of being children. Having your own car and driving it to work is a signal to everyone that you are an adult. Taking mass transit is admitting you are still dependant on somebody else doing the driving and are symbolically still a child.
Personally I have always taken mass transit wherever it was available. This not because I dislike driving, I love to drive but not in heavy commuting traffic. I currently commute by bus from southern NH to Boston for less cost than parking my car in Boston.
I believe that way of thinking could possibly be the case in some areas, but because of my experience living in bigger/more densly populated cities I tend to think that this is not the case. In larger cities the majority of public transportation riders are adults who are commuting to work. Many of these commuters own cars, but refuse to sit in traffic, and waste gas, and deal with parking to get to and from work. On public transportion they can catch up on work from the office, or get some leisure reading done. Some offices in San Francisco and Chicago offer transit cost re-imbursment - which is a great incentive.
Getting people to use public transportation may take ABQ a while, but it is by far well worth the effort, and the money - in the long run. In the a short sighted view it may not seem to be worth it, but believe me, before you know it the ABQ area could be strangled by bad traffic, bad pollution, and a sterile environment built around the automobile. Public transportation really helps build the pedestrian friendly communities within most cities.
Try not to listen to the "cost" trolls. They're like Taxpayer associations and others, basically a bunch of people who want to keep all their money for themselves, thinking it's somehow come to them through their pure greatness rather than a combination of circumstances provided in large part by the community around them. A failure to reinvest into the infrastructure of your supporting community will lead to deterioration and the type of rundown urbanism you find throughout the US as a direct result of exactly this type of nickel-and-diming for the "not in my wallet" crowd.
Trains, like highways, need not be self-supporting. If you want all transportation infrastructure to pay for itself get ready for $10 tolls every time you drive 4 miles on the interstate in addition to your $8/gallon gasoline. Don't forget the cost to the city (you and everyone else!) for all of the "free" parking that cars are provided on both sides of nearly every single street in town.
When you're quoted figures like $28 million/mile you have to understand a handful of things. One, this is apparently the cost of doing this type of work. These "not in my wallet" folks never mention how much of that money goes to mitigating whining small business owners and others who expect the government to pay them every time something intrudes on "their property values" as if the value of their property is ordained by god. Newsflash: your property value has a great deal to do with city services and FIXED MASS TRANSIT is real infrastructure that in the immediate near future will become more obvious to you in terms of its effect on your property values.
Second, this is described in this manner to make you think it's how much it costs to dig up a mile of street and lay track. The "per mile" figures quoted are aggregates of the entire cost of the entire project. A huge percentage of the total cost is a one-time payout for infrastructure construction (service buildings, hiring expertise, planning etc). If you build two miles or ten miles you're still going to spend $100 million on the keyback-end parts of the system. These costs also consider construction, planning, engineering, etc wages which go RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY OF YOUR COMMUNITY. You're also buying dozens of trains, more than you realize because you're used to seeing at most four train cars at any typical moment. Safety measures are considerably important, testing, etc. Amortization on the financial loan is sometimes included in these figures to inflate costs although I'm not sure this is the case here. Also consider that first year operating costs are typically part of the initial package.
One important thing to remember about how trains affect development is that NOBODY EVER BUILT SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE WAS A BUS LINE NEARBY. Light rail on the other hand drives real estate values and development all along the route in every town and city in which it exists.
Some people simply have a knee-jerk reaction against public transportation. They feel more manly or individualistic in their own cars and that's all that apparently matters to them. I think the school bus observation is sound and I think I'll use it in the future to deride these self-centered cheapskates who think they got theirs all on their own and now everyone else can go eff themselves.
Even a CURSORY amount of research on major American and other similar population centers that have implemented intelligent fixed-rail mass transit shows that the investment is enormously important going forward and that the initial costs are returned to the economy in amounts far beyond the initial investment. Cities that can come up with the money are building NETWORKS rather than lines because they understand this. Denver is not far at all and is a good place to start and a place where success will be more challenging for a mass transit rail system than it is going to be in NM. The same cursory glance at metro's that did not and are not developing this type of infrastructure will reveal fading cities with little hope for renewal. If Detroit had been built out with functional mass transit instead of being 100% car utopia it would be in vastly better shape right now than it is.
If you're interested this is a great write-up on the history of streetcars in Washington, DC with maps, pictures, etc. DC has an excellent underground subway system (you paid for it!) built in the 1980's and is planning to supplement this with surface level streetcars. If you've ever been to DC you probably understand the traffic problems in that city from excessive reliance on automobiles.
NorthernCalifornia, you makes some good points, but you missed the point. What all of us "cost trolls" were whining about is not that the money went for a train, but that this train took priority over much more needed projects like the Paseo- I25 Interchange. Infrastructure is crucial, but the best infrastructure isn't always the most flashy infrastructure. Buses, though looked down upon, are much more versitile and inexpensive than light rail. So some might think that light rail is a waste of money when something more effective is less expensive. That is our complaint...it isn't always the cost, but rather the choice.
> ... remember to keep the personal little jabs at one another out ...
because Shmikker wrote: <<<=== while quoting (needlessly) 100% of my post, BTW.
> ... maybe you don't make much scents
Towanda: It's true. I have never and will never make much scents in any of my posts to this forum. Shmikker is totally write! [sic]
However, I would point out that good editing skills and punctuation are good things. I just have to point that out to no one in particular.
GregW wondered:
> ... if having kids taking busses to school for so long
> creates the objections to mass transit commuting.
Good point. I never thought of that, but I've certainly gained a new perspective.
It doesn't apply to me. As a kid, it was great fun to ride the electric bus to downtown Dayton and go exploring.
As an adult, the freedom of *not* having to worry about my car and just to step off the bus and go hither and thither.
Maybe it is my many decades of thinking about the economics of mass transit that makes me very critical of governments who hide the true costs of doing things "for" the taxpayers.
Oh and GregW: I *know* what you're thinking.
Don't post it. It's a rathole. Even though I'll agree with you -- its still a rathole.
casden contributed:
> Spending all of that money on building more roads does not necessarily equate to less traffic and better spent money.
I don't think spending money on more roads ever has reduced traffic.
abqsunport said:
> ... more urgent items (ie. Paseo and I25 crossing) ....
This would be spending money on better roads. Technically, there would be more lanes, but since after a rebuild, traffic would flow better and it would "seem" like there was less traffic.
It's been said that the RR will reduce traffic between ABQ and SF, but it's only a guess by posters and NOT backed up by real data. The RR was built on a whim.
Building an extra lane ABQ to SF will add something less than 50% capacity to the highway. It's not a guess. I say less than 50% because there would still be interactions between lanes that slow things down.
Obviously, supporters of the immediate expansion will point out that even one carload riding RR will be one less on the road, but to have the same effect that a new lane opening would have would require that 33% of ABQ-SF traffic ride that thing.
casden writes eloquently:
> Getting people to use public transportation ... [ ... deletia of good thoughts ... ] ... really helps build the pedestrian friendly communities within most cities.
I couldn't agree more.
NorthernCalifornia, the irony of the use of the term "Troll" totally inescapable as the lecture to the unsophisticate rubes of New Mexico begins:
> Try not to listen to the "cost" trolls. ...
Yes. Try to be as condescending as possible when someone mentions how more efficient the tax dollars could be used.
> If you want all transportation infrastructure to pay for itself get ready
> for $10 tolls every time you drive 4 miles on the interstate in addition
> to your $8/gallon gasoline.
People are always getting on about how automobile drivers don't pay for the cost of the roads but the gasoline tax is quite sufficient to fund road construction. They're already paying for it.
> ... all of the "free" parking that cars are provided on both sides of nearly every single street in town.
Maybe where you live it's free, but in any dense area in Albuquerque, you have to pay to park.
> NOBODY EVER BUILT SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE WAS A BUS LINE NEARBY.
I'm going to need proof that the superior bus service along Central Avenue is NEVER a factor in the decision to locate a business there. NEVER.
Until you can provide proof, this is just an unsupported assertion by you.
For me; I consider bus availability every time. Unfortunately, there is less availability for me because some of the planners, like you, don't give a darn about the cost of things.
> Some people simply have a knee-jerk reaction against public transportation.
True enough. It would be best to stick _to_ the truth, however.
Many Light-Rail-Weenies "have have a knee-jerk reaction against" *BOTH* busses and automobiles.
They resent the freedom that the automobile represents to people.
People in Albuquerque have not raised a stink about any city bus expansion. Clean hybrid busses and double-long busses have been and continue to be added. There is talk of emulating the 766 Central Rapid Ride Red Line in many other places.
The 790 Coors-UNM Rapid Ride Blue Line was added without expensive planning and construction (which takes away from the ability of people to get transit services - Oh wait! We're Trolls for worrying about such things ...).
There was no knee-jerk reaction and no opposition.
abqsunport closed with:
> NorthernCalifornia, ... you missed the point. ...
NorthernCalifornia hates busses. He's said so in past posts.
However, if it has metal wheels and shiny metal 'roads' to travel on, he's all weak in the knees for it, but doesn't want to be bothered with difficult things like how many people will ride how many times on $x,xxx,xxx.
Last edited by mortimer; 06-07-2008 at 07:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
