We Have Ways of Making You Take the Bus!
New Mexico is riding the wave of the future. Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) felt that Albuquerque needed a commuter train to carry people to work and that they couldn’t wait the normal 10 to 20 years this process usually takes. So now 2,300 people a day ride the train to Albuquerque.
The problem? The state spends $20 million a year on the train. Thus, with 2,300 people using the train, the state is spending $33.44 per passenger per day, assuming 260 business days in the year. While one could argue public transit saves wear and tear on the roads, an individual driving to and from work would have to cause more than $8,000 in wear and tear for the cost of trains to make sense.
In my hometown of Boise, the city government is gearing up for the construction of a 2.6 mile street car loop, which will cover areas already serviced by our local buses — meaning any impact to air quality or traffic will be minimal. The cost of putting in the rail system will be $40-$65 million.
But don’t worry too much about us — half of that will be paid for by taxpayers in other states. The feds are picking up the tab.
There is a place for mass transit, particularly as cities grow. But these, and other big government transit projects, add up to the bridge to nowhere on wheels. The reason for these massive expenditures? Ideology that borders on religion.
In this new religion, taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking instead of driving are pious good works. And there is no surmounting the religion’s faith in solving transportation problems by addressing every mode of transit but what most people actually use to get from point A to point B.
During Idaho’s last legislative session, the legislature was presented with information that our existing highways and bridges were in disrepair. One State Senate Democrat focused on the “need” for bike lanes even in rural areas, where riding a bicycle is not an option for most because of the distance involved. Yes, I’m sure there are some people that ride their bicycles in Challis (pop: 909) but does it really make sense to spend the money?
It seems that part of the faith is that these options — even if barely used — are good in and of themselves.
Of course, empty bike lanes are a waste of money. Empty buses are a waste of money and fuel. In the private sector, a company whose service was as unpopular as mass transit would carefully evaluate the service and the marketing, and figure out why people don’t ride.
Not so much with the federal government. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood admitted at the National Press Club recently, regarding the administration’s policies: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.”
No, no, no. It’s:
“Vee hovk vayzk ofk makingk you takez zee bus”
See? Subtle but the accent is important.
~
ANYWAY. Yes, I just caught this fiasco on the news the other day and the hilarity was more than a little ironic.
When I was a Nanny in my late teens, I took the bus to work, to go grocery shopping and to my apartment. One thing I always noticed was how desolate and lonely taking the bus was. I’d talk to the bus-driver just to break the monotony and he was glad for the rare ‘company’. -And, mind you we are talking quite a few years ago when I was in my *cough-cough* teens.
‘Public’ transportation is icky. I can hardly stand being in a theatre full of germy people for a popular movie and I sure as heck don’t want to travel in ‘packs’ when the swine flu is going around. Nooooooo spank you, helpy helperton!
The ‘idea’ of people turning to mass transit rather than having/using their own personal form of transportation is butt-crazy stupid. Bus drivers drive full routes and sometimes hardly get a passenger at all! It’s not only wasteful, it’s insane.
You can tell by the skyline of a city if light rail will pay off. Cities like Chicago, New York and Vancouver have skyscraper downtowns surrounded by miles of apartment buildings and condos. Commercial building flourishes around train stations. But in most US cities single family houses start close to the city core and commercial building flourishes at freeway exits. When I lived near Main and Broadway in Vancouver, I waited less than five minutes for a bus and less for the Sky Train. Express buses could change lights to green on Broadway and the train was twice as fast as driving to the suburbs. Green politics won’t allow more lanes at bridge choke points nor expansion of the Trans Canada, which is a parking lot much of the day. But I can’t imagine needing a train in Boise, they just upgraded the freeways very nicely, to the satisfaction of this truck driver.
We have the same problem in Houston, Texas. Our commuter rail system makes little sense—and we are also losing millions of dollars each year. The Houston Chronicle and the other MSM outlets campaigned nonstop until the voters passed this idiotic crap. Our city’s population is simply spread too far apart. The evidence that the project would inevitably fail was clear from the start. Yet the ideological leftists could care less.
The folly in Bill Richardson’s rail-runner is that Albuquerque and Santa Fe are connected by a high speed stretch of I-25. The private sector had already addressed the need with a low cost shuttle bus service between the two cities. Coincidentally, the cost of Bill’s toy train is a half-billion bucks, about the same size as this year’s state budget deficit.
Mr. Graham is correct when he says that the fetish for public transportation amounts to a religion. Had we used the money to build a statue of Gaia, at least we wouldn’t be forced to subsidize this boondoggle in perpetuity. So where is the establishment clause in the First Amendment when you need it? Meanwhile, teacher salaries in Santa Fe were frozen this year to address the deficit. You can count my salary increase denied as an ancillary cost. Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
I don’t remember giving my approval to government efforts to dictate how I travel.
The actual facts and truth. Rail in america is the highest and higher than air in terms of actual fuel per passenger mile. It is worse than a single driver in a v-8 full sixe truck or suv. If we had light rail 20 yearsd ago, we would have a fair number of people build and live closer to rail. Rail tell us where we can go. We still tell our cars where we want to go. I have never see rail service to a trailhead. Trains could be cost effective if we could have 20 cars and fill themwith people.
Atlanta advocates have bumped it from buses to the next level, rail, too.. Some have launched their (so beyond obvious) rail agenda via a blatant, full frontal attack against “idling” buses the other day (AJC :: Idling commuter buses have some fuming)..
What I can’t get past in reading the article this second time is that the reporter let one [source] in his article get away with what comes across to these Fingertips as a very thinly veiled threat to Atlanta bus drivers.. Think about it.. We’re talking about idling buses, fumes, yadda, yadda.. The very last line of the article is that the individual suggests the drivers meet..
In a closed garage..
What is it about these people that, beyond wholly controlling every breath Humans breathe, everything must end in (at least a reference to) violence with them..?
Yes, mass transit is a religion, even within state DOTs. The mission of the DOT is no longer to provide adequate capacity for traffic, but to change us.
What I find peculiar is that in this rush to crush freedom in the name of reducing carbon, etc., nobody’s talking about encouraging telecommuting. That tells me that this isn’t about carbon; it’s about a clique of contractors who build these things.
Recently in Washington State, a couple of light rail systems were installed. The trains themselves were built by Skoda in Pilzen, Czech Republic. I don’t even know if there’s an American company that can build these things. Great way to stimulate the Czech economy, guys…
A key question is : When was the city built ?
Eastern cities, and especially northeastern cities, were first laid out in the 18th and 19th centuries, before the deelopment of the automobile, and it shows. Major population and commercial areas were built close together, because they had to be. This is why many people in NYC, for example, don’t drive – they don’t need to, unless they’re leaving the city.
Western cities were founded in earlier centuries but developed mostly in the 20th; some of them weren’t much more than small towns until after WWII. Their developers assumed that people would have and use automobiles to get around, and they factored that assumption into city planning.
What people do not understand is the real religion here are a combination of “I Love the City , it is my God” by the bulk of the Urban-sheep and “I hate filthy stinking average people and don’t want to see them around my beautiful Earth so lets lock ‘em up somewhere and stop the rats from over-breeding” by the liberal elites.
Together they want to impress their view of life on the rest of us out here in “flyover land”.
The Portland Plan is the biggest expression of this symptom – the steeply gradual elimination of cars and single family homes.
You want to know how far this goes? Go watch CNN’s Ted Turner on You Tube expound on the need to reduce the population by 2/3′s to around 2 billion (this was after he backed of from saying that he wanted us reduced by 95%).
I have never understood the incessant push for mass transit. Here in my county of CA they’ve been trying for YEARS to raise taxes for a light rail system. Voters always defeat the initiatives. BUT the train advocates come right back again the next year. The train advocates say they will keep coming back until the voters get sick of this and vote the tax money for them. WHY? I’ll bet none of the proponents of mass transit sit on buses or trains themselves.
If people loved mass transit they’d be clamoring for it and every transit vehicle in the land would be filled to the gills. But that is NOT true. Wake up. We hate mass transit.
When I go into San Francisco, I take the BART ond MUNI, but it depends where I’m going and when. San Jose has a light rial, but it is a lot easier and more convenient to drive. Public transport has to be comprehensive for it to work, I don’t want to get somewhere and then spend a fortune on taxis to get around. I also don’t want to deal with all manor of social pathology in my travels; either the city sets a civic code and enforces it or I take my car.
I lived in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, and once you take the train, then what? How would you get around? Bus? Are you kidding? Much easier to hit the freeway and drive. The train may have seemed like a good idea, but no one except the very poor, DUI scofflaws, or the blind people take a bus in either city, so once you arrive, you had better have a car there for you.
This has always been a weird debate. Here in LA we have a light rail and subway system, but if you don’t live near it you have to drive to the station: a compromise but I suppose better than driving the whole way. Our public transit situation is complicated by the fact that we have a bizarre, city-funded (last I heard) lobbying group that sues the city (which funds them) if they spend transit money on anything other than buses, even trains. The issue in Los Angeles is terribly complicated by the footprint of the city. Our downtown surprises people with its compactness, but of course the commuters who travel to it are spread across the suburbs, so they all drive to downtown. The city has tried to set up light rail which would draw commuters to it, but there are a variety of complications that prevent or preclude anything serious being done. We have four lines now (Blue, Green, Red, and Gold) with a fifth (Gold) that’s actually a weird commuter bus, with its own set of problems.
Blue line’s a success, running from Long Beach to LA. So I read somewhere, it’s the most used commuter rail line in the country (I know it sounds weird, but every time I’ve ridden it the trains are crowded and it’s hard to find a seat). The Red line is mostly a subway, and goes from downtown to the nearest part of the San Fernando Valley, North Hollywood. Again, heavily ridden. The Green line goes essentially from Norwalk to Manhattan Beach, across the southern part of LA county. It crosses the Blue Line, and goes near the airport, but not *to* it, because of some technical arguments between the U.S. Department of Transportation and the local Metro Transit Authority. The Gold line goes from downtown to Pasadena, and points east. Eventually it’s supposed to go to Claremont, at the edge of the county line. It’s the one I’ve never ridden.
There were repeated suggestions to run a line across the San Fernando Valley, but the acquisition of the land and various other issues prevented its construction. Instead, they used various already-existing rights of way across the valley to create a “busway” that’s only open to these large commuter buses that range across the valley. They’ve had various problems with it, from people driving around the barriers (rather like those at a train crossing) and getting hit by the bus, to Orthodox Jews complaining they’d have to push the crossing light button on the Sabbath to get to Synagogue. The net result is the buses drive slower, the commute is longer (so I hear) and fewer people use it.
All light rail construction, in Southern California, is opposed by the County Bus Rider’s Union, which purports to speak for those who ride the bus in L.A. County. Oddly, L.A. Weekly, the local free lefty rag, did an expose of the Bus Rider’s Union some time ago, and opined that near as anyone could tell, they were deliberately trying to cause the collapse of the city’s infrastructure by undermining the public transit system. Since they insist on buses instead, one is tempted to point out that our downtown is so crowded now that the addition of lots of buses will mean no one will be able to get anywhere.
One of the mother load issues has been the idea of a light rail or subway through West LA, to the beach. Originally, opponents noted how oily and gaseous the ground there is. There have been explosions, and in some parts of the west side there’s actually a smell to the ground. But these days it’s been pointed out that everyone has sewers, and those don’t cause explosions, so what’s the problem with subways? We’ve also had discussions about what to call it. One wag suggested “the Pink Line” which of course alternatively outraged and titillated the gay community, since many gays would live near the route. Perhaps “the Tan Line” because you’d have this, when you returned from the beach?
Unfortunately, in spite of the fact a lot of people use it, the vast majority of Angelenos have never been on the city’s light rail system, and can’t use it to get to work. And it’s been very expensive to build.
The upshot is that I agree with the fellow above who said that whether the public transportation works is dependent on when the city was built. If you live *in* San Francisco, you can take public transport anywhere, if your limousine is in the shop and you can’t blackmail your driver to bring his personal car to work. Almost no one sans chauffeur is wealthy enough to live in SF, so the last I saw the bus system isn’t that heavily used. I gather Portland’s system is relatively successful, because of subsidies (a “fareless” zone downtown, for instance). Other than that, cities at this end of the country will never have successful transit systems, until there’s some technological breakthrough that allows people to fly over their houses, without colliding with one another.
Most people misunderstand public transportation or what its purpose (mission)is . People ! It’s a JOBS PROGRAM! Sorry for shouting. Public Transportation is only incidental to their existence. It is another thinly veiled scam which people believe will benefit everyone and when it doesn’t , so what ,look at the jobs it provides.
Another laugh is the HOV lanes on the major thoroughfare and arteries. It is supposed to alleviate traffic slow down and provide incentive for vehicles to carry multiple riders. It costs more to build on the average and reduces available lane movement during max density . So whether you are using it or not you are paying for it anyway . For the 9 people in any major city who are using it its great but you folks stuck in the other 5 lanes ,suckers.
Self-hating boomer,
Guess which Washington State company used to make a lot of those trolley cars (at least in Boston and San Francisco): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle
These guys, even the nominal Republicans, are mostly nanny state do-gooders, emotionally invested in their notion of a perfect world. Read this “satire” for a taste:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df05262009.shtml#Alittle
I guess that’ll show George Will.
I’ve been reading that column for awhile, mostly because I’m interested since I live right on a rail corridor. Can’t imagine ever commuting on it though, the business that I work in moved out to the bedroom communities (on the highway, not the rail), decades ago. For awhile my wife commuted on the train into town, but it might be years before I take it again.
A lot of this is that age-old perception that because Europe has trams and trains, and Europe is more ‘progressive’, therefore more advanced, then if we were more advanced we’d have trams and trains too. The point they’re missing is a lot more people in Europe simply can’t afford cars.
When I lived in Fort Collins, CO the bus system was actually quite good. Worked well as was pretty well used. Mainly because it centered pretty much every part of it on the univeristy and points where the college kids wanted/needed to go. BAM instant and well used riders. (Didn’t hurt your student fees paid for bus tickets whether you used it or not!)
Here in SoCal though I’ve never seen a good mass transit system. Sure San Fran has the BART and what I saw of it was good. San Diego’s trolley by the Convention Center is awesome, but it does create some major traffic issues down there. Though they’ve been fixing that system more and more so I think I’ll be able to call it “Good” soon.
Other than that the LA system always seems empty to me (at least that section running along the 210 near Pasadena) so much so even Craig Fergeson made fun of it.
Seriously though the west was built by people expecting individual forms of transportation. We even tore up our old light rail back in the day when if we’d kept it things would have made sense. Now we’re trying to change things too much in ways we won’t use it.
The ONLY rail project I’ve heard of down here that seems worth while is the line from LA to Las Vegas. The Mag Rail system that was private/public project that’s been in the works for YEARS. Guess what’s holding it up? That’s right the Eco Nuts and local communities (Like here in Barstow) getting in the way.
i agree with you that most of those mass transit schemes don’t make much sense economically or even environmentally. But bike and presestrian trails, give me a break. they are a miniscule fraction of a rapid transit line. Maybe if we focused on putting in some rudimentary bike and pedestrian paths in our neighborhoods in the first place, more people would be inclined to walk two blocks instead of driving, like where I live where there are tons of roads but the people are too cheap to put in one sidewalk. People who live behind shopping centers spend their whole lives driving 8 times the distance cause no one, like the people here, thought of connecting the shopping plaza up with the local neighborhood streets. This would also make it safer for kids and those who don’t have cars so they won’t risk their lives walking
$1.5 billion for light rail in Phoenix – began operation in December and already losing money. 30 mph train in a city which spans 70 miles east to west. Great. Just what I wanted to spend my taxes on.
I love how right wingers are so quick to point out new religions like gloabl warming or mass transit, but they don’t see any churches or priests involved. Maybe they are just projecting their theocon sillines on others? Don’t worry drivers, 90%+ of the money spent on transporation is still spent on roads. Butlet’s get all paranoid and look for new ways to get fearful.
So Horace, you figure that the percentage is what matters… in other words, what’s a few billion dollars here and there, as long as it is less than we spend on legitimate transportation needs?
Religion, by the way, in the sense of being faith-based instead of reason- or fact-based, is what you seem to be proving.
That being said, there is obviously a place for mass transit, light rails, etc. It isn’t the concept of them that is flawed, it is the execution of it. Even if they were at a modest loss, they trains can be worthwhile. After all, how much do we spend on the infrastructure for air travel? How about keeping streams and rivers in navigable condition?
Get rid of the pork, get rid of the “bridges to nowhere on wheels,” create some useful rail systems where they are actually needed, and you will see far less opposition to them.
I don’t know the numbers nationally, but I know that in Central Puget Sound (including Seattle, WA) approximately 55% of all public transportation dollars are spent on public transit, bus, train (may include state ferries), which constitute just 4% of all trips.
Let me illustrate the economics of commuting on San Jose’s public transit system.
To commute from a fairly dense “suburb” at the edge of city limits – houses on 6,000 sq. ft lots, low rise apartments scattered within – to downtown, specifically near the airport.
To use public transit would take 1 hour 30 minutes each way – local bus to light rail. And that ignores the foot transit time. Driving takes me 20 minutes, max. So it is 3 hours a day versus 40 minutes.
That’s over two hours a day, five days a week – 10 hours a work week out of 40 hours. Working any overtime would be brutal and hence strongly discouraged with public transit.
That is an extremely large hit on productivity. Multiply that across the work force and that’s a lot of highly skilled manpower sitting on a bus or train.
Add that our system gets only 10% of its revenues out of the fare box, and every dollar of rider contribution is matched with $9 from the tax payer.
Of course, the response is “smart growth.” That is high density apartments at light rail stations. The ones we have now tend to be low income immigrants with subsidized rents.
I have a simple rule of thumb, if a rail-based mass transit system makes sense for a geographic locale, then chances are that locale hasn’t been without one since the 18th century (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.)
Oh, and Horace, that all depends on where you live. Here in Portland the money spent on roads is mostly to restripe for bike lanes, and add various “traffic calming” systems like chicanes, speed bumps and traffic circles (not the big roundabouts but a 12 foot round planter in the middle of an intersection).
It’s not a secret conspiracy, our local government has said they want to do everything they can to push people out of cars. What part of the Constitution mandates social engineering again?
I rode public transportation all through high school AND college. NEVER AGAIN!.
As long as I draw breath and have money, I will drive my own car. I will not be a target for the unwashed masses
of thieves, bums, addicts,and welfare queens who ride public transportation for FREE.
Here in Northern Virginia (ok, it’s really greater DC) we have a subway system that is packed during rush hour, costs more to use than driving (unless you totally give up your car) and is still losing money. Seems like a flawed business plan to me…
I bike downtown in the warm months and drive in the cold ones.
Are you still glad that you voted for Obama?
I love how right wingers are so quick to point out new religions like gloabl warming or mass transit, but they don’t see any churches or priests involved.
Al Gore makes Elmer Gantry look like a piker, my friend.
Actually you do have a point. Gore is less of an evangelist than a latter-day P. T. Barnum.