# UNITED STATES | Urban Transport Compilation



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

*NA best transit systems*

What transit systems do you think are the best {ie ridership, service etc} 
in NA. 
Lets divide it a bit so its a fair comparison:
.................500k to 1mil, 1mil to 2.5mil, 2.5mil to 5mil, over 5mil {metro pop}.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

1} Toronto 
2} Montreal 
3} Calgary 
4} SaltLakeCity


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Not in any particular order:

New York, San Francisco, Montreal, Toronto and Mexico City.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Best Subway in the US is by far the system in DC. NYC and SF also have great networks. Beyond that, mass transit is very underdeveloped in the US. On that same note, I would say the Metra Commuter Rail in Chicago is the best "S Bahn" type system.

Sorry for my US-centric point of view, but I can only talk about what I know.


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

1. Toronto
2. BART
3. Calgary
4. NYC


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

czm3 said:


> Best Subway in the US is by far the system in DC. NYC and SF also have great networks. Beyond that, mass transit is very underdeveloped in the US. On that same note, I would say the Metra Commuter Rail in Chicago is the best "S Bahn" type system.
> 
> Sorry for my US-centric point of view, but I can only talk about what I know.


How is Metra even remotely like an S-Bahn system?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I really like New York's Line 6 (Lexington Express). The maps inside the trains have bulbs that flash the next station. The train sets are also newer and clean.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^The 6 is Lexington Local, Express is 4 and 5... All three have the R142, as does the 2 line.
The R143 also has those maps, and it's used on the L.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

1) NYC
2) Toronto
3) San Francisco
4) Montreal
5) Mexico City


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

What about our mid-sized cities?


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Washington, Toronto, Chicago, Montréal, LA (their subway is really really clean), Ottawa


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

1) NYC [It's champion, and everyone knows it ]

2) Chicago [It's a great system...too bad it's in defacit]

3) Toronto [seems to be a great, efficient system]

4) Calgary [The Ctrain is just great]

5) BART [I Just thought it was fitting]


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

1) NYC
2) Chicago
3) Toronto
4) San Francisco
5) Montreal


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

Why is San francisco on anyone's list? BART is practically a regional train line. it has only 8 stops or so in san fran, and like 40 overall. DC Metro has 40 within city limits, and 86 overall. 

there's no question that dc should take its place. it has the second highest subway ridership in the US at 650,000 per weekday (SF is a bit over 300,000). and its expanding, with three stops added this past year and a spur to Dulles being planned. the metrobus also has a high ridership at 500,000 per weekday, and there are also commuter and amtrak trains connecting to the system (though the commuter trains are just during work hours).

anyhow, my 2 cents. I can't rank the systems overall though, cause I don't know the canadian ones.


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

as for midsized cities, portland, OR has a great system.


----------



## doady (May 23, 2004)

Top 5 US-Canadian transit systems in terms of ridership (unlinked trips)

1.	MTA New York City – 2553.3 million
2.	Toronto Transit Commission – 723.3
3.	Societe de transport de Montreal – 655.9 (2003)
4.	Chicago Transportation Authority – 445.4
5.	Los Angeles County MTA – 437.0


----------



## djm19 (Jan 3, 2005)

oh how I wish we were back in the days when America had great networks of mass transit.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

mad_nick said:


> How is Metra even remotely like an S-Bahn system?


It brings people from the suburbs into the city core. :dunno:


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

I wouldn't put NYC MTA near the top. Too many problems, its really irritating. Its one thing to have a great network, and another to have poor service/frequencies. Atleast with the smaller networks, service is a lot better and for where a subway doesn't go, you can make adequate alternative arrangements vs. having your trip travel time double.


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

nikko said:


> 1) NYC [It's champion, and everyone knows it ]
> ]


Right. "everyone knows it" YOu can save it for the tourist magazines. Obviously someone is obilvious to the impending subway crisis - especially when it has been highly publicized already. Here are just the recent operational irritants.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5991


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

sure the el is aesthetically pleasing but i cant believe some of you put chicago's as one of the best
i hate taking the el here, its so frustrating, theres always delays(i used to take it almost every morning and evening to and from school/work and i can say 1/2 the times there was delays some even lasting up to 20-30 mins)/it goes slow as hell (for some areas it goes like 5 mph)/its never comes on schedule/it smells/its loud 

i just wish they would tear it down and build somethin a bit more modern, cleaner, and underground. It looks nice but that comes with a big price.


----------



## rise_against (Apr 26, 2005)

i like Toronto's more than NYC less delays


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Ottawa's is pretty good for a bus-only system. Calgary Transit {inc Ctrain} is fantastic for a city of just over a mil. 
Remember that the best transit is not only ridership but also extensiveness, pratical RT, cleanliness, safety, service levels etc..................
Lets hear from some mid size cities as well.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Ottawa isnt "bus only" what about the O-train


----------



## canada_habs2004 (Nov 3, 2004)

I like the variety in Toronto, ie Streetcar, Subway, Bus, GO-Train, Taxi...
plus Toronto has the PATH, that huge underground foot link that spreads throughout the entire downtown.


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

^^^ Calgary sort of has the same as Toronto's path but its called the plus 15 and it is a network of 15 foot high bridges that connect the towers in Calgary.
Also is the O-Train a commuter train?


----------



## Grey Towers (Oct 22, 2002)

Roch5220 said:


> I wouldn't put NYC MTA near the top. Too many problems, its really irritating. Its one thing to have a great network, and another to have poor service/frequencies. Atleast with the smaller networks, service is a lot better and for where a subway doesn't go, you can make adequate alternative arrangements vs. having your trip travel time double.


True, but NYC has by far the most extensive, far-reaching subway system in N.A. That's an important start. Once the infrastructure is in place, it can always be improved.
Here in T.O., although the ridership numbers are impressive, imagine how much better they (and the air quality) would be if planners had initially had better foresight/more money.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Yes, I know about the OTrain and I should have included it but carrying just 6,000 passengers on a small diesel train on one track isn't highly noteworthy but I do stand corrected. 
That said Ottawa is overwhelmingly bus especially with the Transitway.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

The plus 15/30 system in Calgary is great. I think the reason they didn't go underground like Tor/Mon is because Calgary has a very high water table.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

im guessing it was about money and only money.


----------



## rise_against (Apr 26, 2005)

hey so what? if its works stick to it!!! Calagary has a great system


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

yes i know its whats best for Calgary but generally subway is the best way to go(if you have the $$$)


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

In terms of effectiveness, the STM, TTC and MTA in NYC are the best. The CTA in Chicago is also pretty amazing. The only comment I have about each city and its PT system is that all of them are currently in need of something.

The TTC is the system I know best, and many people here know its issues. The subways are in good shape as they are not nearly as old as the networks in Chicago and NYC but the system needs some maintence in some areas as well as expantion.

Chicago and New York both have very old infrastructure that need to be replaced or refurbished.

As far as I can tell, the STM is in good shape all around but it is the system I know the least about.

It is easy to say all these systems are great but realistically I think that anybody here who represents any one of those cities can agree that each of them need improvement.

For smaller cities, Calgary is really the only one that comes to mind.


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

^^^
I am very happy that Calgary has not yet gone or did have a subway downtown. Then it would not be free to travel downtown and the fares would be more expensive also. Also have the lrt on the surface does not cause much travel problems as light sequences are as long as normal traffic intersections downtown. Also if we did have a subway we would have the same problem as Edmonton with a very short line and we probably would not have the NE and NW lines.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

doady said:


> Top 5 US-Canadian transit systems in terms of ridership (unlinked trips)
> 
> 1.	MTA New York City – 2553.3 million
> 2.	Toronto Transit Commission – 723.3
> ...


The New York figure doesn't include the private bus companies operating under contract with the the NYC DOT (the companies are currenty being acquried by the newly formed "MTA Bus").
Private bus companies (listed as NYC DOT in APTA stats): 102,119.7 (in thousands)
New total for NYC: 2,655.4 million


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> Right. "everyone knows it" YOu can save it for the tourist magazines. Obviously someone is obilvious to the impending subway crisis - especially when it has been highly publicized already. Here are just the recent operational irritants.
> 
> http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5991


mate, theres no need for your bullshit.

I'm a transit enthusiast alright, so don't try and cut above me by attacking my personal opinions of the system. I've learned quite a bit about the MTA and despite the operational downfall of the system, it's one of the most interesting, extensive and well-utilised systems in the world. I based this on personal preference, seeing as I have acutally never had the opportunity to ride any North American systems.

Furthermore, considering one of the factors to consider was ridership, I think MTA easily take that one out.


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

nikko said:


> mate, theres no need for your bullshit.
> 
> I'm a transit enthusiast alright, .


LOL. So that makes you an expert eh. You obviously live in your own bubble vs people that use it every single day as their primary mode of transportation. I can tell you the variance of trip times is a lot higher taking the MTA vs. smaller, better mainatined and newer systems. If you are a real transit enthusiast and fan of the MTA, then you should have read already the impending subway crisis (which even with the operational issues currently, we are not in yet) that the system faces billions upon billions of dollars in mainteance that is not being done. The article in the New Yorker sums it up well. 

With such an efficeint system, you'd probably wonder why the onslaught of taxies in Manhattan, on the popularity of it. If you ask the avg. New Yorker, they will tell more times than not that the MTA sucks. Customer satisfaction is LOW, a lot lower than other transit systems that have great coverage.


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

nikko said:


> Furthermore, considering one of the factors to consider was ridership, I think MTA easily take that one out.


Factors that you decided on? If you based your ranking on that then you should have let it known. If ridership is the primary factor, no need for this thread, the ridership list is all that is need.

I see why you think NYC is #1 here, more volume the better, with less emphasis on service.


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> LOL. So that makes you an expert eh. You obviously live in your own bubble vs people that use it every single day as their primary mode of transportation. I can tell you the variance of trip times is a lot higher taking the MTA vs. smaller, better mainatined and newer systems. If you are a real transit enthusiast and fan of the MTA, then you should have read already the impending subway crisis (which even with the operational issues currently, we are not in yet) that the system faces billions upon billions of dollars in mainteance that is not being done. The article in the New Yorker sums it up well.
> 
> With such an efficeint system, you'd probably wonder why the onslaught of taxies in Manhattan, on the popularity of it. If you ask the avg. New Yorker, they will tell more times than not that the MTA sucks. Customer satisfaction is LOW, a lot lower than other transit systems that have great coverage.


Okay, sure thing captain New York. Keep up the great work. kay:


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

^ great response. keep on churning out the 'everybody knows' cause you think it arguments, oh yeah, and the "cause I'm a transit enthusist" arguments.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Anyway, back to the discussion. Considering Edmonton and Calgary have nearly the same population, Calgary's syystem is far superior. Ottawa's system is OK but rapid bus doesn't make sence for a city that gets a lot of snow. Also there are so many buses downtown Ottawa that it slows everything down as they bog each other down. 
Winnipegs isn't up to much and although Ive never been on QuebecCity's I heard and by the stats, it doesn't seem to be up to much either. 
London's is far supeior to KW/C or Windsor's. I take Vic transit a lot, not bad. They are hoping to do an LRT but that could be ages away. 
Of the three largest cities in Canada, Toronto has, by far, the best system folklowed by Montreal. Vancouver's isn't even in their league.


----------



## glickel (Sep 23, 2004)

What about Boston? While it is old and the LRT line can be painfully slow, it is a well used and extensive system for a mid-sized city in NA. It also has the third biggest suburban rail system behind NYC and Chicago. I think it is in the top seven in all of NA. Behind - NYC, Chicago, Mexico, Montreal, Toronto, and DC

And San Francsico is not just the BART. They have an extensive LRT line, similar to the pre-metros in Europe. They are also adding another line with plans for a underground stops downtown.


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

^ I don't think we were including commutter rail, but no one said that we couldn't. Then I would be a whole different can of beans, especially for NYC (with great Metro North service).


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Toronto also has great and extensive commuter rail system named GO.


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> LOL. So that makes you an expert eh. You obviously live in your own bubble vs people that use it every single day as their primary mode of transportation. I can tell you the variance of trip times is a lot higher taking the MTA vs. smaller, better mainatined and newer systems. If you are a real transit enthusiast and fan of the MTA, then you should have read already the impending subway crisis (which even with the operational issues currently, we are not in yet) that the system faces billions upon billions of dollars in mainteance that is not being done. The article in the New Yorker sums it up well.
> 
> With such an efficeint system, you'd probably wonder why the onslaught of taxies in Manhattan, on the popularity of it. If you ask the avg. New Yorker, they will tell more times than not that the MTA sucks. Customer satisfaction is LOW, a lot lower than other transit systems that have great coverage.


I wouldnt say nikko lives in his own bubble..
I use the system everyday, and yes sometimes the mta can effing blow, but not everyone in or eveyrthing about the mta blows. The line superintendents can be some of the best people you'll meet in the mta (sometimes...sometimes indeed)

I've rode on the systems in DC, Boston, Miami, and Philadelphia and they're alright, but i'm thankful we have this system here, i'm thankful we have such a large transit network that can enable me not only to get around the city, but go to new jersey, ct, out on long island and such

sure there are some really effed up delays at time, but this is not on every line, sometimes the delays can be due to overcrowding on lines at times particularly parts of the lexington line and this is due to the fact that the second av sub was never built..despsite this I wouldn't say customer satisfaction is low, despite all the increases on fare and montly's/unlimiteds in the recent past..which have really ate my pockets and made me even broker..I still really appreciate that metrocard transfer!

I really like the aesthetic of some of the DC stations but I don't like the distance between them


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> ^ I don't think we were including commutter rail, but no one said that we couldn't. Then I would be a whole different can of beans, especially for NYC (with great Metro North service).


Metro-North service is far from great (its really only consistent if your taking it straight to grand central or 125th, but using it for local service i.e. Mount Vernon w to fordham, Peekskill to greystone, new rochelle to norwalk..very inconsistent service which is plauged by delays...especially on the New Haven line) 

the m7's are nice though


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

Third of a kind said:


> sure there are some really effed up delays at time, but this is not on every line, sometimes the delays can be due to overcrowding on lines at times particularly parts of the lexington line and this is due to the fact that the second av sub was never built..despsite this I wouldn't say customer satisfaction is low, despite all the increases on fare and montly's/unlimiteds in the recent past..which have really ate my pockets and made me even broker..I still really appreciate that metrocard transfer!


I would really question the overall satisfaction of the MTA (ignoring physical customer service). Most I work with and hang out with tend to agree, and I know we are not alone - due to the local media. Some of it does relate to the overcrowding of the 456, and some of it has to do reconstruction of some of the queens lines (everytime on the weekend I go that way - its always one thing or the other - delays, or construction/hence having to back track). Here are the biggest beefs I have for the system:

- during non peak times (ie weekends), poor frequencies, even for the 456 (which are supposively the heavist travelled line). actual frequencies are lower than say the TTC (sorry to keep on using the TTC as a comparison but I know both systems the best), this results in overcrowding like crazy
- construcition - heres an idea, do it at night
- the overal network is good yes, but if you live in UES, its bad. The connections to midtown (5th avenue and west of that) is poor, which is coupled with bad NRW (which I think is the worst line). I usually walk home cause it takes less time (in the morning I'm too tired)

Gotta go, will spew later.


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> ^ great response. *keep on churning out the 'everybody knows' cause you think it arguments*, oh yeah, and the "cause I'm a transit enthusist" arguments.


1) Sentence structure, consider revising,

2) I used the enthusiast justification because regular users of the system (i.e. you ) who eat this "forever-impending" subway crisis theory, would know very little about the acutally workings of the system. For what it is, it's a great system because of it's sheer complexity and the MTA's ability to keep up with it in good, working order.


Would you like to suggest any other systems in NA that are extensive as the MTA?

The CTA is out because it is IN A CRISIS (Not an "Impending" one)


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

A lot of systems in N.A. are extensive, including all forms of transportation. Even in NYC, the subway system isn't extensive enough as it does not serve the east side well enough, 1st ave, york, avenue a, b, c,d (in the lower east side), but are supplemented with buses. You couldn't get the ridership of the top 5 systems with out having proper feeder/shuttle busses to the heavy rail network. And don't forget that an efficient system will have heavy rail where the ridership warrants, and busses or light rail elsewhere. Hence, most of the mid size systems do this well.

"For what it is, it's a great system because of it's sheer complexity and the MTA's ability to keep up with it in good, working order"

For you, you rank just based upon extensiveness of heavy rail. This is definately flawed as I rank both extensiveness and service. The extensiveness I think has been the MTA's downfall due to funding shortages. Waiting for specific routes (ie the Q th at run on the NRWQ rounte in manhattan) can take forever. Mid sized systems where there are no express, you know the subway will come every 2-5 minutes in peak, and 4-5 in non-peak. Sometimes I view some of the routes as underground commutter rail.

Working order - well, coming into work this saturday morning, again, a long list of closed stations/service disruptions. Every weekend, I just hope it not my station when I arrive. Most other HRT systems do their construction at night, and/or close earlier. I pity the people trying to get to/from brooklyn on the green line on theweekends, becuase most times, there is no service.

I feel the best service (HRT) is in the boroughs, bringing people into manhattan. service withing is manhattan is pretty poor as during peak times, if you don't leave before 8 am, you'll be waiting 4 trains cause of people from the boroughs. Also, I feel the east west travel quite time consuming.

I feel the Montreal has the best (HRT) service downtown (it is a way smaller area), while Toronto has the best rail transit downtown (tram + subway) as well as surburban feeder bus integration with subway stations.

NYC has the greatest reach and best surburban coverage (with the express trains during the weekdays).


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

nikko said:


> 2) I used the enthusiast justification because regular users of the system (i.e. you ) who eat this "forever-impending" subway crisis theory, would know very little about the acutally workings of the system. For what it is, it's a great system because of it's sheer complexity and the MTA's ability to keep up with it in good, working order.
> )



Quite funny being considered a 'regular user' who doesn't know the workings vs you, who don't know anything except tibits I feed you, and from your touristy trips. Transit is my hobby as well, but I don't push it off as expert opinion like you, who probably base everything on the touristy tibits of information you can get your hands on.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

L.A. system isn't stellar but is getting there. There are large extentions underway, soon to start with more expansion in the long term. 
Vancouver's is good for the size of the city it is but is still vastly underused and has cost a lot of money with unimpressive numbers when compered to other major Canadian cities. 
The bus service in the city, however, it quite good.


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> Quite funny being considered a 'regular user' who doesn't know the workings vs you, who don't know anything except tibits I feed you, and from your touristy trips. Transit is my hobby as well, but I don't push it off as expert opinion like you, who probably base everything on the touristy tibits of information you can get your hands on.


touristy tidbits?
ao the subway is a "tourist attraction" now, opposed to the city's first and foremost mode of transport?

Cut back on the estrogen or soemthing. You are getting way too emotional over something I said. NYC obviously takes out the title of king just by the sheer size and usage. 

What do you think is a fitting title for the subway?


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

^Wow, I take it back, based upon your vast knowledge that you have claimed to have being a transit enthusiest, and now I see have backed it up with, you must be right.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Back at the discussion, AGAIN.............. SanFran has a good system especially for the states. BART was great but is a commuter type system, doesn't do the people in the city any good. The streetcar system was good but the cars were a bite old and not particularily clean. Toronto's streetcar system is far supeirior. 
Much of things also have to do with geography. The city of SanFran is reletivly small due to its geography and is spread out due to the water and huge hills so subway's wouldn't be practical and with those hill, down right impossible.


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

ssiguy2 said:


> BART was great but ...... doesn't do the people in the city any good.


Like the skytrain. I think we should expand this to include all commutter/modes of transportation.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Ya, true. 
The question I raised when I started this thread was what city in NA has the best transit system and CommuterRail is part of that.


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

Roch5220 said:


> ^Wow, I take it back, based upon your vast knowledge that you have claimed to have being a transit enthusi*e*st, and now I see have backed it up with, you must be right.


Why thank you.

anyway, what do you think is a more fitting title for the subway?


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

I understand that Kitchener/Waterlou/Cambridge is hoping to have a LRT from one end to the other and would like it built {or atleast some of it} by 2025.


----------



## Ionizer (Jun 8, 2005)

NYC
Mexico City
Toronto
San Francisco


----------



## 1822 (Nov 9, 2002)

i can't imagine LA's transit system being one of the best. i just spent a few days in LA using the public transport; the subway system isn't exactly tiny, but LA is so spread out i had to take the bus most of the time. plus i really dont think it can be considered anywhere near clean.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The US Census tracks how people get to work. For example, 2000 data show that 52.8% of New York City's labor force of 6,279,431 took public transit while 24.9% drove alone.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

*Rebuilding Ground Transportation in the U.S.*

Unlike most other countries in the world, ground transportation in the US, outside of cars and trucks, is in a pittiful state. Our national rail service owns very little trackage, has poor quality trains, and is barely able to get by with the funding it receives. We barely have any infrastructure to build from, and what little there is of it, is controlled by frieght railroads which has more interest in doing away with passenger rail travel than in investing in it.

I believe that one of the key issues with Rail in the US is that the service is nationalized, while the tracks themselves are privatized. This would be like there being only one airline, government controlled, whicl private companies own all the airports and airspace and each provides it's own air traffic control.

So here is my challenge to you: Let's say the US finally decides it needs an alternative to air travel. Having nothing to start from, They are going to fund research into another transportation system. The goals are: something relatively near-future; reasonably economical; able to be turned into an effective nationwide network; flexible; will build Us leadership in this technology; increase ridership not from competing with current modes but offering new services; and drive the economy and bring down the cost of doing business.

So what would you like to see the US do? Research MagLev? Rebuild a new rail structure, perhas high speed rail? Maybe a monorail technology, or even something totaly new? What would the US get out of putting the moeny for research into this area?


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Allright, I will go first.

I believe the US should put a lot of funding into developing a new mode of monorail/rail. I propose somehting along the line of a conventional concrete beam straddle monorail, but with steel rails embedded into the top and sides, wo that the vehicle runs on steel wheels as opposed to rubber tires.

While this sounds a bit fanciful, I think it is not a lot unlike the development of the jet and how the US became a leader in aviation technology. Right now there is very little going on in the Us in regards to both MagLev and Rail technology. However, we are watching our air transportation system crumble, and it si effectively doing a number on our economy, These transportation costs are adding up, and with the price of fuel skyrocketing, our economy can no longer afford to function with our current transportation systems.

Most innovations in transportation don't succeded because there is too much invested in current technology. The US, however, does not have that problem - we are not held back by having to integrate old technology. We also have the unusual chance to completely coordinate systems - we are able to connect our new transportation system to current systems - make sure it is accessible to airports. Able to integrate into road traffic - perhaps to provide an auo ferry service. 

Revolutions in transportation are usually driven by the need for something better than what is currently available. The US is changing, and it is looking like now might be the time when we see the start of the next big thing in travel. Perhaps we need to identify it now and start developing it into an efficient, effective system.


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

Cloudship said:


> Allright, I will go first.
> 
> I believe the US should put a lot of funding into developing a new mode of monorail/rail. I propose somehting along the line of a conventional concrete beam straddle monorail, but with steel rails embedded into the top and sides, wo that the vehicle runs on steel wheels as opposed to rubber tires.


If you want something new and revolutionary, just go to Maglev.
Theoretically, and within a vacuum environment, maglev trains could run as fast as 8000km/h(5000mph) or more...

If you want to know more you will probably find something in the discovery channel page about dream projects: The London-New York maglev conection.


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

why do u need ground transportation?
The passenger doesnt care if the means of transportion rolls, flies or floas on a magnetic cushion.
In a large country like the us, it makes sense to fly-- in contrast to relatively small and dense populated areas like europe or japan or korea or the chinese east coast.....

keep on flying-- and make planes more economical and ecological.
And improve commuter rail.
Maglev is and will always be way too expansive-- everything else is to slow


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

^Yes, you're right, but ground transportation would work on US east coast, and california, as it works for europe for example.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Since the US is so uninterested in rail, I think massive research into Maglev, etc. is not going to happen.

What I would like to see (that is reasonable) is the privatization of the Boston/NYC/DC rail corridor. HST could serve this stretch very well. Unlike the Acela that we have now, a true HST system could rush passengers from Boston to NYC in under three hours. This will get people out of the airplanes. Rail doesnt make much sence elsewhere here for several reasons. The biggest is the large distances that are traveled. The train from NYC to LA takes three days versus 5 hours in a plane.

Another reason why rail would work in NE and not the rest of the country are the cities themselves. Cities in CA, FL, and TX are very decentralized and it would be difficult to locate the main stations. Afterall, if you get of a train in downtown LA you are SOL if you need to go elsewhere in the city. The east coast cities (due to their compact size) are not as suseptible to this problem.

Finally there is the matter of cost. If I want to go to NYC (from Boston) I could take the bus (cheapest and fastest), drive my car (as fast as the bus but a little more expensive), fly (a pain in the ass with check in and getting to and from the airports), or take the train. The train ticket is the most expensive option and the tickets themselves are as unflexible as plane tickets. So to recap Bus (fast, flexible, $15) or train (fast, inflexible, no hopping on the next one in the US and will cost over $100) No wonder rail is a failure in the US.


----------



## Frungy (Dec 16, 2004)

Train is a problem because it's NOT fast, it's just a slow as the bus. Boston to New York is about 250 miles or 400 kilometers, and the Acela Express (when it was running) took 3 hours. That's an average speed of 83 mph, or 134 kph, which can be blamed on old infrastructure, lots of curves, and rails that are so close to each other the tilting mechanism can't operate without smashing into passing trains.

For comparison, the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto is 500 kilometers, but takes a little over 2 hours, making it much more competitive than bus, and competitive with air. The only way to get people to use Amtrak in the Northeast is to build new track that can allow the high speed train to actually move at high speed. If Acela can get from Boston to New York in 2 hours, it can actually compete with the 4 hour bus and 1 hour plae ride, and gain passengers.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Maybe they can invest in maglev monorail system replacing the heavy rail or light rail systems, they have a new line in Japan that opened not long ago. 
I wonder if it's cheaper than heavy rail or light rail since it doesn't use any wheels and it just floats on magnets.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Outside of the BosNYWash area I don't see the point. Truth be told Americans aren't big on any form of public transit. Car is king economically and more importantly socially. 
Use the money to improve urban transit itself, you will get a lot more bang for the buck.


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

sequoias said:


> I wonder if it's cheaper than heavy rail or light rail since it doesn't use any wheels and it just floats on magnets.


No, it's more expensive as it's still a new tecnologie.


----------



## Haber (Aug 25, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> Outside of the BosNYWash area I don't see the point. Truth be told Americans aren't big on any form of public transit. Car is king economically and more importantly socially.
> Use the money to improve urban transit itself, you will get a lot more bang for the buck.


What about Chicago - Milwaukee, San Francisco - Sacramento, LA - San Diego? I think that all these corridors make sense. Hopefully if Bombardier gets its JetTrain in order it could really reduce the capital costs. In terms of priority local rapid transit does make more sense. I guess the goal is to someday be able to travel anywhere without driving a car.


----------



## Frungy (Dec 16, 2004)

Bleh, Bombardier will never get anything in order.

Getting any new rail infrastructure out of San Francisco will cost a ton due to geography (unless they use existing BART track).

Is Milwaukee that large of a city? High speed rail mainly targets business travelers, everyone else can afford to take an hour or two longer for less than half the price.


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

silly question.

what incentive does the US have in resurrecting passenger rail transport? Much to the dissappointment of environmentalists who have decided to wage war against the freeway, the fact is Americans don't really miss public transit. The pinnacle of public transit was sometime during the 1920's. That was when public transit was the primary method of travel...other then walking. However a "little" company called Ford changed that.  

There have been numerous attempts to implement a high speed rail HSR system in the US. In California the proposal was placed on the ballet twice if my memory serves me correctly: once in the 1980's and another in the 90's. Seeing that the greenies like to push this idea every 10 years I guess we're due for another ballot initiative pretty soon. If history is any measure the idea will get shot down again.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

Passenger HSR right now would only be economical in the Northeast from Washington DC to Boston with stops in DC, Baltimore, Philly, Newark, New York, Providence, and Boston. The northeastern cities, while more car-oriented than European cities, are the only cities in the US as a whole that truly have large areas designed for mass transit, and the linear alignment of this corridor makes HSR an absolute necessity in the long term. The vast majority of the rest of the routes in the country, save a couple in California and a couple out of Chicago, lose tremendous amounts of money and are just not economically feasible for HSR, even with massive government subsidies. That money is better spent on improving existing urban rail networks in the nation's biggest and most urban cities.

Another thing that HSR depends upon is fairly decent and/or extensive rail networks within the cities that HSR serves. When you arrive at the station, your first thought will not be to rent a car to get where you need to go. That's another $150 down the drain for just one trip. You want to be able to transfer to a city rail network such as MBTA, Metro, or MTA. Thus the Northeast meets this criteria once again. The only cities outside the northeast with rail ridership and coverage anywhere near the level it needs to be to support HSR are Chicago and San Francisco. But their problems are that they are urban islands in the middle of parts of the country that are anything but: St Louis and Milwaukee, for as urban as they might be compared to many other cities, do not meet such criteria. And out west, LA is pathetic for a metro its size and too decentralized (LA's decentralization would not be a factor if it had population densities more like Asian cities).


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

I guess what I am trying to say is that conventional thinking, and trying to apply conventional technologies, obviously won't work. But there is a chance to start fresh with something new - anot only new technology, but new layouts and structure.

For instance, it has always been tought of, and even here, that it's autos OR planes OR something else. I see a real chance to combine modes. An example - airports are often located far away from the city. And there are a lot of small airports that really can't support much air traffic. These types of locations would be great for an airport connection. And I am talking more than say an hour away. A small city, which really can't support it's own airport but which is perhaps four or five hours from a major city. Likewise, there may be three other cities just like it all a few hours from each other, but each not biug enough to sustain itself. They could build a central airport, and connect them by some kind of high-speed transit system. So you drive to your own city station, and then go to the larger hub airport. Why not have checkin at the station instead of the airport? Could hte airlines themselves run smaller train type vehicles?

I also think that you could really effectively combine auto and rail trasnportation - some kind of long distance ferry system, but which moves much faster than driving. So you have a 10 hour drive - you drive an hour to the station, load your car onto the train, and take that to an hours drive from your final desitnation, drive off and drive the rest of the trip. You still have your car but don't have to do all of that driving.


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

Rail Claimore said:


> ...........
> Another thing that HSR depends upon is fairly decent and/or extensive rail networks within the cities that HSR serves. When you arrive at the station, your first thought will not be to rent a car to get where you need to go. That's another $150 down the drain for just one trip. You want to be able to transfer to a city rail network such as MBTA, Metro, or MTA.
> ..............


Bingo! I think you just hit the nail on the head. You can build the fastest train in the world but if the train drops you off in the middle of nowhere and there's no reliable and cheap means of continueing your trip then what's the point? I am glad that the HSR plan got killed twice in California. Had it been passed it would of been a white elephant. So what if a HSR was built that could take you from San Francisco to LA in 2 hours? Once you get to LA you'd have to rent a car because as we *ALL* know LA was built on cars/freeways not transit. You might as well just make the 6 hour drive with your own car. HSR will never become viable in California.

Some transportation agencies are now taking a different planning approach. Instead of looking at planes, trains, buses, and cars as independant modes of transport the new idea is to integrate everything. The new theory is that each one effects the other so to create an effective transport network then all modes of transport have to be designed so that they all compliment one another. For example a train station might be built at the airport or a train station might literally be built at a freeway on/off ramp. This makes transfering from one mode of transport to anther much easier.

This idea might sound nice from an engineering stand point but it will never be fully implemented in the US. In the US, each mode of transport is regulated by a different government agency...each with their own vested interest. The likelyhood that each agency will simply give up some of their power and hand it off to some super transportation agency that will coordinate everything is laughable. That and to "integrate" everything a new agency must be created (read more taxes).


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

So what is the difference between air airport and a train station? If you fly to LA, you still are faced with the same situation.


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

Cloudship said:


> So what is the difference between air airport and a train station? If you fly to LA, you still are faced with the same situation.


That's why *most* people drive and not fly between SF and LA. I don't have any stats but my gut feeling tells me at least 80% of all the people who make that trip do so on the freeway. 

If you're going solo then flying might be better. But if you're going in a group then, hands down, splitting the cost of gas amongst your fellow road trip buddies would be much cheaper then everybody buying their own airplane ticket. What is more dear?: time or money? In this case money wins.

There is also an issue of demand. There's enough demand to fly airplanes between northern and southern California but not enough to run a HSR. A train can have 4 times as many seats as an airplane and also depart every 5 minutes. If you can get people out of their cars then a HSR would work....but that's not going to happen in California.


----------



## pss (Aug 20, 2005)

*The other USA Metro systems*

I am interested what others think about "the other" Mass Transit systems in the United States. CTA, BART, DC Metro, LA Metro, etc...

Also, how does BART or DC Metro compare to CTA and LA Metro. The only unbiased criteria would be connectivity, accessibility, coverage, and service frequency. It would be helpful to have the residents of the cities offer their comments and criticism. It is safe to leave out New York from the comparisons because it is unrivaled leader of the pack.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Doesn't Cleveland have a small Subway?


----------



## LFG (Nov 21, 2005)

Cleveland does indeed have a metro system: the Greater Cleveland Rapid Transit Authority, (RTA) or "the Rapid." When I was growing up I remember them promoting this as "Ride the Rapid." Here are some stats:

Red Line Rapid Transit
60 heavy-rail cars
18 stations
19 miles of one-way track

Blue - Green Line Rapid Transit (Includes Waterfront Line)
48 light-rail cars
34 stations
15 miles of one-way track


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Philadelphia has the SEPTA, Boston has the oldest in the T, Miami has the Metrorail as well, amongst other cities (St. Louis' Metroline, Dallas' DART, Atlanta's MARTA, Baltimore). Many cities have light rail also, including San Jose, Sacramento, Portland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, Buffalo, Syracuse, Tampa).

Fom my experience, I find Chicago has a really good system with lots of service, and good frequencies. Boston has a great system, as does Washington.


----------



## LA-dude (Nov 19, 2005)

The service in LA does not go to ALL the places people would like it to but it does go a lot of places. The bus system is really extensive, but the fact that LA is so spread out and the ride takes too long makes it unappealing. They have recently started RAPID service (faster buses w/ their own lane and traffic light priority) on major thouroughfares though, with much success. Heres a map of our subway/light rail system.... http://metro.net/images/rail_map.pdf Hopefully they will also build a subway to the westside which is in the study process.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I really like the Metro's Red line in LA. Very new, clean, and on the honor system!


----------



## micro (Mar 13, 2005)

I'm not sure I comprehend the intention of this thread. As far as I grasped it, kajolishot wants people from US cities that have subways to tell what they think of other US subways...


----------



## dougmatic (Oct 16, 2005)

My big question with the US metro systems is why don't they run later, especially on Friday and Saturday nights when people are going to be out drinking and not wanting to pay $20 for taxis. Bay Area BART, Boston metro, Philly SEPTA, Atlanta MARTA, all stop around midnight i believe. I think 2 lines in Chicago CTA run around the clock? I know not every city has enough ridership to be in operation all the time like NYC, but I think DC Metro's system has the correct solution, as I think all lines run until 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights. Other Metro systems should follow suit.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Does Rochester in NY have a subway? I know there are some abandoned parts but I dont know if it still has a working one or not.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

dougmatic said:


> My big question with the US metro systems is why don't they run later, especially on Friday and Saturday nights when people are going to be out drinking and not wanting to pay $20 for taxis. Bay Area BART, Boston metro, Philly SEPTA, Atlanta MARTA, all stop around midnight i believe. I think 2 lines in Chicago CTA run around the clock? I know not every city has enough ridership to be in operation all the time like NYC, but I think DC Metro's system has the correct solution, as I think all lines run until 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights. Other Metro systems should follow suit.


The problem is, like a lot of systems (such as london) track work has to be done at some time, so the system is close at night to allow for such work. BART now operates a bus that goes to the same stations late at night as a replacement

And Bart is pretty good if you want to go where it goes . Overall Bay Area rail transit is pretty good as far as the us goes. Bart has good frequency in the SF-OAK submerged sections, but on the outer lines its 15 minutes, which isnt as nice.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

For further information on world transit systems, see the following websites:

The NYCSubway website offers a good overview of United States and Canadian heavy rail and light rail transit systems complete with narrative descriptions and photos. Major systems in Europe and Latin America are also covered:

http://world.nycsubway.org/

The LightRail-dot-com website provides descriptions of most light rail systems in the United States and Canada:

http://www.lightrail.com/photos.htm

Prof. John Bell's website provides good narrative information and photos of United States transit systems:

http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/

The UrbanRail website provides fairly comprehensive coverage of heavy rail transit systems throughout the world:

http://www.urbanrail.net/

The Kavenaugh Transit website features a lot of information on transit systems around the world but is especially good for information about Japanese transit systems:

http://ktransit.com/

There is also the Subways-dot-net website:

http://www.subways.net/

The Light Rail Transit Association website specializes in European light rail systems but also has some information on light rail systems in North American:

http://lrta.info/photos/photogallindex.html

There is also the Light Rail Atlas website:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rajvdb/lra/index.html

One of the most interesting is the Metro Bits website, which is focused on the architecture and user experience of world metro systems:

http://mic-ro.com/metro/index.html

Mr. Simon Smiler, who is a frequent contributor to this forum, has an interesting website that addresses many different issues in transit system design:

http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/Frame.htm

Railfan Europe is a great website for photos of European railways, metros, and light rail:

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix_frameset.html

The Monorail Society's website provides a fairly comprehensive overview of world monorail systems:

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Where.html

The Light Rail Now! website provides much information on North American light rail systems though it tends to go overboard with vituperative directed against bus rapid transit, personal rapid transit, monorail, and any other transit mode that could be a competitor of light rail:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/


----------



## spsmiler (Apr 9, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> For further information on world transit systems, see the following websites:
> 
> The NYCSubway website offers a good overview of United States and Canadian heavy rail and light rail transit systems complete with narrative descriptions and photos. Major systems in Europe and Latin America are also covered:
> 
> ...


thanks! 
 

btw, I've only been to a few US cities, so cant say much. But what I do recall most vividly is that in Dallas its illegal to cross a road served by the DART except at official crossing points. That riled me, because I have plenty of experience crossing roads which are used by steel wheel transports, and totally fail to understand why they have this law. After all, crossing *any* road when traffic is approaching is asking for trouble - and indeed, the steel wheeled transports usually have magnetic brakes and other safety systems which mean they can stop very quickly.

One other observation - generally newer systems do not allow eating and drinking, whilst when I was in Boston they were selling light refreshments in some of the stations! Just a contrast between new and established, I suppose.

Simon


----------



## dougmatic (Oct 16, 2005)

How much time do they actually need for trackwork? I think running 2 or 3 hours later on Fridays and Saturdays won't kill them. Yeah Mr Storms I'm actually from San Jose and I go to school in San Diego now and I agree that San Francisco's system is pretty good, could and should be more comprehensive though in the Fillmore and Richmond areas. Also I think a metro line should be made to access Chinatown up to North Beach and Fisherman's wharf from the Market, I know there's a cable car running through there but I think a subway line would be more practical. San Jose's public transportation on the other hand...


----------



## blink55184 (Nov 30, 2005)

dougmatic said:


> My big question with the US metro systems is why don't they run later, especially on Friday and Saturday nights when people are going to be out drinking and not wanting to pay $20 for taxis. Bay Area BART, Boston metro, Philly SEPTA, Atlanta MARTA, all stop around midnight i believe. I think 2 lines in Chicago CTA run around the clock? I know not every city has enough ridership to be in operation all the time like NYC, but I think DC Metro's system has the correct solution, as I think all lines run until 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights. Other Metro systems should follow suit.


Boston last trains all leave their orginial start point at 12:45am, so they get to their destinations finishing anywhere from 115-130.

Only 2 American systems keep running 24 hours, NYC and Chicago.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

dougmatic said:


> How much time do they actually need for trackwork? I think running 2 or 3 hours later on Fridays and Saturdays won't kill them. Yeah Mr Storms I'm actually from San Jose and I go to school in San Diego now and I agree that San Francisco's system is pretty good, could and should be more comprehensive though in the Fillmore and Richmond areas. Also I think a metro line should be made to access Chinatown up to North Beach and Fisherman's wharf from the Market, I know there's a cable car running through there but I think a subway line would be more practical. San Jose's public transportation on the other hand...


San Joses is actually decent as far as the US goes. Pathetic in europe, but pretty decent in the us. The new winchester extension gets really good ridership and its actually convenient (omg), so I use it a lot.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I believe it's the Blue and Red lines in Chicago that run 24/7. Rochester used to have a subway, but they killed it


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Post pics!And maps!


----------



## elmwood (Aug 23, 2002)

Accura_Preston said:


> Does Rochester in NY have a subway? I know there are some abandoned parts but I dont know if it still has a working one or not.


The Rochester system was abandoned in 1956.

Buffalo has an operating subway that seems to get very little respect on message boards and transit fan sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Metro_Rail
http://www.nfta.com/metro/index.asp
http://subway.buffalonet.org
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Buffalo/


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), San Francisco
Route Map:








Trains pics: (omg theyre not steel boxes)








































SF area also has 3 commuter rail lines and 7 light rail lines, but im too lazy to post those too


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

man, thats a damn ugly train. :runaway:


----------



## Frungy (Dec 16, 2004)

BART reminds me of the Washington Metro.


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

Another reason might be that residents of affluent areas are sometimes opposed to new rail lines as they fear that it might allow easy access to the area for poor inner city people who they fear will then commit crimes like burgulary etc. During the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 I read in the paper that some residents of Cobb County, which adjoins this city, were opposed to the extension of the MARTA rail system into their area for this very reason. Apparently some people had bumper stickers on their cars that said "Come to Cobb to rob".

Subway construction is very expensive too, due to the tunnelling and underground excavation for stations that is required. The building of LA's very modest subway system (the red line) went way over budget and as a result new subway construction was put on hold I believe. The money spent could have built much more light rail or busways etc.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Jean Luc said:


> Another reason might be that residents of affluent areas are sometimes opposed to new rail lines as they fear that it might allow easy access to the area for poor inner city people who they fear will then commit crimes like burgulary etc. During the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 I read in the paper that some residents of Cobb County, which adjoins this city, were opposed to the extension of the MARTA rail system into their area for this very reason. Apparently some people had bumper stickers on their cars that said "Come to Cobb to rob".
> 
> Subway construction is very expensive too, due to the tunnelling and underground excavation for stations that is required. The building of LA's very modest subway system (the red line) went way over budget and as a result new subway construction was put on hold I believe. The money spent could have built much more light rail or busways etc.


Aren't public metro buses also easy access for inner city people to enter affluent areas? 

As for LA, it's metro system do travel through the poor neighbourhoods like Watts or Compton.


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

..


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

WANCH said:


> Aren't public metro buses also easy access for inner city people to enter affluent areas?
> 
> As for LA, it's metro system do travel through the poor neighbourhoods like Watts or Compton.


True. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with their views, though. I was just stating that as one reason why new subways or other urban rail lines might not get built, as I distinctly remember reading about the Atlanta situation in the paper.

Maybe U.S. cities are just too spread out for subways to have any noticeable effect on traffic congestion and air pollution. The multitude of journeys made on an average working day, each with its' own starting and ending point, would be impossible to cater for with a subway system unless an enormous and extensive one was built, which would simply be too expensive to contemplate. A cheaper and more cost-effective way to cater to suburb-to-suburb trips would be to have an extensive bus system like that of Toronto, Canada, as I outlined in this post: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10024608&postcount=2


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

First, there's the money factor. The US is much less willing to pour money into infrastructure, and a subway is a very expen sive thing, particularly when building in an area where tunneling is not easy. 

Secondly, and I think more importantly, the US has a strong self-sufficiency mentality (thake that as you will). Many people feel that the public should pay for as little as tthey can, and let people pay their own way. And that pretty well means cars, as the vehicle is privately owned, the operator is the passenger so no public employees, the only public part of it is the higway itself, and that is pretty basic.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I think that US cities, especially suburbs, are not densely populated enough to support a cost-effective large subway-network. Most suburban areas are just too large to build such a network. It would cost too much to be effective i think.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Chris1491 said:


> I think that US cities, especially suburbs, are not densely populated enough to support a cost-effective large subway-network. Most suburban areas are just too large to build such a network. It would cost too much to be effective i think.


Subways aren't needed in most US cities especially suburbs. But The Bay Area and some east coast and midwest cities have commuter rail networks that connect the city centre to the suburbs.

Because of the rising gas prices in the US, commuting is becoming a popular option especially with the Park & Ride concept. What they do, they drive their car from their home and park their car right near the station. Then take the train to work. Alot of train stations provide multistory carparks where you can park your car the whole day. An example is the Metropark station in New Jersey.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

It's because of cost and NIMBYs...building a metro in a major city is very expensive, and with Americans taking their cars everywhere, it isn't worth it financially...

Thats why, and it sucks...but when gas gets too expensive (it will happen), the cities that didn't invest as much as others will be feeling the heat...


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

rotten777 said:


> It's because of cost and NIMBYs...building a metro in a major city is very expensive, and with Americans taking their cars everywhere, it isn't worth it financially...
> 
> Thats why, and it sucks...but when gas gets too expensive (it will happen), the cities that didn't invest as much as others will be feeling the heat...


But don't they have commuter rail services in Hartford? Because there are those who live in Conneticut but work in Manhattan and they travel by train.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

There seems to be a revival in light rail in many cities. Heavy rail is too expensive to build especially with inadequate ridership.

Even with expensive gas prices, many suburban communities are not built to provide choice for people to switch to public transport. They bite the bullet and reduce spending elsewhere.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

In the U.S. it seems like everything is too spread out to have effective intercity rail transportation. If I want to stop at the hardware store, grocery store, my bank and the barber shop the most feasible way for me to hit all those spots in a reasonable time is with my car since I doubt there would be a rail network extensive enough to cover all those bases. 

As for going to work and home a high speed light rail system might work with park and ride but when I get to my destination I better have a quick way to get to my office once I leave my station. Try walking 10 blocks to work in the Texas heat after you leave your station. Your suit would be soaked with sweat. 

I was on the phone with a girl I know in the U.K. and she heard me cursing the traffic on the freeway and she said "why don't you walk to work?"...I said "because it will probably take me half a day to walk to work and it's 98F outside." 

Right now from my house the closest store is at least a 30 minute walk but if I hop in my car it's about 3 minutes away.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

FM 2258 said:


> In the U.S. it seems like everything is too spread out to have effective intercity rail transportation. If I want to stop at the hardware store, grocery store, my bank and the barber shop the most feasible way for me to hit all those spots in a reasonable time is with my car since I doubt there would be a rail network extensive enough to cover all those bases.
> 
> As for going to work and home a high speed light rail system might work with park and ride but when I get to my destination I better have a quick way to get to my office once I leave my station. Try walking 10 blocks to work in the Texas heat after you leave your station. Your suit would be soaked with sweat.
> 
> ...


Hey I was walking on a hot dry summer in The Strip from Vegas. The city has monorail and the deuce bus but I still walked! 

And also alot of establishments are huge like the neighborhood Home Depot with it's huge parking lot. 

True that alot of light rail are sprouting up in US cities particularly in the West Coast and the south


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

WANCH said:


> But don't they have commuter rail services in Hartford? Because there are those who live in Conneticut but work in Manhattan and they travel by train.


Yes, Connecticut does have a large commuter rail network but Hartford does not...Metro North to Grand Central...

But it is only concentrated in New Haven and Fairfield Counties (mostly just NYC suburbs). Hartford is the only large city in the state not to have a commuter rail service...it sucks...

But, a commuter rail proposal to make Hartford connect to New Haven (with another connection to NYC) has been approved and will run in 2011...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Metro North goes to New Haven, although there has been recent discussions of extending something to central Conneticut. The ride from New Haven to Grand Central is quite long - over an hour and a half.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Even though it is long, it seems to fill up fast...Metro North is overcrowded...

The commuter rail from Springfield, Mass to NYC, when completed, will take probably longer than just driving down there...


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

i think if you look at old pictures most US cities in the beginning of the last century had street car systems but were all pretty much destroyed in the advent of freeways

I watched this show about freeways on discovery once and they had this ideal of what they were, freeways, and how they would become these great things which to an extent they did but they never factored in the growth of cars 

i think when subways etc could have been developed they used the money to make the freeways and interstates instead

plus i don't think many cities in the 1900's really had the populations to think of a subway - the period when most european cities and New York were or already had subways in place

most places seem to be putting in LRT now though


----------



## ajmstilt (Sep 10, 2006)

*US metro rail lengths*

I've tried to compile the lengths of US metro systems. I'm sure i've missed some, and if you find any of my numbers wrong let me know. These are all in km. I've excluded cummuter rail (altough the distinction gets tough sometimes)

New York.........368
Chicago...........173
DC..................170
San Francisco...152
Los Angeles......117
Boston.............101
San Diego.........82
Atlanta.............80
St. Louis...........73
Dallas...............72
Portland............70
Sacramento.......60
Baltimore...........45?
Pittsburgh..........40
Miami................36
Cleveland..........31?
Salt Lake City.....30
Denver..............25
M/SP................19
Houston............12

While it's clear New York is by far the biggest the differences between cities after that is less than i expected. (Chicago and DC is only 4km)

If anyone has expansion plans let me know too. I know for instance Dallas' will almost double in the next 10 years.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I think you should distinguish between full metro and light rail. You are treating all rail km as equal units. Street car and metros are two totally different beasts. For example, in your list, San Francisco is not that much bigger. However, I do not that Los Angeles is only slightly behind San Francisco in terms of route km as this table suggests, but actually rather far behind San Francisco. San Francisco has MUCH MUCH more km of full subway/metero than LA.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy (Aug 13, 2006)

yeah but LA is pouring tons of money into building light rail. Its cheaper to build than metro and and works almost the same way.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^Not exactly, light rail does not have the same capacity as HRT does. LRT can also be run in different modes as well.


----------



## officedweller (Mar 21, 2003)

Here's the info for the Canada Line in Vancouver. Doubt it includes the installation of track, etc.:

http://db.selitunnel.com/4Daction/seli_lavoridett?page=prj_master_lavoro&id=51&lingua=eng

_
*Project Overview*
Subcontract for the design and construction of 2,467 km of a twin tunnel of the Vancouver Metro to be bored by EPB TBM, excavation diameter 6,10 m. The works also include the construction of 9 cross-passages, three stations to be constructed in cut and cover, a pumping chamber and other auxiliary works (the TBM shaft, etc.).

Cost: € 100.000.000,00 (CAD $ 138.000.000,00)
Start Date: 01/2006
Completion Date: 10/2008

*Tunnel Excavation*
Technical specifications of the EPB TBM are: 
boring diameter 6,20 m 
cutters 41 x 17" 
max cutterhead thrust 37.066 kN 
cutterhead speed 0-3,2 rev/min 
cutterhead horse power 1200 kW 

*Tunnel lining *
Precast reinforced concrete segments (25 cm thickness) - type universal ring with seal gasket and tail mortar injection. 

*Geology*
Rock with medium resistance (sandstone and siltstone with boulders) and consolidated sandstone of glacial origin (bed rock). _

************

See the SELI website for other projects and costs:

http://db.selitunnel.com/4daction/seli_lavori?page=prj_master&tipo_lavoro=0&lingua=eng


----------



## Elsongs (Oct 18, 2006)

Alargule said:


> Yes, **** you too! If you're not interested, stay out of the discussion. Or are all of your 400+ posts of the same tendency? :|


Uhhh, excuse me, read my post again. It was meant as a joke. It's a PUN. Get it? "boring" = bore - as in tunnels? I put a freaking smiley for goodness sakes! Dork. 

Sigh...If you don't get it, you never will. Some people just lack a sense of humor.


----------



## Alargule (Feb 21, 2005)

Oh, that's called 'humor' all of a sudden now...:|


----------



## kub86 (Aug 13, 2004)

Hmm, I wanna know tunnelling costs too. But my question is a little weirder. How much does tunneling or building a metro cost per mile if you took out the land acquisition or utilities variable? I'm intrigued only because I found a website that suggested something like that and now I'm curious to see how much cheaper it could be. (I have an insatiable appetite for useless subway construction costs)

http://www.carfree.com/book/paxtrans.html

PS--I don't know how many stations NYC will have, but Seattle's 3.15 mile underground extension will only have 2. And that's $539 million per mile, mostly because the land's expensive, the terrain is weird, and we have to cross a body of water. But...since NYC's lexington line seems to have a stop every 10 blocks, and if there's a stop every 2100 feet (10 blocks) at 8.1 miles for 2nd ave, that's about 20 stops....just a really rough guess though! So per station, costs would be about $750m for Seattle; $800m for NYC.


----------



## officedweller (Mar 21, 2003)

The Vancouver example above would not include land acquisition and there would only be utilities relocation at the station sites for a bored tunnel.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

kub86 said:


> and we have to cross a body of water.


Dunno if you understand the significance of that or not, but depending on how big that body of water is, that will cause a MASSIVE increase in the costs of tunnelling. I was wondering why it seemed to be so high a cost per mile.


----------



## bustero (Dec 20, 2004)

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/los-angeles-lrt/index.html#los-angeles-lrt5

As per the site above, the extension of the LA gold line (6miles, 8 stations) to cost 898m$, with 1.8 miles and 2 stations underground, it will be bored with twin tunnels.

To compare, the 8.5 miles, 10 station exposition line costs 640M $, with a couple of elevated stations. 

Using a very rough comparison. Exposition line is 75M$ per mile. With the extra 2 stations to compensate for the elevation comparison.

Applying similar cost to the 4.2miles of the gold line that would be about 315m$. That would leave 583million $ for the 1.8 mile underground portion or 323 M$ per mile. These are not cut and cover hence more expensive. Plus they are twin bored so you basically tunnel twice.

I'm very sure without right of way considerations or costs, the difference of cut and cover and tunneling by boring is in the multiples, specially when the soil conditions start to be more complex (e.g. high water table, rock,etc)


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> Seattle is on the verge of building a 3.15 mile extension of the Central Link light rail system from Westlake to the University of Washington. The extension will add two stations to the light rail system. The tunnels will be entirely bored. The total cost is presently estimated to be $1.7 billion:
> 
> Seattle Central Link Univeristy Extension
> $1.7 billion / 3.15 miles = $540 million/mile
> ...


Unlike most subway lines built in Manhattan, the 2nd Ave subway won't be cut and cover... they're going to use 2 tunnel boreing(sp?) machines.


----------



## Amit (Apr 30, 2005)

$16 bn to build just 8 miles (13 km) subway in NYC?? That is $1,230 mn/km. That is unbelievably expensive!! The Seattle line works out to $330 mn/km.

In New Delhi (India), 65 km of metro/subway has been built so far at the cost of $2 bn.. $30 mn/km. 

In Mumbai, metro construction is begining for a 146 km network by 2021 at estimated cost of $5 bn.. $34 mn/km. 

The train cost is probably included. These are modern metro networks incorporating the latest technology. 

I understand that labor, land and other costs are much higher in US. But so much higher?? Maybe the NYC cost is all underground tuneling in prime time Manhattan, while the costs in India are for underground+above ground lines.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Amit said:


> $16 bn to build just 8 miles (13 km) subway in NYC?? That is $1,230 mn/km. That is unbelievably expensive!! The Seattle line works out to $330 mn/km.
> 
> In New Delhi (India), 65 km of metro/subway has been built so far at the cost of $2 bn.. $30 mn/km.
> 
> ...


Economic condtions, especially labour and land costs, can make a huge, colossal impact on the costs. This includes safety regulations and other legal framework elements, which are many and complicated in north america, with powerful unions. Even if the technology is new-age, the specifications for the design need only conform to the national standards, which may be lower than what the specificatons would be in north america. U.S.A's AIA's specifications tend to be among the strictest, the U.K.'s RBIA's specifications too. These outline the construction methods and standards and expressly prohibit shortcuts and other corner-cuttings to make things cheaper for the contractor. These may not be in place in the countries you mentioned being really cheap. These can really add up. The real costs though could be a system lacking in endurance or possibly even in safey, but not likely, just a shorter life span.


----------



## Damien (Apr 1, 2006)

bustero said:


> http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/los-angeles-lrt/index.html#los-angeles-lrt5
> 
> As per the site above, the extension of the LA gold line (6miles, 8 stations) to cost 898m$, with 1.8 miles and 2 stations underground, it will be bored with twin tunnels.
> 
> ...


Actually, Exposition is really only 7 more miles of tracks. It shares tracks with the Blue line in the downtown portion. And the tunneling for the Gold line came in at about $300 million - just the tunneling and station boxes - not including ventilation, escalators and all that jazz. So about $150-160 mil/mile.

Both projects have very costly portions, such as the elevated structure over the sunken freeway and 1st street bridge widening for the Gold, and a few overpasses and a short underground segment for the Expo.

And the benefit of bored tunnels as compared to cut-and-cover is utility relocation and other on-the-street disruptions. 

Some have suggested, that at least in Los Angeles, bored tunnels are cheaper than cut-and-cover. On streets like Wilshire - the most used boulevard in the county, likely, but on abandoned ROWs next to streets with low traffic like Expo, I wonder.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

On the topic of land acquisitions... do deep (say, 100+ foot belowground) tunnels still have to purchase ROW, or (in America, at least) would a landowner above have to prove to a court that the presence of a subway tunnel 100 feet below a parking lot or yard were causing actual harm worthy of being awarded payment for damages? 

If ROW for deep bored tunnels is basically "free" (aside from stations, airshafts, and other things that actually have to penetrate the surface and would definitely require surface ROW), that alone could represent a HUGE savings over the cost of a different method requiring land acquisition in an expensive area... I know that in Miami, even the land in a poor residential neighborhood costs about $15-25/sq. foot... and that's assuming it's already a vacant lot. Add in the value of any structure on the land and its demolition cost, and the price goes up by a factor of 10 or more.

On a related note, if a city wanted to bore a deep subway tunnel 100 feet below YOUR house, would it actually affect you in any meaningful way (besides maybe not being able to drill a deep well directly above it, or build a skyscraper with deep foundation there someday)? Or is it something that if nobody told you it was there, you'd never even realize it?


----------



## Damien (Apr 1, 2006)

Amit said:


> $16 bn to build just 8 miles (13 km) subway in NYC?? That is $1,230 mn/km. That is unbelievably expensive!! The Seattle line works out to $330 mn/km.
> 
> In New Delhi (India), 65 km of metro/subway has been built so far at the cost of $2 bn.. $30 mn/km.
> 
> ...


As I understand in Manhattan a lot of the cost is real estate acquisition.


----------



## Damien (Apr 1, 2006)

miamicanes said:


> On the topic of land acquisitions... do deep (say, 100+ foot belowground) tunnels still have to purchase ROW, or (in America, at least) would a landowner above have to prove to a court that the presence of a subway tunnel 100 feet below a parking lot or yard were causing actual harm worthy of being awarded payment for damages?
> 
> If ROW for deep bored tunnels is basically "free" (aside from stations, airshafts, and other things that actually have to penetrate the surface and would definitely require surface ROW), that alone could represent a HUGE savings over the cost of a different method requiring land acquisition in an expensive area... I know that in Miami, even the land in a poor residential neighborhood costs about $15-25/sq. foot... and that's assuming it's already a vacant lot. Add in the value of any structure on the land and its demolition cost, and the price goes up by a factor of 10 or more.
> 
> On a related note, if a city wanted to bore a deep subway tunnel 100 feet below YOUR house, would it actually affect you in any meaningful way (besides maybe not being able to drill a deep well directly above it, or build a skyscraper with deep foundation there someday)? Or is it something that if nobody told you it was there, you'd never even realize it?


Not sure. But I guess that's why its wise to tunnel under publically owned property: streets.


----------



## officedweller (Mar 21, 2003)

In Canada - yes - ownership of real property gives you title to the area above and below the property.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Real estate values make a huge amount of difference in transit construction, subway, surface, or aerial. That’s why it’s so expensive to expand rail in cities like NYC, LA, the Bay Area, & Boston where the real estate costs are so high. SF is considering building a light rail subway extension of less than 2 miles for $1.4 billion! Seattle’s pretty expensive also. Interesting, had Seattle gone with the late 1960s proposal it would have had a complete regional rapid transit system for about a billion bucks in total. Good though to see Seattle finally moving forward on this line. The biggest advantages of boring tunnel over cut & cover are mostly reduced disruption, costs for either very depending on conditions.


----------



## kub86 (Aug 13, 2004)

bayviews said:


> Real estate values make a huge amount of difference in transit construction, subway, surface, or aerial. That’s why it’s so expensive to expand rail in cities like NYC, LA, the Bay Area, & Boston where the real estate costs are so high. SF is considering building a light rail subway extension of less than 2 miles for $1.4 billion! Seattle’s pretty expensive also. Interesting, had Seattle gone with the late 1960s proposal it would have had a complete regional rapid transit system for about a billion bucks in total. Good though to see Seattle finally moving forward on this line. The biggest advantages of boring tunnel over cut & cover are mostly reduced disruption, costs for either very depending on conditions.


(Not to get off topic....) But I'm curious about Seattle's 1960s proposal. Do you (or anybody) know where I can get more info? Like proposed routes and such? And why it was defeated?


----------



## Mandelbrot (Aug 5, 2005)

The cut & cover technique is not used in Australia, 100% of tunnels are bored so to speak. Can I ask what the advantages of one over the other? Traffic disruption would be a nightmare wouldn't it?


----------



## officedweller (Mar 21, 2003)

Cut and Cover is supposed to be cheaper. Things I've heard wrt Vancouver's line relate primarily to the depth of the line:
- cut and cover results in stations close to the surface which are more easily accessible and cheaper to construct.
- there's more predictability in the type of rock/soil conditions that you will hit.
- removal of spoil is easier.
However, bored tunnels allow more manipulation of the grades (level sections for station placement).
WRT traffic, it depends on the route where it is being built. If the route doesn't trace a major roadway or right-of-way, or building above can't be demolished, then cut and cover wouldn't be feasible.


----------



## p5archit (Feb 25, 2003)

It still blows me away when I read that the cost to build 1 Km. of subway here in Toronto is no longer $100 million, but is now $240 million- according to the TTC (Toronto Transit Commision)?

How it is even $100 million is beyond me, let alone $240 million?? Unless labour costs are so extremely high, property values exceedingly expensive and densities also very high, I still can't seem to understand why it would cost so much?

Madrid built 1 Km. for less than 90 million EUR. including their stations, and that is a much denser city than most NA cities..let alone Toronto (quite dense, but no quite Madrid..)

So what gives..Where do the extreme cost arise to make subway building so damned expensive that all politicians are afraid to touch it with a ten foot pole? 

........frustrated and annoyed that Toronto does not have the foresight...

pfive


----------



## dl3000 (Aug 7, 2004)

What defines heavy rail typically is the rolling stock, and probably 99% of the time, total grade separation.


----------



## hix (Jun 11, 2006)

In my opinion the BART is not a metro system of San Fransisco but a regional railway. It is not really used by SF-people to move around in the city. I think it's more like the RER in Paris or the German S-Bahn. 
I have used the Bart during a holiday in SF and I think it's a great system. I just don't see it as a metropolitan railway. It's connecting cities and suburbs. This makes it commuter rail.


----------



## Trainman Dave (Mar 30, 2007)

^^ ^^ 
These last few post's have demonstrated that that there are locally strong differentiators between, "Commuter rail systems", "Metro systems" and "Light Rail Transit systems".

When I studied an urban area, I evaluate all these categories and also, "heritage systems" and bus transit systems. Unfortunatey the various wikipedia entries are not consistent at identifying all the transit types in the urban areas in the US and it is almost ten years since trains magasine did an update on metroplitan transit systems. Wikipedia may only be five years out of date. 

We need a new review of urban transit systems in the US


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hix said:


> In my opinion the BART is not a metro system of San Fransisco but a regional railway. It is not really used by SF-people to move around in the city. I think it's more like the RER in Paris or the German S-Bahn.
> I have used the Bart during a holiday in SF and I think it's a great system. I just don't see it as a metropolitan railway. It's connecting cities and suburbs. This makes it commuter rail.


SF itself is such as small city but The Bay Area is one big metro area and it not just includes SF but Oakland, Berkeley, etc. The BART more functions as a *metro* than commuter rail. But it serves both SF and it's neighbouring cities.

In fact the BART is considered by many as the most modern metro system in THE US.

The Caltrain on the other hand is considered commuter/suburban railway.


----------



## hix (Jun 11, 2006)

WANCH said:


> SF itself is such as small city but The Bay Area is one big metro area and it not just includes SF but Oakland, Berkeley, etc. The BART more functions as a *metro* than commuter rail. But it serves both SF and it's neighbouring cities.
> 
> In fact the BART is considered by many as the most modern metro system in THE US.
> 
> The Caltrain on the other hand is considered commuter/suburban railway.


I have taken both Caltrain and Bart and I have also cycled around in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Sausolito.
The fact that the BART is very modern doesn't proof it's a metro system. It only proofs it's a very modern suburbian commuter-rail. The Caltrain on the other hand is a very oldfashioned trainsystem, witch I liked very much, in the same way I like Historical (steam) railroads.
BART was build only to serve the population in a very wide region around the Bay Area. Only 12 km from the total of 152 is in SF-city. It is not a SF-metropolitan railroad. Sorry, dude!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hix said:


> I have taken both Caltrain and Bart and I have also cycled around in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Sausolito.
> The fact that the BART is very modern doesn't proof it's a metro system. It only proofs it's a very modern suburbian commuter-rail. The Caltrain on the other hand is a very oldfashioned trainsystem, witch I liked very much, in the same way I like Historical (steam) railroads.
> BART was build only to serve the population in a very wide region around the Bay Area. Only 12 km from the total of 152 is in SF-city. It is not a SF-metropolitan railroad. Sorry, dude!


It is debatable if the BART would be classified as commuter or metro. But to many San Franciscans, they look at it as metro.


----------



## Chalaco (Aug 29, 2004)

The trains look outdated and I feel bad for anyone who has to ride those....


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Chalaco said:


> The trains look outdated and I feel bad for anyone who has to ride those....


Which trains are you talking about? There are several here.


----------



## Chalaco (Aug 29, 2004)

^^

From what the pictures show: All of them. I think the U.S. has nicer looking light rail..like the one in Sacramento.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Chalaco said:


> ^^
> 
> From what the pictures show: All of them. I think the U.S. has nicer looking light rail..like the one in Sacramento.


True with the lightrail part. The only solution here is to refurbish the older trains especially the ones in Philadelphia or Boston


----------



## Elsongs (Oct 18, 2006)

hix said:


> I have taken both Caltrain and Bart and I have also cycled around in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Sausolito.
> The fact that the BART is very modern doesn't proof it's a metro system. It only proofs it's a very modern suburbian commuter-rail. The Caltrain on the other hand is a very oldfashioned trainsystem, witch I liked very much, in the same way I like Historical (steam) railroads.
> BART was build only to serve the population in a very wide region around the Bay Area. Only 12 km from the total of 152 is in SF-city. It is not a SF-metropolitan railroad. Sorry, dude!


Sorry dude, BART serves the Bay Area *Metro*politan area. It is considered a Metro by the agency that operates it and by the people that use it. You can't argue with those facts, especially someone who doesn't even live there.

CalTrain and the ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) are commuter rail. Yes they are primitive by European standards, but they fit the American model of commuter railways, which run on standard railroad tracks and are governed by federal railroad regulations.

You fail to understand that in the USA, or even in North America, there is no such thing as a regional rail system in the mold of Paris' RER or a German S-Bahn. Only light rail, heavy rail and commuter rail.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Chalaco said:


> ^^
> 
> From what the pictures show: All of them. I think the U.S. has nicer looking light rail..like the one in Sacramento.


Then there are the ones in San Jose:


----------



## hix (Jun 11, 2006)

Elsongs said:


> You can't argue with those facts, especially someone who doesn't even live there.


That's riduculous!Only people who live in SF can have an opinion about BART?:lol:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hix said:


> That's riduculous!Only people who live in SF can have an opinion about BART?:lol:


Not just SF but how about those living across the bay like in Oakland or Berkeley?


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

The Bay Area is really lucky to have BART, which was started in the late 1960s & completed in the early ‘70s, for a total of just about $2 billion. Some of the most recent BART extensions, specifically the one to SFO, the airport, opened a few years ago, have cost nearly as much as the whole original system. 

And LA & Seattle, by contrast, waited decades to approve regional metros & now have to pay many, many times the price of BART for much more limited rail systems, even when adjusted for current dollars. 

One of the biggest drawbacks of BART has been the service reliability. The system has been extended without adding sufficient numbers of additional cars. Also the fact that most of the lines converge through Oakland & the Transbay tube creates delays. If there’s a disruption on one line, the entire system often becomes become backed up. 

And while the two areas are roughly similar in population, no doubt BART's certainly a notch or two below Hong Kong's more recent & extensive mass transit railway!


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy (Aug 13, 2006)

the bart is ok, my big issue is how few doors there are on the trains. i mean i understand they wanted these streamlined cool trains, but seriously....

DOORS ARE KINDA NEEDED ON A METRO.

ok my rant is over. And miami needs a serious expansion into hileah and some of the poorer areas (stereotyping i know) cuz right now, the metrorail is empty.


----------



## icracked (Feb 15, 2007)

I like the bart train and the system, it gets me where I need to go and its price extremely affordably. The trains itself isn't too bad either, the only thing I could say I dislike about the bart art the morning delays that happens weekly.


----------



## dj54557 (Jan 11, 2007)

Those are some fugly trains


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> the bart is ok, my big issue is how few doors there are on the trains. i mean i understand they wanted these streamlined cool trains, but seriously....
> 
> DOORS ARE KINDA NEEDED ON A METRO.


Good point. BART was designed over 40 years ago. It was enginneered as a suburban commuter-rail style heavy rail system, with stations widely spaced, and commuter rail type seats. They assumed that all the passengers would be seated. And so just 2 pairs of doors on each car. Of course they were wrong. In reality, during rush hours, their are many standees.


----------



## Trainman Dave (Mar 30, 2007)

I seem to remember that funding has been approved for new trains on BART. Is this true?


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Trainman Dave said:


> I seem to remember that funding has been approved for new trains on BART. Is this true?


Well, I heard a few days ago that BART has proposed a maximum 15 minute headway on all lines. Presently, during some times of the day the headways on some lines can be as long as 20 or 25 minutes. I'm guessing they would get the additional cars by shortening some of the trains rather than adding more cars. The ridership on the SFO extension finally seems to have picked up, so that would get more service. But the implementation won't happen until the beginning of 2008.


----------



## Bobdreamz (Sep 12, 2002)

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> ok my rant is over. And miami needs a serious expansion into hileah and some of the poorer areas (stereotyping i know) cuz right now, the metrorail is empty.


Metrorail already goes to Hialeah and the trains are not empty, in fact they are packed at rush hours. Besides there are plans for expansions we just are awaiting federal funding. If you don't live here when was the last time you were in Miami?


----------



## klamedia (Nov 21, 2005)

Really the only rail totals worth mentioning in the US is NYC.....BART is so overrated!
Rail totals-excluding commuter rail:
NYC-6228
Then we drop way down
DC-902.2
Boston-#'s weren't published this quarter but usually goes here.
Chicago-628.8
SF-481.9
Phili-317.5
Atlanta-253.3
LA-246
(average daily unlinked trips according to the APTA 4th quarter 2006)

Overall agency totals *including bus and metrorail *but *excluding *commuter:
NYC-8642.4
Chicago-1608
LA-1549.4(not counting the plethora of interagency busses)
DC-1344.2
Boston-usually here but didn't report
Phili-894.6
SF-765.6


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy (Aug 13, 2006)

im back and forth between miami and LA, but i guess im not riding at rush hour

im used to la's 3-7 evening rush hour


----------



## milwaukee-københavn (Jun 21, 2006)

*Questions regarding alternative fuel transit buses in U.S.*

Does anyone know where I could find information comparing the emissions, operational costs, and, most importantly, the exterior/interior noise levels of alternative fuel buses available in the United States? 

Does anyone know if Biodiesel has any effect on the noise produced by the bus? What about hybrid engines? CNG? Fuel cell buses? 

I have been searching online for some time without much luck. Noise level is not generally considered a very important characteristic to focus on for transit buses in the United States. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Metro Transit, the bus agency for King County, Washington, (includes Seattle) is buying 500 new buses as part of the recent "transit now" improvement package. Most will be articulated hybrids. 

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2007/0516bus.aspx
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/

Quiet is an issue transit agencies don't seem to care about. I'm flabbergasted about this. The general engine noise isn't the main problem. It's the beeping noises. Some buses hydraulically lower themselves a few inches at every stop, and in the US this means they need extremely loud warning beepers every time they do this. Imagine living next to a bus stop where an "alarm clock" goes off every time a bus comes. This is very discouraging for people who want to live in dense communities. Wheelchair lifts also make the same beeps. I'm ok with the concept of beepers, but they don't need to wake the dead 100 feet away.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

why do they have to beep?


----------



## milwaukee-københavn (Jun 21, 2006)

I think it is a safetey thing but I am not sure. The United States has wierd safetey regulations when it comes to buses and trains. Not cars, though.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

milwaukee-københavn said:


> I think it is a safetey thing but I am not sure. The United States has wierd safetey regulations when it comes to buses and trains. Not cars, though.


Ours have to beep too,when they reversing, or closing the door. But for lowering the bus...are they afraid of someone might step "under" the bus?


----------



## icracked (Feb 15, 2007)

mhays said:


> Metro Transit, the bus agency for King County, Washington, (includes Seattle) is buying 500 new buses as part of the recent "transit now" improvement package. Most will be articulated hybrids.
> 
> http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2007/0516bus.aspx
> http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/
> ...


^^ Honolulu's GM/New Flyer/Gillig hybrid buses can run virtually silent and of course, not going over 20-30 MPH. Quit generalizing about the U.S., the United States is a massive country unlike those tiny-small-dot like European nations. Buses wildly differ from city to city, state to state.


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

icracked said:


> ^^ Honolulu's GM/New Flyer/Gillig hybrid buses can run virtually silent and of course, not going over 20-30 MPH. Quit generalizing about the U.S., the United States is a massive country unlike those tiny-small-dot like European nations. Buses wildly differ from city to city, state to state.


hno: European cities and other cities around the world have more variety of bus models and body types even within just one city. US on the other hand, transit buses across the country are made by a few manufactures including New Flyer, Gillig and GM (who is phasing out.) Even there are different length, articulated or not, but the buses come from the same manufacture all looks alike. US has a lot less variety on buses models and body types.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

EricIsHim said:


> hno: European cities and other cities around the world have more variety of bus models and body types even within just one city. US on the other hand, transit buses across the country are made by a few manufactures including New Flyer, Gillig and GM (who is phasing out.) Even there are different length, articulated or not, but the buses come from the same manufacture all looks alike. US has a lot less variety on buses models and body types.


Yep. just a few manufacturers: Mercedes,Renault,Skoda,ikarus,Volvo.
they make single,articulated,double articulated,trolley,articulated trolley,coach,military,police buses. Ikarus alone had in its history(100 years) like 10 distinctly different types,half of them still running.


----------



## milwaukee-københavn (Jun 21, 2006)

Scania, Setra, MAN, VanHool, Irisbus... Then there's the British companies.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

But on topic, the only spot on biofuel consumption,that it makes the city smell like french fries. And a bit more is consumed.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy (Aug 13, 2006)

wait, are they really having deisel hybrids. Thats a total waste, the energy it takes to start a diesel engine is more than you save by hybriding it, and if your running gasoline then its even worse the diesel. the only fuel a hybrid bus would even make sense to use is natural gas. and even then it dosent make much sense


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

*the united states is going mass transit and big time*

yes finally as i notice in alot of cities its starting to take advantage of public tranpsortation and big time they are

Portland is getting better now with public transport and that

alanita is growing with expansions of their rail system and purpose a muiltimodel facilty

Charollete is getting a light rail system and will expand on it

miami has a metrorail system and it will expanded big in the future and its planned

as i notice too alot of cities are driving towards mass transit which is good and well i am hoping that the united states gets a nation wide high speed rail and fixes its rail and road infrustruce

anyways i know that its going to this and well its a good thing any opinions


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

they say thats its been jumping since 50 years ago and that stuffs so thats good and it should contiune to grow since airports are getting congested and so is highways then yeah public transport is the awsner i think?


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

I agree that the US is _starting_ to realize the potential of transit...merely because of the environmental buzz going around lately I think.

However, if you look at the numbers, nationally transit account for something like 2% of commuting trips. That is garbage. In NYC, the best transit (at least most used) in the US has 'only' 54% mode share. I still think the US is very auto-centric and will stay that way.

With the way most cities are arranged, and with suburban sprawl transit is almost useless unless a better land use design is used. No longer does transit take you to a central location, where transit is most effective. Now that there are multiple suburban centers of business, how do you plan transit?


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

well alot of cities have been planning rail transit and been building them since 30 years

look at los angeles they dicommished the light rail line to the long beach in the 1960's but then in the 1990's rail transport came back with the blue line and then the red line and so on so it grew and its still growing which is good and will grow the network as big as New York

i am pretty sure that the united states is joining the rest of the globe that transit is good


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

^^ We'll see, I am not convinced though. Just because they build it doesn't mean people will use it. Denver and Dallas come to mind with success stories of their light rail projects. 60,400 and 58,200 weekday riders respectively for each. How many people does the Dallas region have? 1.5 million? That means under 4% of weekday work trips are made by their light rail. This is hardly the direction Europe is taking, or Asian cities. Sure light rail is coming back, but how successful can they be when cities have already sprawled out beyond the means of effective transit?


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

That's where the problem is.. 

In North America BRT systems have a notorious reputation for having a lack of "permanence" in their construction... and this is directly related to the exclusive use of shelters as "stations" in North America. 

A shelter isn't exactly screaming permanent to anyone, and in places that get winter or even heavy rains an open shelter is an insult to rider comfort (LRT or BRT).

Without fixed rail BRT must rely more heavily on fixed features like stations for permanence. 

Designers of the most successful BRT systems don't aim to provide basic LRT services albeit with articulated buses, they aim to provide exceptional rail quality service but with articulated busses. That means real proper stations. With all other things equal (artculated buses, multi-door level boarding), the systems that are providing high quality enclosed stations, are consistently succcessful than those without.

Until BRT (heck even LRT designers - no one likes to be stuck out in the wind or weather) designers in North America figure this out they won't be maximizing their potential, and cities will be left with lacklustre systems.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)




----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

tampasteve said:


> But many LRT stations in the US are open air too. I have been on the Charlotte Blue line (perhaps the newest open system) LRT line and stations are all open air, with the exception of one (I believe). Most of their stops might have a roof (at least over the waiting area), but that is the same for good BRT systems. Most of the BRT lines listed above have nice stops that would be very comparable to most LRT stops, the main difference is the curb rather than the rail.
> 
> Newark LRT station:
> 
> ...


That Houston tram is fucking HOT.


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

adrimm said:


> Designers of the most successful BRT systems don't aim to provide basic LRT services albeit with articulated buses, they aim to provide exceptional rail quality service but with articulated busses. That means real proper stations. With all other things equal (artculated buses, multi-door level boarding), the systems that are providing high quality enclosed stations, are consistently succcessful than those without.
> 
> Until BRT (heck even LRT designers - no one likes to be stuck out in the wind or weather) designers in North America figure this out they won't be maximizing their potential, and cities will be left with lacklustre systems.


Exactly, but when one starts to build such amenities into bus service in the US the price tag jumps to near LRT levels, when we are talking about separated ROW along with the stations. Perception of bus transit, no matter how it is done, will never be as high or popular as a train - in the US. When planners start to plan a system they have to make things equal and as cheap in up-front price as possible, so open stations win out for LRT and BRT pricing, but rail is always more permanent than bus, in perception anyway. Then they have to see which would pass a likely vote on a transit tax, and LRT wins hands down over a bus route (at least in many/most cases).

Recently I rode the Blue line in Charlotte, there were at least 10 families on the train on a Sunday morning. The conductor asked if there was a family event happening DT, the families replied "no, we just wanted to take the kids on a ride on the train" another group said "I take the train to work and wanted the kids to have the same experience." Those comments would never happen from a new bus route, even a nice BRT one.

Again though, if a BRT system is built properly, even with open stations, I have no problem with them. I would kill for a nice BRT system in Tampa. We are planning two routes now, but they are really just enhanced regular bus service (IE, decent stops, articulated bus, GPS locater with time to arrival, except they are now separated ROW).

Steve


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

city_thing said:


> That Houston tram is fucking HOT.


Yeah, the new LRT train sets look pretty cool. The Siemens sets they have on the Blue line in Charlotte look very similar, they are great too, very smooth, roomy, sturdy feeling...just awesome!

Steve


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

city_thing said:


> That Houston tram is fucking HOT.


The Houston tram may look hot but Houston city looks dead - where all the people? Do they all scurry around in those underground passageways that I've read about, never venturing onto surface?


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

Jean Luc said:


> The Houston tram may look hot but Houston city looks dead - where all the people? Do they all scurry around in those underground passageways that I've read about, never venturing onto surface?


I do not know what time that picture was taken (it is not mine) but I have seen other pictures and the stations are VERY crowded, along with the DT area. Time of day, day of the week and location all play very important roles in judging the success of a system by pictures. 

The Houston system is only 7.5 miles right now but has an average boarding of 45,000 a day. They did not expect to reach that number until 2020. The Houston system is the most successful LRT line in the USA when adjusting for boardings compared to length of the line.

Steve


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Exactly, but when one starts to build such amenities into bus service in the US the price tag jumps to near LRT levels, when we are talking about separated ROW along with the stations. 

Steve[/QUOTE]
For a regional system with 1 station every mile or km apart, even proper stations (not yet seen in the US), will still cost way less than rails per mile or km, it can be created a heckuva lot faster.... and you forget can still be phase one of a multi-decade LRT plan. Better to buy the ROW sooner than later. 



tampasteve said:


> Perception of bus transit, no matter how it is done, will never be as high or popular as a train - in the US.
> Steve


Having seen how popular the BRT systems with real stations are, I think I am willing to wait and see what happen once/if people in the US actually see real stations before pre-deciding how they might react. I spent my university days riding the local "BRT", and what I experienced abroad felt far closer the local elevated rail line than the so-called BRT we had. 

It doesn't have to be a competition, it should be part of an integrated strategy to achieve the highest quality transportation system possible.


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

adrimm said:


> For a regional system with 1 station every mile or km apart, even proper stations (not yet seen in the US), will still cost way less than rails per mile or km, it can be created a heckuva lot faster.... and you forget can still be phase one of a multi-decade LRT plan. Better to buy the ROW sooner than later.


True, but in the USA stations are generally closer than 1 mile, at least in the core areas. When you start getting into the suburbs the stations tend to be 1 mile or more apart, but that is a whole different animal than a DT or core system, or even what most BRT/LRT lines are. Commuter rail lines have stations further apart like suburban LRT, but BRT is generally designated in core areas where stations are much closer to each other.



> It doesn't have to be a competition, it should be part of an integrated strategy to achieve the highest quality transportation system possible.


That is a GREAT point.:banana: Except, when transit modes and advocates are arguing for transit dollars level headed thoughts like that often get lost in the fray.

Steve


----------



## Jayayess1190 (Feb 6, 2005)

tampasteve said:


> Newark LRT station:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is actually Baltimore.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

tampasteve said:


> True, but in the USA stations are generally closer than 1 mile, at least in the core areas. When you start getting into the suburbs the stations tend to be 1 mile or more apart, but that is a whole different animal than a DT or core system, or even what most BRT/LRT lines are. Commuter rail lines have stations further apart like suburban LRT, but BRT is generally designated in core areas where stations are much closer to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahhhh that's where my perspective is different. The systems I am accustomed to have stops about 1 km apart and are commuter systems for those going from the suburbs into downtowns or clear across town.. and the BRT rows are built on existing roadway (no additional cost involved). 

Riders typically transfer for more local service once they arrive at a stop, and btw, I think that trams are infinitely more suitable for local downtown service.

I think that each proper station might cost $1- $1.5 million more per km (roof, turnstiles, glass walls and swank sliding doors). Toss in free parking at the local park'n'ride in the 'burbs.


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

Sure, but 1k is only about .62 of a mile, so a system with stations 1k apart has many more stations closer together than a system with stations 1 mile apart....but in the end I think we are saying basically the same thing. 

I do believe your costing would be off though. To build propper stations like you mentioned would probobly be more in the $3-$4 million more per mile than just regular stations with a decent shelter. But I am not trying to split hairs, I think that if stations were built like you are saying ridership would be up a lot. It would be great to have a system like that, but it is just not practical with the way that transit gets implemented in the USA, cost is always a HUGE factor, not just ridership predictions, and then everyone that is involved at all knows that in the end the project is almost always over budget anyway. Most people cannot see the benefit of investing now for returns in the near future, but that goes for more things than transit!

.....BTW, are you from the USA, I would guess no since you list lengths in K instead of miles....it does not matter though, a good idea is a good idea, and your is one! 

Steve


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

In many instances, the term Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is used to describe systems that differ little from regular bus service. In some instances, the only differences are nicer shelters at the bus stops and fancy graphics on the buses. The term BRT should be reserved for systems that have the following features to help speed service:

- Off-vehicle fare payment.
- Traffic signal priority.
- Exclusive or restrictive use (car pool or right turn only) transit lanes.
- Headways of fifteen minutes or less.

The concept of BRT had a big boost from the success of the Orange Line in Los Angeles, which has all the features that BRT should have. The following are some images from the LACMTA Orange Line website < http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/orangeline/images/ol_interactive.htm >:























































A lot has been written about the relative cost and performance of the BRT Orange Line compared to the nearby light rail Gold Line. The following are some numbers from LACMTA's website < http://www.metro.net/news_info/facts.htm >:

Opening Date
Orange Line BRT: October 29, 2005
Gold Line LRT: July 26, 2003

Route Length
Orange Line BRT: 14 miles
Gold Line LRT: 13.7 miles

Stations
Orange Line BRT: 13
Gold Line LRT: 13

Average Weekday Ridership
Orange Line BRT: 25,618
Gold Line LRT: 19,579

Cost of System
Orange Line BRT: $330 million
Gold Line LRT: $859 million

FY 2008 Operations Budget
Orange Line BRT: $21 million
Gold Line LRT: $42 million

Another measure of the success of the Orange Line is the amount of vituperative that the organization Light Rail Now has directed against it < http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm >. The Light Rail Now pictorial raises some legitimate issues but the claim that the Orange Line is underperforming in terms of ridership is preposterous. The Orange Line outperforms the Gold Line in part because it offers more frequent service. The Orange Line buses must operate more frequently in order to provide capacity similar to the multi-car light rail trains of the Gold Line.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

tampasteve said:


> But I am not trying to split hairs, I think that if stations were built like you are saying ridership would be up a lot. It would be great to have a system like that, but it is just not practical with the way that transit gets implemented in the USA, cost is always a HUGE factor, not just ridership predictions, and then everyone that is involved at all knows that in the end the project is almost always over budget anyway. Most people cannot see the benefit of investing now for returns in the near future, but that goes for more things than transit!
> 
> .....BTW, are you from the USA, I would guess no since you list lengths in K instead of miles....it does not matter though, a good idea is a good idea, and your is one!
> 
> Steve



Canadian. We speak either metric or imperial, depending on the topic. :nuts:

-Temperatures and distances tend to be celcius and kms
-Lumber, personal weight & height tend to be in inches, feet and pounds


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

*Another high quality station*

More high quality stations.

- Maybe a little overkill, but again gives strong impressions as to the permanence of the system and great consideration of the riders when weather goes sour.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> In many instances, the term Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is used to describe systems that differ little from regular bus service. In some instances, the only differences are nicer shelters at the bus stops and fancy graphics on the buses. The term BRT should be reserved for systems that have the following features to help speed service:
> 
> - Off-vehicle fare payment.
> - Traffic signal priority.
> ...







Great info Greg_Christine.. I think that the point about the frequency is especially important. 

I'm also really hoping that eventually some of the north American BRT projects will take from hints from abroad and start providing enclosed stations. They really make a difference in the rider experience, especially on these cool, wet or snowy days of winter.


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

Wow that's interesting.... Vancouver's B-Line system is no where as "luxurious" nor does it have the Orange Line's features such as off-vehicle fare payment. And our B-Lines don't even have traffic priority systems (except for the 98 B-Line which doesn't work anymore), but we have much higher ridership:

98 B-Line: 40 000 passengers/day
99 B-Line: 60 000 passengers/day

We need Orange BRT style in our B-Line system NOW!


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

deasine said:


> 98 B-Line: 40 000 passengers/day
> 99 B-Line: 60 000 passengers/day
> 
> We need Orange BRT style in our B-Line system NOW!


Deasine, as far as I am concerned the B-Line is *not* BRT, that's how lacking it is. As a former UBC student I am disgusted that Translink and BC Transit even dare to call an express bus a BRT becuase it sometimes has it's own lane. Little wonder people are sour on the idea.

There are BRT systems that provide 100,000 trips a day in cities of 500,000 and they have *stations*, where you don't get wet, or windswept, and where you go through a turnstile entering the station to pay.

British Columbians needs a full BRT system, *beyond* the Orangeline, one like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA4IR7PvO6I

Something that can provide frequent, comfortable service with a touch of wow, and that in the future can be transferable to rail upgrades.


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

it is interesting, and worthwhile, to note that the Orange line came about as BRT rather than rail because people were trying to make it a subway extension rather than LRT.....so they got BRT as there was some rule made (I cannot remember the details) that said they could not build above ground rail transit in the cooridore....


STeve


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

adrimm said:


> Deasine, as far as I am concerned the B-Line is *not* BRT, that's how lacking it is. As a former UBC student I am disgusted that Translink and BC Transit even dare to call an express bus a BRT becuase it sometimes has it's own lane. Little wonder people are sour on the idea.
> 
> There are BRT systems that provide 100,000 trips a day in cities of 500,000 and they have *stations*, where you don't get wet, or windswept, and where you go through a turnstile entering the station to pay.
> 
> ...


It's a BRT system in Vancouver (ahem I should say TransLink). I would say B-Lines are more like a nice long express bus. 

The province does have plans for RapidBus for many cities including Vancouver, Victoria, and Kelowna, which supposedly include "bus stations." But that's still not very clear - more of plan up in the air...

But I agree with you... our BRT is not BRT internationally.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

I already know where this thread is going, so I'm gonna say my .02 cents, grab some popcorn, and watch the fallout.

First of all, I think many transit enthusiasts need to stop romanticizing the olden days of transit and wake up to reality. In the 21st century, we all live fast paced lives and want to get to our destinations as quickly as possible. While trams are nice for short trips through an urban area, their speed is not enough to meet the needs of most people. While it is easy to say that people should live downtown, it isn't realistic to expect several million people living between the outer sprawl and inner suburbs to pack up their things and move into an area that is only a few square miles big. A full LRT is in a different league from trams, using railway crossings, railway rail, and spaced out stations to essentially create an above ground subway. However, many people aren't too thrilled with having a speeding train run down their street, splitting it in two. This is why grooved tram rail gets used through dense areas, and a significant reason why these vehicles travel so slow through them.

BRT allows for excellent speed through urban areas while being somewhat pedestrian friendly. Sure you'll have to look both ways for speeding buses, but it is surely better than having to walk half a block to cross the train tracks to get to the other side of the street. I think a lot of people have very ignorant views on buses, and this needs to change. Buses are fantastic forms of public transit, and there is no form of transit that is as flexible or reliable. People who will avoid buses but hop on a tram are no better than those who will avoid Wal Mart but goto Target instead.

Now, obviously BRT does have capacity limits. As stated earlier, it would be insane to try and carry the traffic on New York's subway line on buses. It wouldn't work. But at the same time too, building subways and tunneling is also become an unrealistic solution to our urban transit woes. In fact, it is estimated that the new NYC subway line will cost $1 billion per kilometer!!! It is already hard enough to get politicians to fund transit when so much of their voting base drives, imagine trying to get through a project like that...

This is why I can see monorails replacing subways as HRT in the next century. Monorails can be built to subway capacities and speeds, and are much cheaper to install than subways. Unfortunately, like buses, they are plagued with a false image and too become the victim of prejudice.

I think it is time for transit enthusiasts to stop living in the early 20th century, and start trying to push for transit that will meet people's long term needs and are affordable investments. BRT and monorails accomplish these goals. LRT and subways, while once smart investments, ultimately need to retire and accept their place in history.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

greg_christine said:


> Another measure of the success of the Orange Line is the amount of vituperative that the organization Light Rail Now has directed against it < http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm >. The Light Rail Now pictorial raises some legitimate issues but the claim that the Orange Line is underperforming in terms of ridership is preposterous. The Orange Line outperforms the Gold Line in part because it offers more frequent service. The Orange Line buses must operate more frequently in order to provide capacity similar to the multi-car light rail trains of the Gold Line.


LRN claims that _if_ the Orange line was a LRT, it would _probably_ outperform the Gold line more so since rail has more _appeal_.

What LRN forgets to mention is that the Gold line goes right into downtown, while the Orange line is more of a cheap extension line to the Red metro line, requiring a 'needless transfer' to continue one's journey. What this means is that many who drive may choose to simply drive to the Red line, rather than take the Orange line. It also means that BRT can be just as _appealing_ to commuters as LRT, and that people care more about how efficient a transit mode is over what vehicle is used.

With that said, I do believe the Orange line would have been a good candidate for LRT, simply because it runs most of its route in its own private corridor - an area where LRT does excel in. IMO BRT works best with exclusive lanes through the middle of roadways along major streets.

EDIT: However, even though the Orange line would have been a good candidate for a LRT, one of the benefits of it being a BRT is that it acts as an accurate model in North America of how a BRT should be run, and how efficient it can be.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

There is an excellent video by streetfilms on BRT:

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

^^ Fantastic


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Thank you for posting a link to the video. 1.3 million passengers per day! It is hard to believe until you see it in action.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

You're welcome  

Streetfilms has some wonderful short documentaries, but I think that this is one of the first that they have done overseas.

The Bogota system is amazing. I was there just a few months ago - it's really puts BRT potential into perspective and must be seen to be believed. I hope to go back in a few years and visit the smaller cities and see how it works there. 1.3 rides out of a population of 7million or so is good, but 100,000 in a population of 500,000 really intrigues me.


----------



## jamesinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

adrimm said:


> That's just it - in my mind open air curbside stops don't qualify as "stations".
> 
> You tell a member of the public "station" and they want a *station*, not a glorified bus shelter with ticket dispenser and a sign on it that says "station".


Have a look at the nations most used light rail system, with people waiting for a train










A glorified bus shelter would be better. It would provide....shelter. This light rail stop is a strip of concrete painted yellow to indicate a stop on the ROW.


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't even see the yellow strip of concrete -_-"

Yes that stop needs shelter...


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

deasine said:


> I don't even see the yellow strip of concrete -_-"
> 
> Yes that stop needs shelter...
> 
> ...



Ugh It needs a *station*. How's a simple shelter going to stop the howling snow-filled wind from pummelling innocent transit users? No matter how cushy the train or bus is, I'd think twice if I had to wait in conditions like that photo.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Heeere we go:

From streetsblog.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*MISC | Americans Using Mass Transit Hits 50-Year High*

*Americans using mass transit hits 50-year high *










NEW YORK, March 10 (Reuters) - The number of Americans hopping buses and grabbing subway straps has climbed to the highest level in half a century as soaring gasoline costs push more commuters to take mass transit. 

U.S. mass transit ridership began to surge when gasoline hit the $3 a gallon level in 2005 and has continued to rise steadily ever since as pump prices top record after record, according to a report released on Monday by the American Public Transit Association. 

"As people are struggling with the increase in fuel prices, they have to make adjustments, and one of the ways they are doing that is driving less and taking public transportation more," said William Millar, the president of the APTA. 

Mass transit use increased by more than 2 percent in 2007 to the highest level in 50 years, with Americans taking more than 10 billion trips on public transport while the number of vehicle miles traveled was flat in the first 10 months of the year. 

Even when gasoline prices dipped last year and some people returned to driving, others appear to have switched to public transport permanently, according to Millar. 

"We started seeing gas prices consistently go above $3 a gallon (in 2005) and we noticed that overall transit ridership was going up," Millar said. 

"When gas prices moderated, some of those people said, 'Hey, this works pretty good for me, I'll stick with it.'" 

The largest area of mass transit growth was in light rail use, which includes street cars and trolleys, with a 6 percent increase during 2007. Commuter rails were second with an increase of 5.5 percent in ridership and subway ridership had an increase of 3.1 percent. 

Cities with less than 100,000 people also saw a large increase -- 6.4 percent -- in public transportation use. 

With many analysts predicting $4 gasoline this summer, mass transit use is likely to become even more popular. 

"If past experience is any indication, as the price of fuel goes up and particularly as it hits a psychological milestone, which I expect $4 is, I would expect that we would see a spurt in ridership," Millar said.


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

Good news! :happy:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

10.3 Billion Trips Taken On Public Transportation Ridership In 2007 -- The Highest Level in 50 Years; Ridership Increased as Gas Prices Remained High

http://www.apta.com/media/releases/080310_ridership.cfm


----------



## jamesinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

The sad part is that mass transit prices rise at the same rate as car transit prices. The only difference is that its staggered: mass transit systems buy a contract for a year or more, but once its over, they pay the current price.

That is, as long as our trains and buses use fossil fuels, and our electricity comes from oil and gas theres not a huge gain.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

10.3 billion is not that impressive for a country of 300 million considering over a billion rides come from NY alone.


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

Can anyone break down these stats by city, or by transit mode?

Incidentally, an impressive line-up of buses, but why San Francisco 2006? And, given the cars parked between them, how do you get onto them? And where are the passengers?

Took this photo at my local railway station last night ... people!


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Emm, i think that is some kind of bus depot or storage area -- those busses don't seem active.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I haven't noticed much of a difference here, but ridership has supposedly grown 7 percent on our bus network.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Although its great that US transit ridership levels are rising you have to remember that the US uses actual rides not revenue rides. 
In most of the world stats are on revenue ridership levels. A trip in Canada which requires 3 transfers is counted as one ridership but in the states its considered 3. 
Its very deceptive and yes New York is a huge amount of that.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Do you have any proof for this wild accusation?


----------



## brianmoon85 (Oct 14, 2006)

Galls said:


> Your Location says NY.


I represent all those cities. I am relocating to Nicaragua this month. I have homes in Seoul, Tokyo, NYC, Managua, and San Jose CR just FYI.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Canadian radio news speculated last night that a (quote) ''mass exodus'' of cars off of US roads will have taken place by year's end -- uh, yeah, sure....


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

^ Yeah, and Bush will be lovingly remembered in the future. :|


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

ramvid01 said:


> Actually to be honest, you'd be lucky to even have a sidewalk in suburbs.


maybe where you live


----------



## X38 (Jan 23, 2008)

Don't American cities have Park & Rides? Most (big) European cities have got P&R's, and most of them are well-used.


----------



## X38 (Jan 23, 2008)

Don't American cities have Park & Rides? Most (big) European cities have got P&R's, and most of them are well-used.


----------



## Gil (Mar 11, 2005)

X38 said:


> Don't American cities have Park & Rides? Most (big) European cities have got P&R's, and most of them are well-used.


Most Park & Rides are associated with rail-based transit which is sorely lacking in the US. Without a massive advertising/educational campaign, I do not think people would be willing to park their cars in order to board a bus. However, given the rising cost of fuel, people may begin to change their attitudes.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Gil said:


> Most Park & Rides are associated with rail-based transit which is sorely lacking in the US. Without a massive advertising/educational campaign, I do not think people would be willing to park their cars in order to board a bus. However, given the rising cost of fuel, people may begin to change their attitudes.


There are TONS of Park and Rides in the DC area for bus use, whether they are stand alone parking lots or are connected to a Metro Station. Every day the lots get packed.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Park and rides centers for buses and sounder commuter rail here have growing out of control in Seattle metro area. They have been adding direct HOV access so buses don't have to weave across the lanes to the exit which is time consuming. They also have been expanding parking spaces, too.


----------



## X38 (Jan 23, 2008)

All right, in Antwerp, we have P&R's at tram terminuses and P&R's for buses? Which ones do you think are the most popular? The tram-P&R's naturally.


----------



## stewartrama (Jun 12, 2008)

Galls said:


> Your Location says NY.


it's not that it's weird that you're questioning where somebody lives when they KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE, it's weird that you were looking for their location...


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

This depends on where you live. Maybe on the far flung stops in DC you have to drive, but every damn person I'm friends with in Chicago just walks to the train station to take them downtown. No one drives (hell, there wouldn't be anywhere to park anyway).

There ARE some good places in the US where you can easily just walk to a station. 

Chicago has 374 train stations between commuter and CTA, and they all converge on downtown, where around 700,000 are destined every weekday. I assure you there are hundreds of thousands of people here who have no problems walking to a train station and then to their destination. I'm actually surprised how many suburban people are able to walk to Metra. I assumed they all drive, but they've done a decent job putting up nice transit oriented development at a ton of stations. Not to mention anyone who works downtown and lives in the burbs would drool over the opportunity to live within walking distance of a train station. That certainly drives up the value. The city also has 155 bus routes, with a few hundred more in the burbs, which will take you to a close station to come downtown.

Our only problem is all 21 rail lines come out of the downtown core spreading out all over the urban area. It's very easy to come downtown, but very hard to go between places other than downtown. Sucks for all those people who work and live in the burbs. At least we have a very active and crowded city center that is decently served by transit.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

double post, oops.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

X38 said:


> Don't American cities have Park & Rides? Most (big) European cities have got P&R's, and most of them are well-used.


Yes. Even here (Hartford), we have Park and Rides, and a good amount of them are packed at times. We don't have rail, they are for express buses. I haven't used them once though, they have awful schedules and cost too much, if compared to local rides.


----------



## Galls (Feb 27, 2008)

stewartrama said:


> it's not that it's weird that you're questioning where somebody lives when they KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE, it's weird that you were looking for their location...



His post was saying no where in America can anyone walk to a metro, I pointed out that his location said NYC. Guess it went over a lot of peoples head.

I will even quote it again and bold it just for you.



brianmoon85 said:


> I don't know about that. Most US cities are not biker or evne pedestrian friendly. Plus, it would take the entire day to go from one place to another since everything is so far away. Why can't they construct subway lines in each mid-scale to large cities that connects to important business, historical, and residential places like other countries do??? In the US, it is so hard to get around if you don't have a car. I live in DC and it's a pain, and NO the DC metro doesn't even stand a chance to Seoul or Tokyo's subway system. *You can NEVER walk to a subway system in the USA, you need a car, park at the metro parking garage and then ride the metro...which is RIDICULOUS*


Maybe he just forgot where NYC was.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Chicagoago said:


> This depends on where you live. Maybe on the far flung stops in DC you have to drive, but every damn person I'm friends with in Chicago just walks to the train station to take them downtown. No one drives (hell, there wouldn't be anywhere to park anyway).
> 
> There ARE some good places in the US where you can easily just walk to a station.
> 
> ...


Any plans to connect to those lines?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*House approves financial help for mass transit *
26 June 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House approved financial help Thursday to mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high gas prices. But Republicans blocked Democrats from requiring oil and gas companies to drill on the millions of acres of government land and water on which they already own federal leases.

The House voted 322-98 to authorize $1.7 billion over the next two years to lower fares and expand operations as more riders flock to public transit. The transit measure, which must still be considered by the Senate, marks the first time federal money would be used to support local mass transit operating costs.

The oil lease proposal was an effort by Democrats to counter a push by congressional Republicans to lift a long-standing drilling ban on most offshore U.S. waters. Democratic leaders maintained the industry should first go after oil and natural gas in areas where they hold leases.

But the measure was defeated 223-195, short of the two-thirds vote required, with only a handful of Republicans voting for it.

Democrats proposed the failed drilling mandate and the public transit help as lawmakers struggled to respond to public anger over $4-a-gallon gasoline with the July Fourth holiday and heaviest summer driving season approaching. As the House voted, oil moved into record territory at just over $140 a barrel, signaling that gasoline prices are likely to go higher this summer.

Opening the nation's offshore oil and gas resources has dominated the congressional energy debate in recent weeks. Republicans argue the drilling moratorium, in effect since 1981 over most federal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico, has kept companies from increasing domestic energy production.

But Democrats counter that the fenced-off waters of the Outer Continental Shelf shouldn't be opened to drilling, when leases already provided by the Interior Department in other areas, mostly the western Gulf and in Alaska, aren't being exploited.

"We believe in use it or lose it," declared Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a key member of the Democrats' leadership.

The White House said President Bush would veto the use-it-or-lose-it legislation if it came to his desk, calling "absurd" the claim that, with today's oil prices, companies are not pursuing all the oil that they can recover economically.

Democrats maintained the existing leases owned by oil companies could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a day. But the Interior Department, which manages the federal oil and gas leasing programs, said it could not confirm those numbers.

The claim that oil companies are "sitting on" potential oil and gas by not developing leases stems from a "misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process" and business considerations involved in offshore oil and gas development, C. Stephen Allred, Interior's assistant secretary for land and minerals management, wrote to lawmakers.

Meanwhile, GOP efforts to push for an end to the offshore drilling moratorium caused a partisan dustup Thursday during a House Appropriations Committee meeting.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the committee's chairman, abruptly canceled the meeting after Republicans tried to force consideration of an Interior spending bill on which they wanted to tack a measure that would allow drilling 50 miles offshore on all Outer Continental Shelf waters, even those long off-limits to energy companies.

Republicans have complained that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has prevented the offshore drilling ban from coming up for a vote.

Separately, Senate Republicans proposed a revised energy package Thursday that would allow states to petition the Interior Department to lift the federal offshore drilling moratorium off their coasts, 50 miles from shore. States would get a financial windfall, 37.5 percent of the federal royalties.

The GOP proposal, which also would provide incentives for developing plug-in electric hybrid automobiles and lift a prohibition on developing oil shale in the West, has 43 GOP co-sponsors. Senate Democratic leaders, whose own energy proposals were blocked by Republicans last month, showed no interest in the GOP legislation.


----------



## Galls (Feb 27, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> *House approves financial help for mass transit *
> 26 June 2008
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - The House approved financial help Thursday to mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high gas prices. But Republicans blocked Democrats from requiring oil and gas companies to drill on the millions of acres of government land and water on which they already own federal leases.
> ...


Watch all that money do to the middle of no where states and NYC not get a dime. Because everything in NYC is pork barrel spending.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

It's great to see the US pushing the use of Mass Transit.
A couple months ago, this is still what you could read in the local press:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080612a.html
(not sure if it was a joke or serious though).
Thankfully times are changing and everybody is catching on. Last time I was there, carpooling was also getting extremely popular.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

^^ Looks legit, since the source is extremely apologetic to all Republicans.


----------



## emathias (Feb 20, 2006)

LtBk said:


> Any plans to connect to those lines?


Which Lines? All the "L" Lines have free connections between each other. Not every line connects directly to every other one, but that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation anyway.

Connections between the commuter rail system and the "L" system could definitely be improved, but there are some plans to do that (both the Circle Line and the West Loop Transportation Center would do a lot to remedy at least the West, NW and SW commuter line connections).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Substructure said:


> It's great to see the US pushing the use of Mass Transit.
> A couple months ago, this is still what you could read in the local press:
> http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080612a.html
> (not sure if it was a joke or serious though).
> Thankfully times are changing and everybody is catching on. Last time I was there, carpooling was also getting extremely popular.


Reads like a satire, doesn't it?

Don't forget, if you leave your car or even sell it without getting replacement, you are a Socialist! Public Transportation is a tool of the communists to enslave freedom loving America. And PT forces you to meet with other people, like in... public squares or in malls. Maybe they should be fought as well...


"We should drill our own oil -- now. And, when the supply naturally diminishes to where prices drive the market elsewhere, American entrepreneurs must create another fuel whose production the government cannot readily curtail, and that keeps Americans driving where they want to, when they want to, in privately owned cars."

Yeah, another fuel, like love and air for example. It seems to go beyond the horizon of some there there is no equally substitute to the current oil as energy source. No matter what. 

... I need a break.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Substructure said:


> It's great to see the US pushing the use of Mass Transit.
> A couple months ago, this is still what you could read in the local press:
> http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080612a.html
> (not sure if it was a joke or serious though).
> Thankfully times are changing and everybody is catching on. Last time I was there, carpooling was also getting extremely popular.


That is the most scary thing I've read in a while. 

"Freedom Machines"... :rofl::lol:

It reads like the worst kind of satire, but I don't believe it is unfortunately...


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Substructure said:


> It's great to see the US pushing the use of Mass Transit.
> A couple months ago, this is still what you could read in the local press:
> http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080612a.html
> (not sure if it was a joke or serious though).
> Thankfully times are changing and everybody is catching on. Last time I was there, carpooling was also getting extremely popular.


What a moron. I can't believe that guy is serious. All transportation is subsidized. Mass transit has user fees as well.

This guy thinks that freedom is the ability to build, build, build and use as much oil as humanly possible. He neglects to mention that the government aids and abets America's oil reliance through subsidies to big oil and coal and refusal to invest in renewables.

Furthermore, by shifting to mass transit, America would not need to drill for more oil domestically, in the process saving millions of acres of pristine coastal and interior natural habitat.

What is it that makes this lunatic think oil consumption is the free market asserting itself?

That article is just another vacuous conservative hit piece that uses emotional and inaccurate terms like "socialist" and "communist" to describe any attempts to reduce oil consumption and air pollution. Well, the VA system, military, and police departments are all "socialist" organizations as well.

This moron is an anti-social human being that can't stand the thought of having to share with others. Why does he demand a separate, solitary transportation device? Does he distrust people that much?


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

ov_79 said:


> Americans made a mistake by getting rid of city public transport in the 1st half of 20th century. It created many urban, structural, ecological and consequently social problems. It is nice to read it has been getting changing in last decade, America is still far from European standards though. The Good luck wish is supposed to be send over the ocean .


GM's fault for that.

- Andy


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

emathias said:


> Which Lines? All the "L" Lines have free connections between each other. Not every line connects directly to every other one, but that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation anyway.
> 
> Connections between the commuter rail system and the "L" system could definitely be improved, but there are some plans to do that (both the Circle Line and the West Loop Transportation Center would do a lot to remedy at least the West, NW and SW commuter line connections).


I was talking about how there are almost 400 train stations in the Chicago area, but we have 21 trains lines radiating out in every single direction from downtown - yet nothing to interconnect people who happen to want to go somewhere that doesn't happen to take them through downtown. Say from the northeast to the northwest, the southeast to the southwest, or the northeast to the southeast. 



















My original point though, was responding to someone who said NO ONE in the US can just walk to a metro/subway station. That's extremely inacurate, especially in cities like Chicago, New York, Boston, Philly.

There are dozens of train stations in Chicago that trek through neighborhoods like this



















and I can assure you there are thousands of people who have no problem walking a few minutes to a train station. I've lived in 4 different apartments in Chicago, each in a totally separate neighborhood, and each time I've been from within 3-7 minutes walking to a train station. One on the Blue Line, one on the Red Line, and two on the Brown Line.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Fuel costs strain U.S. mass transit, too *
18 July 2008
The Christian Science Monitor

At 8:34 a.m. the sleek Metrolink train from Oceanside, Calif., swept into Los Angeles's historic Union Station, disgorging a rush of commuters. Some pulled briefcases on wheels, others hefted backpacks, blending seamlessly with bus and subway passengers pressing through the terminal's sunlit corridor.

"To see this," says Marc Littman, spokesman for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or Metro, "dispels any kind of notion that no one uses public transportation in Los Angeles."

With West Coast gasoline prices averaging $4.41 per gallon, even car-crazed southern Californians are joining the nation's slow move away from the automobile and toward public transportation. But even as more Americans pile onto city buses, subways, and suburban trains, the increase at the pump is also hitting transit agencies hard.

"High gas prices are really a double-edge sword," says Virginia Miller, spokeswoman for the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). "While they are bringing more people to ride buses and trains all across the country, public transit agencies are facing challenges to meet their costs."

In many cases this means fare hikes and service cuts. So far this year, nearly half of metropolitan bus operators surveyed by the APTA said they had increased prices to address the strains of rising fuel costs; 19 percent said they had reduced service.

Such fare hikes are hurting the poor disproportionately. While more of the country's suburbanites are choosing mass transit, many of the nation's poorest urban dwellers, whose only option is often public transportation, aren't riding at all because of fare hikes and the downturn in the economy, transportation experts say. Some no longer have a job to commute to, they add.

Los Angeles is in the thick of the quandary. While LA Metro's subways saw a 7.13 percent increase in ridership from April to June compared with a year ago, bus ridership was down 1.9 percent in the same period. Mr. Littman, the Metro spokesman, blamed the drop on a fare hike that raised monthly passes by $10 to $62.

"That fare increase had a huge impact," says Tom Rubin, a Los Angeles-area surface transportation consultant and critic of the LA Metro. "Los Angeles has one of the most transit-dependent riderships in the United States."

As the country's third-largest public-transit network, behind New York and Chicago, respectively, the LA Metro needs to expand faster than it is to meet the demands of a rapidly increasing population, says Littman. "Our dilemma now is to pay for service."

The Metro board's solution: a new tax. It wants to increase the county sales tax by a half penny, a controversial proposal that could go to Los Angeles voters in November.

One of the unresolved questions is how long the surge in mass transit ridership will last. Overall, mass transit ridership climbed 3.4 percent during the first quarter of 2008 compared with the same period last year, according to APTA.

Much of the growth was on commuter lines. There passenger numbers climbed 5.7 percent nationwide during the first quarter compared with a year ago. Ridership jumped 27 percent in Seattle, 17 percent in Harrisburg, Pa., and 10.4 percent in Philadelphia. During the same period, Americans drove 2.3 percent fewer miles, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Last year marked the first such dip since the agency started recording the figure in 1982.

But if the price of oil begins to decline, mass transit ridership could again dwindle, transit experts say.

"We are in uncharted territory," says Robert Poole, director of transportation studies for the Reason Foundation, a free-market- oriented think tank in Los Angeles. "It's too early to tell if we are at a fundamental point of change. The impact is large on transit systems, but small on highway systems."


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

@chicagoago

No one doubts that NYC, Chicago, DC etc have a decent if not great PT system. The pitty is that they are not perfectly representative for the entire US.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

^ right, I just reread my statement and didn't mean to sound so offended! It's definitely very rare among the 300,000,000 people in this country to just walk down to the neighborhood train station, but at least it's available in many of our largest cities.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

More and more people will use mass transit as people move back to the city. Gas prices won't be going down that much. High prices are here to stay.

And mass transit has the added benefit of reducing highway congestion, promoting sustainable development, and reducing air pollution.

If the commuter rail in So. Cal. electrified its track, then high gas prices would not increase its operating costs.


----------



## stevevance (Jul 4, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Any plans to connect to those lines?


Yes, Metra, almost a decade ago, proposed the STAR Line. Suburban Transit Access Route. 

Starts in Joliet, goes west and north and then east to Schaumburg and O'Hare. Would connect several of the western rail lines and bring suburban dwellers to a major airport.

http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/star.php

Steve


----------



## theworldshallcry (Mar 8, 2007)

Chicagoago said:


> ^ right, I just reread my statement and didn't mean to sound so offended! It's definitely very rare among the 300,000,000 people in this country to just walk down to the neighborhood train station, but at least it's available in many of our largest cities.


Public transit ridership is up in every part of the country. In Dallas, you can't find a parking spot at some park-and-rides after 7AM. In Houston, their seemingly puny Metrorail light rail was standing room only during rush hour, and very well ridden. The problem is development patterns -- it took 60 years to get to our present state; give it 60 more years, and I promise every major American city will have a walkable core with reliable rail transit.

Ironically, the brand spanking new rail lines in Texas were far more comfortable and clean than the CTA.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chicagoago said:


> ^ right, I just reread my statement and didn't mean to sound so offended! It's definitely very rare among the 300,000,000 people in this country to just walk down to the neighborhood train station, but at least it's available in many of our largest cities.


The more people get the chance to have such a choice the better it will be. I am optimistic in that regard for the US.


----------



## hegneypl (Feb 13, 2008)

ov_79 said:


> Americans made a mistake by getting rid of city public transport in the 1st half of 20th century. It created many urban, structural, ecological and consequently social problems. It is nice to read it has been getting changing in last decade, America is still far from European standards though. The Good luck wish is supposed to be send over the ocean .


You are so correct. I worked for Conrail back in 1976-9 and watched as they selectivley ripped up passenger rails systems in order to move freight only. The U.S. once had connections to every state on the mainland. You could go from the smallest of towns to the largest cities, there was always a way to connect by rail. Now, it's clogged highways, long waits at toll booths and when an accident occurs........figgeddabowtit, you're done. While our government has us fighting the waste war and wasting all our monies in Iraq, our infrastructure continues to suffer. We can't even cross one state to another by rail to connect with NYC (we live just 100 miles west of it). We have to drive and take a bus, then we can get onto the streets. It's sensless, wastefull and just plain stupid.


----------



## doubleno7 (Feb 19, 2008)

I would love to be able to take a train from my town into a big city. There is a nice train station downtown in my town (small <10,000) but it has been converted into a restaurant i now work at actually. It was supposedly very nice and sometimes quite busy. I don't understand why the government spent so many billions of dollars trying to get us to use our cars instead of rail? How much sense does that make?


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

I assume you must no longer live in San Francisco then. The BART is a fairly extensive system for the Bay Area.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt (Jun 25, 2006)

Today's Guardian in the UK has a short article about the increase in people using public transport in the US, accompanying a long piece about Stockton, California, which has the highest rate of house foreclosures in the US.


> For communities struggling with home foreclosures, the rocketing price of petrol is prompting drastic action: Americans are taking the train.
> 
> Amid cries of dismay, the average US price for a gallon of petrol recently reached $4 (£2.02, or about 53p a litre) - still less than half the cost in Britain but a steep rise of $1 a gallon since the beginning of the year.
> 
> ...


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

stevevance said:


> Yes, Metra, almost a decade ago, proposed the STAR Line. Suburban Transit Access Route.
> 
> Starts in Joliet, goes west and north and then east to Schaumburg and O'Hare. Would connect several of the western rail lines and bring suburban dwellers to a major airport.
> 
> ...


I like that proposal. I would like to see the STAR route extended on existing freight rail ROW SE of Joliet through Chicago Heights and into Indiana, passing through Griffith and ending in Hobart. NW Indiana needs more commuter rail than just the South Shore Line.

Amtrak used to also provide service between Valparaiso and Chicago. That service should resume, this time as commuter rail.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Amid rising gas prices, T sets ridership record *
28 July 2008

BOSTON (AP) - Rising gas prices sent commuters flocking to the MBTA in record numbers over the last 12 months.

The transit system released figures Monday showing that nearly 375 million people took public transportation in fiscal 2008, a 6 percent increase from the previous year and the highest ridership figure ever.

The MBTA said the largest increases came in riders on buses and light rail, such as the Green Line.

State Secretary of Transportation Bernard Cohen says $4-per-gallon gasoline prices are creating major changes in travel behavior.

MBTA General Manager Daniel Grabauskas tells The Boston Globe that the extra fares aren't enough to solve all the agency's financial problems. The T was forced to deplete much of its reserves to bridge a $75 million dollar budget gap for the new fiscal year.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Because of absolutely no funding (the stupid governor is cutting funds), the CTA is trying to find new ways to ease the massive influx of people on the trains/busses due to gas prices. They're in the process of ripping out seats on some trains to run trains with 6 cars containing seats like usual, and 2 center cars that would be seatless and crammed with standing room only passengers. I see their point, but it's crazy it's come to this and NO FUNDING for transit.



*CTA considers standing-room-only L cars *

CTA riders on busy rush-hour lines could see some L cars designated as standing-room-only in the next few months.

That’s one measure in the works to deal with soaring L ridership prompted by higher gasoline prices. 

The CTA also is considering making some trains “short turn” runs that would cover just the busiest stretches, to accommodate more passengers at rush-hour. For instance, a southbound Blue Line train might start at Jefferson Park, instead of O’Hare. 

The transit agency — which reported today it saw a 6.9 percent increase in passengers last month — is also considering taking out seats on busy bus routes. 

The CTA says such steps are being weighed because it can’t afford to buy more train cars and buses. Transit officials say they need the Legislature to pass a new capital bill to be able to do that. 

The CTA attributes most of the increased ridership to fast-rising fuel prices. But as much as 10 percent of the extra riders are seniors who have enjoyed free fares since March 17. 

“While we’re very excited to have as many seniors as we can, it’s becoming a acapacity challenge on the system,” CTA President Ron Huberman told board members today. 

Passengers can decide whether or not to get on a standing-room-only train car, which would be clearly marked, Huberman said. Pregnant, elderly or disabled passengers, for instance, could choose cars with seats. 

The extra ridership hasn’t translated into a corresponding increase in revenue for the CTA, officials said, due to the increased number of free rides and to the number of CTA riders using monthly passes.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

How we're traveling these days 
1.4 billion 
fewer highway miles driven by Americans in April 2008 versus April 2007. 
20% 
ridership increase in trips of 300 miles or less on Amtrak from Chicago. 
5% 
increase in Metra ridership in the first quarter of 2008 vs. 2007. 
11.8% 
increase in weekend Metra ridership in first quarter 2008 vs. 2007. 
25.3% 
increase in weekend Metra ridership in first quarter 2008 vs. 2006. 
4% 
increase in CTA riders from January-May 2008 from January-May 2007. 
550,000 
fewer July 4 holiday travelers in 2008 than in 2007. 

13% 
increase in airfares over July 4th weekend from 2007 to 2008.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Chicagoago said:


> Because of absolutely no funding (the stupid governor is cutting funds), the CTA is trying to find new ways to ease the massive influx of people on the trains/busses due to gas prices. They're in the process of ripping out seats on some trains to run trains with 6 cars containing seats like usual, and 2 center cars that would be seatless and crammed with standing room only passengers. I see their point, but it's crazy it's come to this and NO FUNDING for transit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's fucking pathetic.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Gag Halfrunt said:


> Today's Guardian in the UK has a short article about the increase in people using public transport in the US, accompanying a long piece about Stockton, California, which has the highest rate of house foreclosures in the US.


That's all petrol costs in the US? WTF? That's less than half of what it costs here in Australia. At the moment the price is about $1.70 - $1.80 AUD. That converts to $1.67 USD per *litre*, or 84p sterling. Considering all the dramas that's being caused by higher oil prices in the US, I thought the cost would be much higher there. I suppose if I was working for the American minimum wage, I'd be crying too though.

Apparently within 10 years, petrol here will cost $8AUD per litre, that's 3.77 pounds or $7.45USD. It would be stupid to not start throwing massive amounts of money into transport infrastructure.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

The US has barely any tax on its petrol. I think the federal tax is like 17c per GALLON. Sure the states lump a tax on top of that which varies, but in the end it's bugger all. In the UK I recently saw petrol for well over a pound a litre. In Italy it was around EUR1.50


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Although Americans pay a lot less per L (or gallon) of gas compared to many other countries, the problem is most Americans do not have a viable transit alternative, so price fluctuations around a comparatively low cost are more widely felt across the population.


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

That is what needs to change is to reform the transit system around people's needs and really focus on where large populations are versus just providing a system. There seems to be no systematic approach to routes and it seems like the providers need to ask themselves questions about where do the most people go and such. Our ways will have to change and with our current infrastructure and method of building roads and expanding them, that will have to change. The only barrier is the good old game of politics and bureaucratic crap.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

The problem is that urban development in the USA is generally so rubbish. Take a huge city like Houston that does not even have zoning controls at all? Whilst zoning can actually be part of the problem (as it generally discourages mixed use development) no controls at all is total stupidity.

Clever US cities like Washington DC and San Francisco are focusing development around their transit networks and are reaping the benefits of that.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*In US, gas prices mean more riders, fewer buses *
4 August 2008

DENVER (AP) - High gas prices almost killed the lifeline to the city for a group of mountain commuters.

Park County bus riders recently had to plead with city officials to keep their route running, arguing that a daily 80-mile car trip would hurt riders financially.

"For many of our mountain commuters, it is the only form of transportation that these people have," said Pam Beckhorn, who leads a group dedicated to preserving the route along Highway 285.

Like their counterparts across the country, cash-strapped Colorado officials face a paradox: People are using public transportation more than ever, but higher fuel costs -- and lower sales tax revenues -- are forcing municipalities to trim routes.

According to a May survey by the American Public Transportation Association, about one in five of the nation's transit agencies have cut service over the past year. They include Cleveland; Corpus Christi, Texas; and San Diego, which has seen one of the largest increases in bus ridership in the country.

The cutbacks come at a time of increasing interest in public buses and trains: The transportation association says people took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation nationwide in the first three months of 2008 -- almost 88 million more than last year.

The highest ridership increases came in light rail and commuter rail. In light rail, Baltimore, Minneapolis, St. Louis and San Francisco all saw double-digit percentage increases over the first quarter of 2007.

Double-digit percentage increases for commuter rail were posted in Oakland, Calif.; Harrisburg, Pa.; and Philadelphia, among others. Seattle's increase was almost 28 percent, APTA said.

Bonnie Arnold, with the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, said the commuter rail system there saw a 46.7 percent more passengers in June than in June 2007.

"It's just been mind-boggling," she said.

Transit authorities are feeling the pinch of higher gas prices on both the expenditure and revenue sides of their budgets. They're paying more to fuel their buses and trains. At the same time, they're taking in fewer sales tax dollars -- an income source for many transit agencies -- because people are spending more at the pump and less on other items.

The Denver-area's transit system, which serves eight counties with a population of about 2.6 million, is on pace to carry 100 million passengers this year, a record in its 35-year history, said spokesman Scott Reed.

But the system will be about $6 million over budget this year on fuel. It budgeted for $2.62 per gallon but is paying $3.20, Reed said.

Fuel costs also make building materials needed to expand infrastructure more expensive, said Clarence W. Marsella, general manager and CEO of the Regional Transportation District.

"Everything that we do is being undermined by the fuel crisis," Marsella said. "It's really diabolical. The tentacles are everywhere."

Anticipating rising fuel costs, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority cut 5 percent of its bus lines in December. The district's fuel spending will surpass $20 million this year, compared to $12 million in 2007, said a spokesman.

One option being considered is adding a fuel surcharge to fares. If approved, any changes would be implemented in early October, the spokesman said.

In Corpus Christi, the Regional Transportation Authority is running fewer buses, said spokeswoman Kristi Pena. In New York City, there is talk of subway and bus fare hikes.

The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System has reduced service, raised fares and laid off workers, said spokesman Rob Schupp. High fuel costs account for about $2 million of its $6.5 million deficit.

Denver's system is bracing for $5-a-gallon diesel prices in 2009. So the district has to cut or reduce service on its underperforming routes. That led to lobbying for the endangered route along Highway 285 during a recent meeting of the Regional Transportation District.

"You would put a lot of people out of work if you took their bus away from them," said engineer Martin Wirth, one of about 40 people at the meeting fighting to save the route.

Group members wore and gave board members T-shirts that read, "Go Green. Ride The Drive." They pleaded with the board to give them a chance to increase ridership.

In the end, the board voted to keep Route U, despite its $375,000 yearly cost. Supporters posed on a stairway for a celebratory picture.

"We are the little mouse that roared," Beckhorn said.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

LtBk said:


> That's fucking pathetic.


It is annoying, but I'm willing to take anything I can get from the agency. Especially since the STUPID government won't give them money, and is actually cutting money at a time of surging ridership.

They finally got a project completed enough on my line in Chicago to begin running trains that are 33% longer. Even with trains that now can hold 1,200 people per train, I still find myself waiting for up to 4 back to back trains to come into my station before I can finally find a space to squeeze on...

Now that seniors ride for free, the gentrification in Chicago has brought tens of thousands of new people to my area who all work downtown, they're doing construction on my train line and gas is so expensive - it's literally madness every day trying to cram onto trains in the morning/evening. It seems like if anyone even just sneezes and a train gets delayed a few minutes the entire system starts to backup and collapse under the huge mob of riders looking to board.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Reliance on busses for mass transit is a poor idea. When gas prices rise, people ride the bus, but service is cut because of high gas prices!!

Electrified rail is the way to go.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

With the exception of New York City, the busiest mass transit systems in America are outside the US in places like Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Santiago, and Toronto. US cities may still be very car oriented, but within 20 years, many of the busiest systems in America may be in US cities.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

^^ Only if they start investing big time in their systems though. A city like Los Angeles (which actually has a surprisingly high density) should be constructing subway lines en masse, rather than an ugly mixture of light-rail and buses. There's 15 million or more people in the greater area, if ever a good rail system was going to work, it would be in LA.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*More riding TheBus with rising gas prices *
6 August 2008

HONOLULU (AP) - Ridership on Oahu's bus system usually falls off in the summer months, but this year it's on the rise.

TheBus reports more than a five percent increase in June compared with last year.

More people have been turning to the bus since gas prices began shooting up earlier this year. The average price of regular gas in Honolulu is reported at $4.37 a gallon, nearly $1.20 higher than a year ago.

Oahu Transit Services president Roger Morton says more than 217,000 people a day rode buses in June.

He says with schools back in session, ridership is expected to be even higher this month and some buses on busy routes are being replaced with buses that have more seats and more standing room.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*U.S. mayors' group to address infrastructure needs *

NEW YORK, Aug 13 (Reuters) - U.S. urban leaders will call on Thursday for increased investment in roads, bridges and other aging infrastructure, as well as upgrades to public transit systems as ridership soars amid high gasoline costs, the head of a mayors' group said.

Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, newly elected president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said in an interview on Wednesday that he and other mayors hope to create a new plan for long-term investment in U.S. infrastructure.

"We need a federal capital infrastructure program and a budget that goes with it," Diaz told Reuters. "For many years we've all read and heard about programs and funding for bridges to nowhere, and that's the way that America has typically invested in its infrastructure."

Diaz, who said public transit and the availability of water are two of the most pressing needs facing his own city, will meet with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and about a dozen other mayors at an infrastructure forum in New York.

With Americans starting to drive less because of high gas prices, investment in things like public rail is essential, Diaz said.

"America is beginning to change its habits, which I think is a good thing, and government investment ought to follow," he said.

The federal government is under growing pressure to increase infrastructure spending. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that $1.6 trillion is needed to repair roads, bridges, power plants and other systems.

The event is one of several by the mayors' group to try to get attention on urban issues ahead of the U.S. presidential election. Last week, the group held a forum in Philadelphia on crime. Other forums are planned on poverty, arts and culture, and the environment.

Recommendations from the forums will be presented to the next president during the first 100 days of the new administration.

Diaz said the mayors on Thursday will review the infrastructure proposals of presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama with policy advisers to the candidates.

In conjunction with the meeting, the mayors' group is also set to release a report on Thursday showing the positive economic impact of water and sewer investment.

The report says that every $1 spent on public water and sewer infrastructure investment increases gross domestic product by $6.35, through things such as job creation and the supplies that go into the construction.

The study also cites U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that adding one new job in water and sewer infrastructure creates 3.68 jobs in the national economy to support that job.

"The expert consensus is that public infrastructure investment yields positive returns, and investment in water and sewer infrastructure has greater returns than most other types of public infrastructure," Martin Chavez, mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in a statement accompanying the report.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

If America wants better infrastructure, then it had better stop voting for Republicans. McCain wants to cut corporate taxes 10%, increase military spending, AND balance the budget. Guess where all of the cuts are going to occur- domestic porgrams that have already been scrapped significantly by the Bush administration.

Republicans are whores for Big Oil, deny climate change, and favor sprawl over environmental protection. That means no fundamental change in America's transportation policy.


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

hoosier said:


> If America wants better infrastructure, then it had better stop voting for Republicans. McCain wants to cut corporate taxes 10%, increase military spending, AND balance the budget. Guess where all of the cuts are going to occur- domestic porgrams that have already been scrapped significantly by the Bush administration.
> 
> Republicans are whores for Big Oil, deny climate change, and favor sprawl over environmental protection. That means no fundamental change in America's transportation policy.


Not Republicans, its more of what is called neo-conservatism and many neo-conservatives lie in the Republican Party. A traditional Republican would be Ron Paul. John McCain is a neo-con although most of them reside in Congress since they are the ones sending money for Iraq funding. After all, the President signs the stuff or vetos, but the most power is held in the Legislative Branch.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

There really needs to be a huge shift in paradigm in the US. It's lost so much of the respect it used to command from around the world, now it's more of a joke and an easy target for ridicule. It's sad really. It would be terrible if the Government took even more money away from mass transit, surely such an idea would be the 'nail in the coffin' for the US economy considering how high oil prices are. 

So what are some of the new transport projects in the United States? All I know is the new Second Avenue subway...


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

High speed rail project in California, though that still hasn't got secured funding...

I'm pretty sure there are big expansions happening to the LA metro.

East side access project under construction in NYC linking the Long Island Railroad with Grand Central Station.....

I am sure there are more...


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

^^ I think a lot of projects are happening in the smaller, less [internationally] well known cities like Phoenix, Charlotte and Salt Lake City - I can't be too sure though so if anyone has info and pictures then that would be great.

I always wondered why Miami does adapt its metrorail into a good transport mode. With a few extensions, higher frequencies equipping it to carry more people, it would be a pretty great transit system.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

city_thing said:


> ^^ I think a lot of projects are happening in the smaller, less [internationally] well known cities like Phoenix, Charlotte and Salt Lake City - I can't be too sure though so if anyone has info and pictures then that would be great.
> 
> I always wondered why Miami does adapt its metrorail into a good transport mode. With a few extensions, higher frequencies equipping it to carry more people, it would be a pretty great transit system.



The first of several planned LRT lines in Charlotte opened in November 2007. The Lynx Blue Line is 9.6 miles/15 stations...ridership has far exceeded projections.








http://www.flickr.com/photos/bz3rk/2332138306/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2373196689/


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

We all know what we need to do, it takes just a little bit of effort, but not that much.

The first thing is to start writing letters to congress members in favor of greater funding of public transit. It's incredible, because even the most fiscally conservative people I know are in favor of greater coverage, and yet, politicians can say with a straight face that their constituents don't want the money to be spent. Make it obvious that they are incorrect in this analysis.

The second thing is to start contributing to public transit advocacy groups. Sure, a few dollars isn't going to change the world, but a few thousand people giving a few dollars certainly starts to grease the gears of political action. Interest groups are what drives American policy nowadays; it's up to us to take advantage of this.

Finally, we need to remind our neighbors who have cut back on driving how much money they are saving by doing this, and help prevent people from falling back into bad habits. Let's face it, we're a big country, and no matter what any mandate says, 300 million people are going to do 300 million different things. Social acceptability is a much more powerful force than law.

Let's get this done!


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

It's hard because the same oil prices that are making more people choose public transit are also costing the transit agencies millions more in fuel costs for buses. The country is kinda frozen right now from fear of economic problems, and governments don't have extra cash to give transit agencies.

I think it will get a lot better once things have time to get themselves worked out, but for right now it's all happening within the past year or so, and things are a mess with the public transit. At least in Chicago where there's no CURRENT funding; yet there are currently thousands of extra riders trying to cram on trains/buses. Today was a total mess.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Also north of the border : 

*Funding needed for surge in transit use
High Gas Prices; Canada at 'tipping point': municipalities *
2 September 2008
National Post

OTTAWA - Gasoline prices are driving Canadians to public transit, but the nation's mayors and transit authorities warn that their overloaded buses and subways aren't able to meet this surging demand.

Without busloads of federal cash to expand public transit, Canada will lose this "once-in-a-generation" chance to get its citizens out of inefficient cars and into public transportation, say the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Canadian Urban Transit Association.

The two groups handed out results yesterday of a survey showing 20% of city-dwelling Canadians who now drive a car claim they want to switch to the bus, subway, streetcar and light rail.

Another 23% say they will drive less and 13% claim they're going to start cycling or walking.

"The country has reached a tipping point," said Jean Perrault, president of the FCM. "Either we can take action to protect citizens from high gas prices and move people from cars to transit, or we can do nothing, leaving Canadians at the mercy of the gas pump."

People are even worried they can't travel from home to work, Mr. Perrault said.

The price of fuel is a "bread-and-butter" issue, yet federal leaders aren't addressing it as Canadians approach an election, he said.

"Canadians are now more concerned by the rising price of gas than they are by their rent or mortgage payments," or by taxes, he added, citing the survey from Strategic Counsel.

The telephone survey polled 1,100 adult Canadians in mid-August.

Results of a poll this size are considered accurate plus or minus 2.95 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Rural residents were not polled.

"This is an opportunity to provide Canadian families with relief and to reduce traffic gridlock," the survey summary said.

"It is an opportunity to move Canadians toward a more sustainable mode of transportation," with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

"Our transit systems can't cope with the surge in demand that is coming with higher gas prices," the survey report said.

"Most of our transit systems already are beyond capacity during peak hours," it said.

"This means that this market-drive green shift is going to stall unless there is some federal leadership."

"We're seeing all-time records in transit ridership already, at 1.8 billion trips a year," said Steve New, who chairs the Canadian Urban Transit Association.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chicagoago said:


> It's hard because the same oil prices that are making more people choose public transit are also costing the transit agencies millions more in fuel costs for buses.


PT is effected but less than individual traffic. Thats its advantage.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Well .. roll out the natural gas buses!


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Chicagoago said:


> *The CTA, which provides an average of 1.7 million rides a day and is already operating at full capacity during rush periods, is bracing for up to 200,000 additional riders each weekday, transit officials said.*


That's not really that high by international standards when you think about the population of Chicago and the number of rail lines. Considering cities much smaller than Chicago cope with far greater passenger numbers I can't help but feel this article is a bit of hyperbole. London transports more people on the tube alone than Chicago and it's a similar size. Even Munich manages to transport 873.7 million passengers per year (284.7 million S-bahn, 166 million bus, 336 million U-bahn and 87 million tram) despite the city being much smaller. This compared to the 620.5 million per year in Chicago and you have to wonder how the CTA could be running near capacity. Perhaps someone from Chicago can explain?


----------



## quashlo (Jun 14, 2008)

I'm not an expert on Chicago, but the L system is in dire need of an upgrade. It's basically one giant loop that all the lines feed into, which effectively limits the maximum frequencies that can be achieved. I believe that the cars and platforms are also smaller than your typical modern system, so there's actually less capacity with each train. Demand is also extremely peaked... There's a lot of riders during the commute periods, but at other times, passenger demand is much lower.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*MBTA boosts subway, bus service *
4 September 2008

BOSTON (AP) - The MBTA is responding to seven consecutive months of increased ridership by adding subway cars and buses to some routes.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which attributes the surge in people taking public transportation to increased gas prices, says ridership jumped 10 percent in July compared to July 2007. About 34.7 million people took the subway, commuter rail and buses in July, the single best month for MBTA ridership in at least a decade.

The agency is increasing rush hour capacity on the subway's Red, Green and Blue lines to make commutes less crowded and more comfortable.

The T is also running additional buses on some lines, especially those serving city neighborhoods.

General Manager Daniel Grabauskas says the changes will improve quality and reliability.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> That's not really that high by international standards when you think about the population of Chicago and the number of rail lines. Considering cities much smaller than Chicago cope with far greater passenger numbers I can't help but feel this article is a bit of hyperbole. London transports more people on the tube alone than Chicago and it's a similar size. Even Munich manages to transport 873.7 million passengers per year (284.7 million S-bahn, 166 million bus, 336 million U-bahn and 87 million tram) despite the city being much smaller. This compared to the 620.5 million per year in Chicago and you have to wonder how the CTA could be running near capacity. Perhaps someone from Chicago can explain?


Also there's probably a dire shortage of rolling stock, and no money there to buy more.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Svartmetall said:


> That's not really that high by international standards when you think about the population of Chicago and the number of rail lines. Considering cities much smaller than Chicago cope with far greater passenger numbers I can't help but feel this article is a bit of hyperbole. London transports more people on the tube alone than Chicago and it's a similar size. Even Munich manages to transport 873.7 million passengers per year (284.7 million S-bahn, 166 million bus, 336 million U-bahn and 87 million tram) despite the city being much smaller. This compared to the 620.5 million per year in Chicago and you have to wonder how the CTA could be running near capacity. Perhaps someone from Chicago can explain?


Well it never said it was a huge amount, it's just that there's no current funding for new buses and trains, and at rush periods trains are operating at full capacity and with as little headways as possible under our current singnaling restraints.

I found in London and Europe many systems seem to be quite busy at all hours. In the US things are VERY busy at rush hours, and really die down during the middle of the day and at evening hours. For instance on the Brown Line you have 25-50% full trains with 4 cars running every 8 minutes during the day. During rush periods you have completely at capacity 8 car trains running every 2 minutes, and sometimes I still have to wait for 3-4 trains to pass before I can cram on one. As opposed to Europe, in Chicago ALL people tend to be going in the same direction at rush hours (downtown and back).

If just one little thing happens that delays a train, it snowballs into this very quickly:










The article is saying they're worried about another 200,000 riders, or over 10% increase coming when they've got the full fleet out there, and it's already at capacity. There's no other equiptment, and nowhere for these riders to go but try and squeeze even more. The point is, there needs to be a lot more funding.

Even on the buses there's just no extra equiptment, and things are already full. I take a bus that comes every 2 minutes during rush periods, and is an oversized bus, but once we reach the stops closer to where the train pulls onto the motorway into the city center, there are normally huge crowds of people who can't get on any of the buses because they're completely full by the time they make it that far.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Transit ridership surges nationally in 2nd quarter *
9 September 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's public transportation systems logged a 5.2 percent jump in ridership in the second quarter.

According to the Washington-based American Public Transportation Association, riders made a total of 2.8 billion trips on the nation's subways, buses, commuter railroads and light-rail systems from April to June. That's up from 2.7 billion in the same period last year.

The surge in riders is straining many transit systems struggling just to maintain the service they already offer, let alone expanding service. A survey conducted by the association shows many systems are struggling just to maintain the service they already offer because of their own rising fuel costs.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Chicago public ridership surges, but so do losses as belt-tightening measures announced *
9 September 2008

CHICAGO (AP) - The nation's second-largest transit system announced $40 million in belt-tightening measures, despite a more than 5 percent ridership surge in 2008 compared to last year.

The perennially cash-strapped Chicago Transit Authority said Monday the moves, which include eliminating 80 administrative jobs, reducing worker overtime and deferring non-critical spending, are necessary to counteract soaring energy and other costs.

The authority, which operates more than 250 miles of subway, as well as a bus network, stopped short of threatening immediate fare increases. But that possibility remains "on the table" for 2009, CTA president Ron Huberman said.

"It has been our goal to avoid budget actions that would impact the riding public, and that is why we continue to look internally for ways to tighten our belt," he said.

While high gas prices have prompted commuters to take subways and buses more often -- Chicago Transit Authority ridership was up nearly 10 percent in August compared to the previous year -- fuel and other energy costs are expected to be around $37 million higher this year than last, straining the CTA's 2008 budget, the agency said.

The CTA also blamed its latest financial woes on Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of a reduced-fare subsidy in July, which the CTA says will cost it $32 million a year; it says a free-ride program for senior citizens will cost it at least $20 million this year.

Worsening matters overall, the CTA said, is that a weakening economy means tax proceeds earmarked for mass transit are coming in at lower-than-projected levels.

The CTA didn't offer a projected 2008 debt. But without cuts, it likely would run into the tens of millions of dollars.

Legislative action in January did not address infrastructure needs of Chicago's ailing, century-old networks, which transportation officials say will require billions of dollars in improvements over the coming decade.

A message seeking comment from the governor's office Monday was not immediately returned.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Buffalo leads U. S. in increased rail use *
The Buffalo News

Sep. 12--Buffalo commuters are leading the nation when it comes to riding light rail to beat the high cost of driving.

Metro Rail ridership skyrocketed 45.9 percent in the second quarter of this year compared with 2007, according to a survey released Tuesday by the American Public Transportation Association.

During the April-through- June period, nearly 1.8 million passengers rode Metro Rail, up from 1.2 million in the prior year's quarter.

"The numbers speak for themselves. They are a validation for what Metro Rail can and does provide for people who use it," said Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority spokesman C. Douglas Hartmayer.

"Whether you're going to work, going downtown for entertainment or business, or attending a special event, it's a viable, convenient option," Hartmayer added.

Nationwide, the survey tallied an overall 5.2 percent jump in public transportation use for the second quarter, with light rail showing the greatest hike, up 12.3 percent nationwide.

While Buffalo's 6.2-mile-long rail line showed the largest gain, three other cities also saw passenger counts grow by more than 20 percent. Record light rail traffic increases also were recorded in Philadelphia (34.9 percent), Kenosha, Wis., (26.9 percent) and Sacramento, Calif., (26.3 percent).

The NFTA also beat the 5.1 percent national average in bus passenger increases, charting a 5.24 percent rise.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Chicagoago said:


> Well it never said it was a huge amount, it's just that there's no current funding for new buses and trains, and at rush periods trains are operating at full capacity and with as little headways as possible under our current singnaling restraints.
> 
> I found in London and Europe many systems seem to be quite busy at all hours. In the US things are VERY busy at rush hours, and really die down during the middle of the day and at evening hours. For instance on the Brown Line you have 25-50% full trains with 4 cars running every 8 minutes during the day. During rush periods you have completely at capacity 8 car trains running every 2 minutes, and sometimes I still have to wait for 3-4 trains to pass before I can cram on one. As opposed to Europe, in Chicago ALL people tend to be going in the same direction at rush hours (downtown and back).
> 
> ...


Interesting, that's pretty much the norm in many of the bigger US cities. BTW, speaking of capacity, have the platform extension on he CTA Ravenswood rapid transit line (NW Side) been completed?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

* Boston-area transit system rolls out 6-car trains *
14 September 2008

REVERE, Mass. (AP) - With high gas prices driving more and more commuters out of their cars and into public transportation, the MBTA is adding capacity by replacing 4-car trains on the Blue Line with 6-car trains.

The first of the longer trains is scheduled to leave Monday morning from Wonderland Station in Revere. Officials say all of the 4-car trains on the Blue Line will be replaced by 6-car trains over the coming months.

By early 2009, the Boston-area transit system expects to have 84 subway cars operating during rush hour, compared to 56 prior to the introduction of 6-car trains.

The T says overall ridership has increased for seven consecutive months. Average weekday ridership on the Blue Line was 66,933 in July, up from 53,424 last December.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> *Buffalo leads U. S. in increased rail use *
> The Buffalo News
> 
> Sep. 12--Buffalo commuters are leading the nation when it comes to riding light rail to beat the high cost of driving.
> ...



According to the American Public Transportation Authority, from April to June 2008 Atlanta's MARTA transit system saw the largest ridership increase vs. same period last year among all heavy rail systems nationwide.

The numbers: 21.5 million vs. 18.6 million, or a 15.6% increase.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*High gas prices have Philadelphia regional rail struggling to meet demand *
16 September 2008

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Rising gasoline prices have trains so crowded that Philadelphia's regional rail conductors sometimes can't collect all the tickets.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority rail operations have the highest ridership in 25 years, with passengers standing on many rush-hour trains. The line is buying more rail cars, taking cars out of mothballs and making schedule changes to try to adapt. Parked cars are filling the lots at SEPTA rail stations, and overflowing along nearby roads.

Meanwhile, Sen. Arlen Specter says he's pushing for rail service connecting Philadelphia to Reading. The latest proposal is to extend the existing Philadelphia-to-Norristown service to make it reach Reading.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

The federal government needs to step in and provide funding for capital improvements to the nation's mass transit system.


----------



## Daguy (May 23, 2007)

^^

Yes, peachy timing to have an economic crisis going on in the US hno:


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

Daguy said:


> ^^
> 
> Yes, peachy timing to have an economic crisis going on in the US hno:


Where are why going and why I am in this handbasket?


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

^^ This city....... really......... suckshno:
Looks like a newbie SimCity player failing to get any development:bash:


----------



## quashlo (Jun 14, 2008)

The biggest hurdle isn't in convincing people to spend on transit. There are of course exceptions, but in general, people are happy to get transit and are receptive to proposals.
The problem is in convincing them to increase density in their neighborhoods. People are accustomed to the status quo and are afraid of any increase in development scale. That is the biggest hurdle to creating sustainable cities in the US.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

@ Substructure:

That last shot is an absolutely ancient shot of Houston's downtown. There's been a ton more development there, and not nearly as many parking lots.

Please stop using that picture without the proper context.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

quashlo said:


> The biggest hurdle isn't in convincing people to spend on transit. There are of course exceptions, but in general, people are happy to get transit and are receptive to proposals.
> The problem is in convincing them to increase density in their neighborhoods. People are accustomed to the status quo and are afraid of any increase in development scale. That is the biggest hurdle to creating sustainable cities in the US.


They going have to get used it than. America needs to change its ways if it wants to survive the 21st century.


----------



## phattonez (Sep 14, 2006)

quashlo said:


> The biggest hurdle isn't in convincing people to spend on transit. There are of course exceptions, but in general, people are happy to get transit and are receptive to proposals.
> The problem is in convincing them to increase density in their neighborhoods. People are accustomed to the status quo and are afraid of any increase in development scale. That is the biggest hurdle to creating sustainable cities in the US.


No amount of bills will get people to change what they want. The only way to really get American cities to change is to convince people that smart development really is more attractive and much better in so many ways. The real way to go about this transformation is by convincing people, not by passing legislation. quashlo, you are dead on.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

And convincing people that higher-density development is good requires intensification to be done well. It requires excellent urban design, excellent architecture and excellent public transport. It also requires an excellent public realm, as people will be giving up some of their private space for public space.

Sprawl is, basically, the abandonment of the 'public' for the 'private'. People seem to be able to live with crap surroundings in sprawled areas, because they have a massive McMansion and 7 cars. Only quality public space & good urban vitality is going to convince them it's worthwhile to give up their big backyard and 14 bedroom house to live in a much smaller apartment or townhouse in a sustainable area. Quality is critical, and I think there are many parts of the USA that are doing intensification really well.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

ADCS said:


> @ Substructure:
> 
> That last shot is an absolutely ancient shot of Houston's downtown. There's been a ton more development there, and not nearly as many parking lots.
> 
> Please stop using that picture without the proper context.


Agreed, and I didn't mention it was Houston to save it from the critics.

Fair's fair, Houston built a very successful LRT in 2004 and is already planning its extension. There are also some zoning laws slowly taking place in the urban strategies, and some densification. But STILL, this is what you get in downtown :

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.759236,-95.354188&spn=0.002431,0.005493&t=k&z=18

Right next to the office buildings :
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.755757,-95.35966&spn=0.002431,0.005493&t=k&z=18

And I believe this one is not very old either :
http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data/500/Houston_near_CBD.jpg


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Crazy, even if its old the hosts of houston are mental! Its like a city of nothingness!


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Houston is ultimate proof of why city planning is necessary.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

ADCS said:


> @ Substructure:
> 
> That last shot is an absolutely ancient shot of Houston's downtown.



Wow! I thought that was a photo-shop. That actually existed? It's hard to believe- really hard to believe.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Check out Substructure's links... not only did it exist, it still does!


----------



## phattonez (Sep 14, 2006)

jarbury said:


> Houston is ultimate proof of why city planning is necessary.


I'm guessing that those parking lots were a result of freeways. Freeways allowed people to move out far distances and travel to work by car. Those cars needed huge parking lots. So then, couldn't you say that Houston is ultimate proof of why city planning is terrible? Just saying, it can be construed that way. You probably wouldn't have huge parking lots without city planning.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

> Though Houston is the largest city in the United States without formal zoning regulations, it has developed similarly to other Sun Belt cities because the city's land use regulations and legal covenants have played a similar role. Regulations include mandatory lot size for single-family houses and requirements that parking be available to tenants and customers. Such restrictions have had mixed results. Though some have blamed the city's low density, urban sprawl, and lack of pedestrian-friendliness on these policies, the city's land use has also been credited with a bounty of affordable housing, sparing Houston the worst effects of the 2008 real estate crisis.


From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston


----------



## phattonez (Sep 14, 2006)

^^The freeways are massive urban planning.


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

I think the best way to start is to build mid-to-high income target condominiums in downtown, near public transportation hubs. Carbon tax alongside may help to convince the switchover from private cars to public transportation. Once mid-high income people gets convinced and this way become more fashionable, off you go, the market will do the rest.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

phattonez said:


> I'm guessing that those parking lots were a result of freeways. Freeways allowed people to move out far distances and travel to work by car. Those cars needed huge parking lots. So then, couldn't you say that Houston is ultimate proof of why city planning is terrible? Just saying, it can be construed that way. You probably wouldn't have huge parking lots without city planning.


They don't NEED huge parking lots. They need lots of parking. (Assuming they had no desire for mass transit which was clearly the case.) They could've built parking garages with retail on the ground floor. That would've been a lot better in my opinion.


----------



## phattonez (Sep 14, 2006)

^^Would have been better, but I don't think that developers really cared about making the city look nice since everyone would be in their car if they were in the city.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

phattonez said:


> ^^Would have been better, but I don't think that developers really cared about making the city look nice since everyone would be in their car if they were in the city.


They obviously didn't care. I've seen _exurbs_ here in the northeast with more density.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

And yet, with merely three floors, you can achieve some pretty nice densities that could make mass transit very efficient.
If a third of the space is used by the construction, another third for the parking lots/open grass around it, and a last third by the street, then a three floor building means the plot ratio = 1.

Then, if you give everybody 50m² (550 sqft/person, or 2200 sqft for a 4 person household), you get a 20000ppl/km2 density (52000ppl/sqm) .. with only 3 floors. That's 10 million inhabitants on 500km² (195sqm).

Let's give everybody some room by adding the same area of greenery (50% built - 50% greenery), we get 10 millions inhabitants on 1000km² (390sqm).

That's a 20 miles wide city, hosting 10Mhab, and half of it being greenery. Obviously, the city is then designed for the people and not for cars.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Your classic example is central Paris. Unbelievable residential densities yet not much more than 6 levels high. It's hardly overcrowded either and leads to fantastic urban vitality.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Substructure said:


>


I hope I'm not the only one here who noticed that the streetcar in this pic is literally identical to the one in Toronto. :lol:


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^It is not "literally identical", that is without any doubt a Toronto Transit Commission Canadian Light Rail Vehicle (CLRV for short).


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

The US, and Canada for that matter, have to start somewhere. It seems that both nations are heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, some cities are much further behind than others and big obstacles stand in the way of realizing efficient sustainable urban plans.

With legislation passing in California, the transformation in Californian cities will be fascinating to watch unfold.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^In North America in general you will not see that rapid of a change.

Far too many people still view living a smaller more urban dwelling as not desirable.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ In the larger cities, I think we will see some significant movement. Municipal governments are finally seeing the wisdom in smarter planning.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Homer J. Simpson said:


> ^In North America in general you will not see that rapid of a change.
> 
> Far too many people still view living a smaller more urban dwelling as not desirable.


I think that the price of fuel (whether driven up by taxes or market value) will have alot to say. No one can deny that one summer of 1.5-2x more costy fuel impacted many people's lives, made living far away less desirable. Imagine if it stays there or gets more costly. 

That and I think that younger people are rebelling against their parens & grandparents choice - that is by having interest in more central locations. The suburbs aren't special.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^Its a nice thought but optimistic I would say.

One of the issues is that too much employment has developed in the suburban areas and are not as likely to move based on fuel costs.

As such people are less likely to rush back into the city to lead more fuel efficient lives.

So far the trends shown in Canadian government stats (I'm sure the American ones are not that different) that people continue to undertake ever lengthening commutes while taking fewer elective trips.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Billpa said:


> Wow! I thought that was a photo-shop. That actually existed? It's hard to believe- really hard to believe.


1980 or so. Oil was at 40 dollars a barrel, and everyone thought it was going to stay there. Houston was going to have 8 or 9 million in the metro by 2000, and it was all going to be around the car. Sure, rail was on the board, but that was going to be unnecessary, because everyone was making money hand over foot, and even the lowest paid refinery worker could afford a shiny new car.

Six years later, things are a ton different. No one has a job, half the banks are gone and most of the buildings that had started to infill the parking lot had been canceled (including one that may have been the tallest in the US; some at that time thought Houston was going to be the 21st Century's New York... there's a reason those were the two teams in Rollerball). A subway system starts to get fast tracked.

Four years later, real-estate developer Bob Lanier is mayor. He cancels every rail plan, and uses the federal funds to expand the hell out of the freeways (which indeed was needed, though possibly not at the scale that was completed). The slowly recovering economy is greased by $10/bbl oil, which leads to massive expansion in exurban development, provided by the nice new 8-16 lane freeways serving out into far-flung parts of Greater Houston.

So, there you have it, an admittedly truncated and biased history of Houston over the last 30 years. It helps explain a lot; the lack of zoning still provided for many traditional urban neighborhoods, especially within the Loop. Outside it, though, the developers had their way, and did what they always do.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

That's very interesting background, for sure...but...Even if you have a big city that's all about the car it still doesn't mean you can't build some parking garages instead of all that surface parking. It looks like a central business district surrounded by the Mall of America parking lot. I'm assuming the Mall of America has a parking lot that large, maybe it has a parking garage, I don't know .


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

That's what happens when you allow a city to spread forever, thereby placing little value on its central land.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Billpa said:


> That's very interesting background, for sure...but...Even if you have a big city that's all about the car it still doesn't mean you can't build some parking garages instead of all that surface parking. It looks like a central business district surrounded by the Mall of America parking lot. I'm assuming the Mall of America has a parking lot that large, maybe it has a parking garage, I don't know .


It's interesting what happens as soon as you say the words "parking garage" to developers/financiers. You might see it as a net public good, but they see it as a multi-million dollar money pit. It's very difficult to build a parking garage and not have to subsidize it with the surrounding development; the user fees would be exorbitant if it paid for itself.

However, downtown Houston does have many more garages nowadays. One by one, the surface lots are disappearing, and none too soon, I may add. Building Discovery Green in the center of those lots helped.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Auto bailout guarantees transactions involving nation's transit agencies*
11 December 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - The $14 billion measure to keep U.S. automakers in business also has a provision to keep the nation's rail and bus systems on track.

The legislation would provide federal guarantees for complex financial transactions between major transit agencies and investors. Many of these deals are in danger of default owing to the credit crisis, exposing transit agencies to billions of dollars in payments at a time when they are trying to cope with growing riderships.

Transit agencies and their allies in Congress have warned that rail and bus systems could be crippled without the federal backup. But the provision met with sharp criticism from several key lawmakers.

"This provision aimed at protecting transit agencies really just helps the banks that entered into these sham transactions in their attempts to avoid taxes," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Baucus told reporters Wednesday that he would oppose the auto bailout bill if the transit provision stayed in it.

The panel's leading Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa., said that after fighting to eliminate the tax schemes, "allowing parties to these transactions to reap these benefits with taxpayer dollars would be a perverse result."

The transactions, called sale-in/lease out (SILO) and lease-in/lease out (LILO), involve the practice of transit agencies selling rail cars and other equipment to banks and then leasing them back at a discount. The transit agencies get large infusions of capital for investment while the banks could write off taxes on the depreciating property.

In 2004, Baucus and Grassley succeeded in moving legislation that denied the deduction of losses from these transactions, ending the tax benefits of entering into SILO transactions.

But last October, House Transportation Committee leaders, including chairman Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., and ranking Republican John Mica of Florida, wrote to the administration urging the federal government to assist those transit agencies still liable from SILO deals reached before the change in the law.

"These transit contracts, when in vogue, were touted as an inventive way to allow public transportation agencies to fund their payment obligations for rail and bus equipment purchases," said their letter, also signed by highways and transit panel chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. Defaults, they said, "could threaten their very existence and the financial stability of the state and local governments that fund them."

The president of the American Public Transportation Association, William W. Millar, said the Federal Transit Administration encouraged transit systems to take part in the financing arrangements.

"At a time when public transportation systems are experiencing both severe financial challenges and record ridership, transit systems and their riders should not be penalized for following the guidance of the federal agency in charge of overseeing public transportation," said Millar. "With this legislation, there is no financial risk to the taxpayer.

In August, the Internal Revenue Service offered settlements to some corporations if they agreed to terminate existing SILO and LILO transactions.

But last month leaders from transit agencies warned that 31 of the nation's largest transit systems could face at least $2 billion in payments in the coming months because the credit crunch had put many of these deals in jeopardy. Insurers such as American International Group Inc., had backed the deals, but downgrades of AIG's credit put many of the transactions in default, allowing banks to demand early termination fees and other penalties.

The Washington (D.C.) Metro system last month reached a settlement with a Belgian bank that had sought $43 million after the near collapse of AIG.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*CTA says 2008 ridership will hit record levels *
11 December 2008










CHICAGO (AP) - Chicago Transit Authority officials say ridership will hit a 16-year high even as fares are set to increase.

CTA President Ron Huberman says the agency has surpassed 500 million rides for the year and is on track to surpass the 508 million mark set 1992. He says people are choosing to use public transportation over driving despite the recent drop in gas prices.

The agency says ridership has increased 5.5 percent system-wide, with an increase in bus ridership of 6.7 percent over 2007 and an increase of 3.8 percent on the rail system. Huberman predicts that 528 million rides will be recorded by Dec. 31.

The next day, fares across the system will increase by 15 percent. The agency's board approved the increase Nov. 13.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

From Washington Post

LaHood Accepts Transportation Secretary Job

By Paul Kane and Philip Rucker
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) last night accepted an offer to become President-elect Barack Obama's transportation secretary and the nomination will be made official in coming days, a senior Democratic official said.

LaHood, 63, who is retiring after representing a rural downstate district in Congress since 1995, becomes the second Republican tapped for Obama's Cabinet. In recent years, LaHood developed a close relationship with Obama, becoming a key player on the House Appropriations Committee on behalf of the Illinois delegation. A moderate Republican, LaHood has not shied away from criticizing the Bush administration and has a reputation for working with leaders of both political parties.

From his perch atop the Department of Transportation, LaHood will be a key player in the new administration's public works projects designed to stimulate the struggling economy.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

BoulderGrad said:


> From Washington Post
> 
> LaHood Accepts Transportation Secretary Job
> 
> ...



Is he a supporter of mass transit?


----------



## Chusanch (Dec 6, 2006)

It is surprising to see that there is more use of public transport in the USA. I thought it was common to use private cars rather than public transport. It is going the right way...


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

Minneapolis/St Paul Metro Transit is still seeing record numbers despite the falling price of gas. I was on a high frequency bus today at 1 pm and it was standing room only even though it was really cold outside (0F which is around -17c).

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

*Gas spike over, metro riders still hopping on the bus, train*
Twin Cities transit use continues to rise, despite cheaper gas, higher fares and rising unemployment; indeed, the system shows signs of strain due to its popularity. 

By MITCH ANDERSON, Star Tribune 

Last update: December 8, 2008 - 10:10 PM


WASHINGTON - Gasoline is getting cheaper, but Minnesotans are still flocking to public transportation in record numbers.

Some experts say they're getting used to it -- if they can find a seat.

In fact, the Twin Cities are outpacing other parts of the nation in the growth of bus and light-rail travel, according to a survey released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association.

The third quarter of 2008 saw a 7.4 percent rise in public transit use in the metro area, totaling 22.3 million rides in all. Nationwide, buses, light rail, subways and commuter railroads saw a 6.5 percent spike, the largest quarterly increase in 25 years.

Public transit ridership began hitting record levels in July as the national average for a gallon of gas reached $4.11, the survey said. More surprising was that the trend continued, despite falling gas prices, rising transit fares and creeping unemployment.

Historically, those factors tend to drive transit ridership down, especially in combination.

"Even in the face of those three factors, in the month of October, we didn't have a ridership decline, we had a ridership increase," said Bob Gibbons, director of customer services for the Twin Cities' Metro Transit. "I think it is a lifestyle change; otherwise, we would have seen a significant decline."

But the increase in ridership comes as a mixed blessing. 

While ridership over the past four years is up about 17 percent, Gibbons said, there has only been about a 2.5 percent increase in routes and service. So it's harder to find a seat, and the system is getting strained.

Jerry Krause, who commutes from his home in Minneapolis to Hamline University in St. Paul, is seeing the transit boom firsthand. Two years ago, a typical morning bus would have 18 or 19 riders, he said, and now the number has more than doubled. One afternoon last week, one of his buses ran out of room for riders to stand. "It was totally jammed with people," he said.

More people also means more stops, more loading and more unloading. "Once you start loading more and more people onto a bus, the slower and slower it is on the route," Krause said. Standing-room-only buses also mean "you don't get anything done," he said. "You can't read the paper, can't do anything. You're just sort of holding on and hoping that you're not going to be thrown into someone's lap."

Despite the rising demand, pinched revenues have already forced many transit agencies to increase fares or cut service.

In October, Metro Transit raised its rates 25 cents, a move that it may have to repeat in 2009 to offset the losses in funding, according to Gibbons. But he said that's better than cutting service.

Some Democrats in Congress say the trend could help boost support for more transit funds in President-elect Barack Obama's planned economic stimulus package.

"Congestion costs our economy $78 billion a year in wasted time and fuel," said Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn. "I call that a congestion tax that is being levied on every good and service being produced in our economy."

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/35774734.html?elr=KArksUUUU


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

This is great news, but I do wonder why this is happening? Do Americans just love public transport all of a sudden?


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Many find this gas price collapse to be a temporary thing, which it may as well be...


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

^^ Very true. Rising oil prices should be the first signs of an economic recovery many think.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Ridership on MA transit system sets record in 2008 *
30 January 2009

BOSTON (AP) - Boston-area commuters took to trains, trolleys and buses in record numbers last year.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Agency says the transit system recorded an average 1.28 million passenger trips on weekdays in 2008, the highest ridership total ever and a 4.3 percent increase over the previous year.

But there were signs of the upward trend reversing as the year came to a close.

In December, average weekday ridership declined 1.5 percent from the same month in 2007. Officials said the likeliest factors were falling gasoline prices and rising unemployment as the economy faltered.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

ssiguy2 said:


> I agree, build it as soon as possible but as ridership build so should frequency. There also has to be a minimum standard of service level. Rapid transit must be comparable with car travel for the same trip or people won't take it and that includes waiting for the train.


If governments are committed to really developing pro-transit strategies, they need to start thinking about what can be done to replicate or allow the conditions that promote transit use to evolve once a transit system is well on its way (ie comprehensive network, frequency are all there). Congestion is one of them.

Many here can agree that the reason that all sorts of people (regardless of financial circumstance) use the subway in New York is because the traffic doesn't move fast enough - it is too congested. No amount of money can buy time, so even those who can afford to drive in New York will take the subway. If there were no congestion in New York people wouldn't use the subway nearly as much. 

So how do you create congestion? Well what if you use part of an existing freeway or main road ROW for your mass transit? Commuter rail, LRT, BRT. If the system is an underground one, then expand bicycle services and create fully separated bike lanes on the ROW of major roads a that serve the same corridor. It is a carrot and stick -At the same time as you put in a network of clean desirable transportation, you are in fact taking away car-space, you get congestion. Once car-traffic starts to move that much more slowly than transit, many of the drivers will make the switch. You do need a comprehensive network tho...

OR (and this one would probably be more politically palatable although it won't help boost ridership as effectively) maybe when you put in the mass transit, any kind of roadway expansion is permanently suspended along the same corridor.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Somnifor said:


> I think there is a lot of truth to this, in the older parts of US cities that were built for pedestrians or along streetcar lines mass transit tends to work pretty well. It is when you get to the more spread out areas built after WWII where transit has difficulty providing good services.


Imho, Cities and governments are much better off putting in comprehensive high quality transit in the inner and core areas of cities where there are rehabilitated traditional neighbourhoods, infill development and brownfield development. There is simply no way to expect high ridership (justify) providing expensive transit (ie rails) and stations to areas with suburban densities and - you'd only have maybe 20 houses within a 5 minute walk of stations and the rest would have to drive to the stations... kinda defeats the idea of transit-orientation.

Encourageing people to move back to a more central places where they are more likely to be able to walk to work, shopping, restaurants etc, or do them in short bike or transit ride has many other benefits. Extending costly quality transit to neighbourhoods and areas where only 20 houses may be in walking distance of a station just doesn't make sense, and tells people that "hey you make an inefficient housing choice, but we'll still subsidize your commuting so you can feel good about living far away from anything".


----------



## davsot (Dec 27, 2008)

We need to connect our major metropolitan hubs with HSR like the Japanese! Don't make me post my graph on intercontinental air travel in the US! :tongue2:


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Those high speed rail lines can carry people in high population corridors like BosNYWash. They are great for ribbon cutting ceremonies but generally aren't worth it. Those thing cost massive amounts of money and produce very little ridership as opposed to using those funds for urban transit. They also do little for the enviornment. Yes you might take a few thousand cars off the road but those are freeway cras as opposed to transit which takes the stop & go traffic of the cities which is where the overwhelming amount of pollution comes from.


----------



## davsot (Dec 27, 2008)

What we need to do for rail transit to become popular is make it a competitive service against the car. We need to level the playing field. We will make the service as attractive as possible, but also institute congestion charging and tax gasoline. I mean if the Saudis are going to make money off fuel, why can't we? Congestion Charging will solve most transportation authorities' debt.

Of course, this will only happen if Obama is for it, if the people are for it and if the government is for it. There's many auto and oil companies out there that are for taxing gas more.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

davsot said:


> What we need to do for rail transit to become popular is make it a competitive service against the car. We need to level the playing field. We will make the service as attractive as possible, but also institute congestion charging and tax gasoline. I mean if the Saudis are going to make money off fuel, why can't we? Congestion Charging will solve most transportation authorities' debt.
> 
> Of course, this will only happen if Obama is for it, if the people are for it and if the government is for it. There's many auto and oil companies out there that are for taxing gas more.


The problem with congestion charging is that there are always people who can afford to pay... its is unfair because those who are less able to pay will bear the brunt of the cost - makes car-use a socio-econ characteristic

BUT is you create congestion by re-allocating lanes to non-car uses, then the cost to drivers is **time** and no amount of money can buy time.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

ssiguy2 said:


> Those high speed rail lines can carry people in high population corridors like BosNYWash. They are great for ribbon cutting ceremonies but generally aren't worth it. Those thing cost massive amounts of money and produce very little ridership as opposed to using those funds for urban transit. They also do little for the enviornment. Yes you might take a few thousand cars off the road but those are freeway cras as opposed to transit which takes the stop & go traffic of the cities which is where the overwhelming amount of pollution comes from.


For starters, they could get rid of the thousands of short air shuttles every day, which emit huge amounts of pollution and waste space at congested airports. If high speed trains become a feeder system for airports, the airline industry will jump at such proposals.

You also imply that cars do not emit pollution when they travel at high speed, which anyone with high school physics education can tell you is completely false (the E = (1/2) m*v^2 thing).


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^I think you missed his point.

If massive public spending is to be spent on rail, it is usually more effective if it is spend on urban mass transit.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Stimulus bill may add highway, transit funds as plan advances to Senate floor *
3 February 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - Top Democrats plan to add a big increase in highway and mass transit funding to President Barack Obama's economic recovery program Tuesday, even as others in the president's party hope to rein in the plan's almost $1 trillion cost to taxpayers.

A move by Patty Murray, D-Wash., to add $25 billion in infrastructure projects is first in line as the Senate begins thrashing through dozens of proposed changes to the sprawling $885 billion measure.

Murray's plan would increase the money in the bill for highway projects by almost 50 percent, to $40 billion, reflecting complaints from lawmakers in both parties that Obama's plan doesn't do enough to relieve a backlog of unfinished projects. Mass transit programs would get a $5 billion boost, while water projects would get $7 billion more.

Republicans, for their part, readied a plan to lower mortgage costs to try to jolt the housing market out of its slump.

The $885 billion Senate economic plan faces assaults from both Democrats and Republicans during debate this week, as lawmakers in both parties aim to kill ideas that won't jolt the economy right away.

"The goal is to shape a package that is more targeted, that would be smaller in size and that would be truly focused on saving or creating jobs and turning the economy around," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. She said ideas like $870 million to combat bird flu should be dumped.

Others, such as Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., have complained about items such as health research being in the bill. But Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- a moderate whose vote is sought by Obama -- is instead proposing to add $6.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health.

Democrats already are under pressure from moderates in their own party to scale back spending in the $885 billion bill, and Obama met with party leaders at the White House late Monday to discuss strategy.

"What we can't do is let very modest differences get in the way" of swift enactment of the legislation, Obama said several hours earlier as new layoffs rippled through the economy and the Commerce Department reported an unexpectedly large sixth straight drop in personal spending.

In the Capitol, Republicans said their goal was to change the bill, not to block it. "Nobody that I know of is trying to keep a package from passing," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

"We need to fix housing first," he said. Republicans are expected to seek a vote on their proposals this week as part of the debate on the overall stimulus measure.

Officials said the GOP was uniting behind a proposal designed to give banks an incentive to make loans at rates currently estimated at 4 percent to 4.5 percent. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by the federal government in September, would be required to purchase the mortgages once banks have made them to consumers.

Officials said loans to creditworthy borrowers on primary residences with a mortgage of up to $625,000 would qualify, including those seeking to refinance their current loans.

Separately, Republican officials said they intended to press for a $15,000 tax credit for home buyers through the end of the year. Current law permits a $7,500 tax break and limits it to first-time home buyers.

Nineteen Democratic and Republican governors, meanwhile, cited frozen credit markets and rising unemployment in urging lawmakers to resolve their differences and asking Obama to sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk. The governors said the money it provides for public education, health care and rebuilding the nation's infrastructure will create and preserve jobs while making a sound investment in the country's long-term economic interests.

"While we all believe in the importance of free markets, we believe that the markets today need stimulating," the governors told Obama in a letter dated Monday. Among the signers are Democrats Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Suburban areas can be serviced by commuter rail.

There are plenty of commercial clusters dense enough to support rail transit in the suburbs.

Tyson's Corner in NoVa is a great example.

All good public transit systems include commuter rail. Imagine Chicago without the Metra, or New York City with the LIRR or Metro North?


----------



## Orfeo (Oct 26, 2003)

Upcoming problem:



> ST. LOUIS — Buses will no longer stop at some 2,300 stops in and around this city at the end of next month because, despite rising ridership, the struggling transit system plans to balance its books with layoffs and drastic service cuts.....
> 
> The Washington Metro set a record on Inauguration Day last month when people made 1.5 million trips on it to see the swearing-in of President Obama, but its $176 million budget gap means that it is planning to cut service and eliminate 900 jobs. Chicago had its biggest gain in riders in three decades last year, but was forced to raise fares. Charlotte, N.C., whose new light-rail system is the envy of transit planners around the country, and which is enjoying its biggest ridership levels since “the days of streetcars,” according to Keith Parker, the transit system’s chief executive, will be running its new trains less frequently, raising fares and cutting back on bus service.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Thank God Chicago just raised fares and restructured how the system gets funding - as opposed to cutting service.

The last service cuts in Chicago were 12 years ago, and they were horrible. One of the MAIN things that drives transit usage over a car is frequency. Raising fares will deter some riders, but not as much as taking your train from a 5 minute headway to a 9 minute headway. Especially with record ridership! Can you imagine the furious people trying to pack onto already crowded trains/buses.

Luckly Chicago has been adding service almost every year now, and although it has to raise fares, it hasn't cut back on anything.

They threatened to cut back on service, and even elimiate 56 bus routes, but people said no way, and they found another solution.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

And in light of the funding problems facing America's mass transit systems:

Fucking Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats caved in to the far right GOPpers and cut $3.4 billion in funding for mass transit from the stimulus bill. Unbelievable.

The greatest to America is Republicans!!


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

hoosier said:


> And in light of the funding problems facing America's mass transit systems:
> 
> Fucking Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats caved in to the far right GOPpers and cut $3.4 billion in funding for mass transit from the stimulus bill. Unbelievable.
> 
> The greatest to America is Republicans!!


They didn't just cave in, they lost there nuts to a bunch of GOP whiners :bash: Why can't we accuse them all of fraud?


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Public transport in the US always seems to be 1 step forward, two steps back.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

city_thing said:


> Public transport in the US always seems to be 1 step forward, two steps back.


I know.

Hopefully the Transportation Bill that comes up for re-authorization later this year has lots of money for mass transit.


----------



## jdbarber (Jan 5, 2009)

http://http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/stimulus.winners.losers/

From CNN.com on the final stimulus bill. 
High-speed and inner-city rail: Went from $300 million in House bill to $2.25 billion in Senate to $8 billion in final version. There also is a $6.9 billion provision for public transit.

Amtrak: Picked up $500 million from both House and Senate versions to total $1.3 billion. The bill stipulates that no more than 60 percent can go to the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

The US is / was in the mentality of the UK back in the 1960s with all the car is king business...


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Canadian cities could only dream of getting the kind of financial assistance US cities already do for public transit. The cities get small amounts for transit infastructure and no money from the federal government for operational costs.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

jdbarber said:


> http://http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/stimulus.winners.losers/
> 
> From CNN.com on the final stimulus bill.
> High-speed and inner-city rail: Went from $300 million in House bill to $2.25 billion in Senate to $8 billion in final version. There also is a $6.9 billion provision for public transit.
> ...


It sounds like all that is good news?


----------



## Cantonese (May 19, 2004)

*Which one is the best subway system of United States?*

Which one is the best subway system of United States?


----------



## Mr. Lion (Feb 23, 2009)

New York City Subway,


----------



## subwaymark (Jan 2, 2009)

Depends on criteria, but I would agree, New York Subway is the best. Best at city coverage, frequency and flexibility (multiple routing options) and moving people!

Mark K
ktransit.com


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Yes has to be New York on every criteria except for aesthetics. Then I imagine the Washington DC metro would win.

But New York wins overall, by a mile.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ What he said. 

New York wins by a country mile in my humble opinion. The top subways in America are New York, Chicago and Washington, the rest are relatively unimpressive.

*New York*

_Pros_
* It runs 24 hours (which is highly unusual as far as international examples are concerned).
* It is very extensive in Manhatten and has reasonable coverage in sections of the city beyond that. 
*It runs express services and has a good service frequency. 
* New rolling stock procurement.

_Cons_
* Crime
* Grime
* No JFK connection
* Maintenance issues?

*Chicago*

_Pros_
* Good coverage
* Downtown loop and underground portions
* Interesting elevated tracks in the city centre (historical aesthetics)
* Connects to the airport

_Cons_
* Narrow platforms in places
* Aging infrastructure (rolling stock and tracks)
* Infrequent services on some lines out of normal daytime hours.
* Looks kind of grubby

*Washington*

_Pros_
* Excellent station design
* Duel line portions to enhance frequency in heavily utilised areas. 
* Nice network of lines to allow interchanges
* Will hopefully be extended to the airport
* Comparatively clean and well maintained

_Cons_
* Expansions are slow.
* Frequency is not as high as NY or Chicago (during the day). 
* Aging rolling stock.


----------



## AmiDelf (Jun 9, 2004)

I would say San Francisco !!!


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

AmiDelf said:


> I would say San Francisco !!!


San Francisco does not have a subway system. BART runs underground in downtown San Francisco but is above ground everywhere else. BART is basically a commuter rail system.


----------



## tyork (Mar 29, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ What he said.
> 
> New York wins by a country mile in my humble opinion. The top subways in America are New York, Chicago and Washington, the rest are relatively unimpressive.


Boston's T is impressive... especially for a city of 600,000. If you add their Green Line light rail, which is part of their subway system, they move about as many people as DC' Metro and more people than Chicago's L... which serves a city with 5 times the population of Boston.

But in the end New York's subway is the best, hands down... 

The PATH is also an impressive system.


----------



## tyork (Mar 29, 2006)

hoosier said:


> San Francisco does not have a subway system. BART runs underground in downtown San Francisco but is above ground everywhere else. BART is basically a commuter rail system.


DC Metro is almost in essence is a carbon copy of BART.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

tyork said:


> Boston's T is impressive... especially for a city of 600,000. If you add their Green Line light rail, which is part of their subway system, they move about as many people as DC' Metro and more people than Chicago's L... which serves a city with 5 times the population of Boston.
> 
> But in the end New York's subway is the best, hands down...
> 
> The PATH is also an impressive system.


To some extent I'd agree, but then ridership doesn't make a system great in my opinion. The Boston subway, though very well utilised (especially for North American transit), doesn't have nearly the reach of the El. Besides, I'm not so keen on the Green Line - far too many branches for one central corridor in my book (as this thread is a purely subjective one). 

According to third quarter figures for ridership in 2008, Metrorail in Washington carried 1.01 million trips per day compared with 502,000 on the Boston T so the ridership of the Metro in Washington is definitely higher than Boston, but you're dead right about the El with it carrying 680,000 per day in the third quarter of 2008 - very close to the ridership of the Boston T despite the obvious size difference between Boston and Chicago.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

NYC for coverage and reach, DC for aesthetics and functionality.

Chicago and Boston also have good system for US (not world) standards, and those two are really close to DC in the ranking, but I haven't been on them before. However, both cities blow DC out of the water when it comes to commuter rail. Metra and MBTA are the best commuter rails out of the NY area.

Other than those four, other cities that have subways (Philly, LA, Atlanta among others) have systems that are below what they can have. LA however, has major potential to build up. I don't know about the others. Didn't hear anything about Atlanta and Philly. Unknown by many, Cleveland and Baltimore actually both have a subway line, but they mix with light rail.

BART is kind of between the four best, and the others. It isn't all that extensive, but the geography of the Bay Area is small and the maps don't show this. If it had more service to SF itself (although Muni complements this drawback), and coverage to San Jose, it would be with the best four. 



tyork said:


> DC Metro is almost in essence is a carbon copy of BART.


I know that this may sound semantic, but I'd say that it's the other way around. The DC metro is much superior to BART. The Metro shares BART's coverage in the suburbs, while having even better service in the city. SF's Muni is good, but it doesn't beat the heavy rail connections in DC proper.


----------



## tyork (Mar 29, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> Metrorail in Washington carried 1.01 million trips per day compared with 502,000 on the Boston T so the ridership of the Metro in Washington is definitely higher than Boston, but you're dead right about the El with it carrying 680,000 per day in the third quarter of 2008


That figure is excluding the Green Line which carries an additional 270,000 people.... so Bostons actual transit numbers are around 800,000... but I agree Boston’s transit is less than desirable but definitely it is one of the best transit systems of the country.

There’s nothing wrong with it but I feel the DC Metrorail is a BART that has better intercity coverage.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ What he said.
> 
> New York wins by a country mile in my humble opinion. The top subways in America are New York, Chicago and Washington, the rest are relatively unimpressive.
> 
> ...


True that New York and Chicago have the best metro systems in The US. As for NY, there is a JFK connection. The JFK air train has direct connection with two subway stations. 

As for rolling stock, there are new ones such as the R142 and such


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

WANCH said:


> True that New York and Chicago have the best metro systems in The US. As for NY, there is a JFK connection. The JFK air train has direct connection with two subway stations.
> 
> As for rolling stock, there are new ones such as the R142 and such


I thought the JFK connection wasn't integrated with the subway though (IE different fare structure). If Heathrow only had the Heathrow express rather than the Picc line as well, I'd moan about that too! Sure, have a premium service to run alongside regular transit, but there shouldn't be a monopoly at the airport - it makes it very expensive and far less attractive.

As for the comment about the rolling stock, I said that the new stock was one of the good points about the NY subway!


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

As this question regards subways alone, it's obvious that NYC is always going to win as it dwarfs every other system in the nation. 

_How about the best public transport system in the US though?_

Which city would win that?

I'd guess maybe Washington D.C.? Or Portland?

(I've never been to the USA so I can't really give a good answer)


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Even outside of the NYS, I reckon that NY will still come tops in terms of PT. Portland is definitely not that great with regards to PT from what I've seen from their PT website. Service frequencies are a little off (they boast about 15 minute frequencies) and late night provision is pretty poor for a city of its size.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

NYC's PT connections with the airports was always a sore point. JFK is connected to the subway twice via AirTrain, but it's still not direct. A rail connection to LaGuardia isn't happening probably ever. PATH may eventually connect to Newark though. There are feasibility studies on the prospect. Newark is actually connected to Manhattan by commuter rail, through NJTransit and Amtrak to a station that has it's own AirTrain to the airport, but it's pricey. It cost $15 one way on NJT, who knows on Amtrak.

As for best PT in the US in general...there is no comparison, it's New York.


----------



## TaterTot (Oct 14, 2008)

*What about the Muni Metro subway?*



hoosier said:


> San Francisco does not have a subway system. BART runs underground in downtown San Francisco but is above ground everywhere else. BART is basically a commuter rail system.


SF Muni runs under Market Street and out to West Portal.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

TaterTot said:


> SF Muni runs under Market Street and out to West Portal.


Muni metro is light rail, not a subway.


----------



## chicagoboulder (Sep 4, 2009)

brianmoon85 said:


> I don't know about that. Most US cities are not biker or evne pedestrian friendly. Plus, it would take the entire day to go from one place to another since everything is so far away. Why can't they construct subway lines in each mid-scale to large cities that connects to important business, historical, and residential places like other countries do??? In the US, it is so hard to get around if you don't have a car. I live in DC and it's a pain, and NO the DC metro doesn't even stand a chance to Seoul or Tokyo's subway system. You can NEVER walk to a subway system in the USA, you need a car, park at the metro parking garage and then ride the metro...which is RIDICULOUS



Some cities, such as Denver, CO, are too heavy to put in a subway. The soils in different parts of the country don't allow for the same transit solution to be built everywhere, why else would there be so many different examples of mass transit? I think cities should put in more rail because the traffic engineering is more productive per mile than road. If the ridership is there, some light rail systems could eventually become above ground metros.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

davsot said:


> So, we should concentrate on cycling infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure first?


That will work in urban areas, but unlikely to make much of a difference in suburbia where people still need to drive long distances to work.


----------



## chicagoboulder (Sep 4, 2009)

What about using a hybrid system of U-behn and S-bahn just like Germany and Austria? The U-bahn serves the needs of metro systems in the US, and the S-bahn serves the needs of a commuter rail system. What we forget is that many cities in the Sun Belt and the West are experiencing explosive population growth, and those same cities are now planning new transit systems. The challenge is that many of those cities have no large natural obstacles, which allows them unrestrained growth in all directions, we first need to reign that in and increase the density of the city, and along with that, plan for rapid transit corridors connecting neighborhoods and businesses from the furthest reaches of the growth to the downtown core. For instance, the furthest reach of the Denver Metro area is about twenty or twenty five miles from the CBD. The furthest suburb of Chicago, in comparison is about sixty miles from The Loop. This is two to three times the distance, and people commute to downtown Chicago from the far suburbs. The light rail systems currently in place in the Western US serve the current population well, but the expected growth will push the system to the limits of its current state. There needs to be a comprehensive system that combines both methods of rail travel U-bahn and S-bahn. The light rail that is currently in place could serve well as the U-bahn service, but the S-bahn service would have to be created from scratch. Combining that with other modes of transportation, like buses and bicycles would greatly improve the quality of life in any major city in the US, and provide a platform for other cities in North America and the Caribbean. Its time we put our money where our mouths are and take a leaf from Europe and certain parts of Asia and completely revamp our perceptions of public transportation.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Yes U-Bahn/S-Bahn is a great complementation 

As far as I know eg Paris has something similar with metro/RER

In Vienna some S-Bahn lines are pretty close to U-Bahn like coverage like the S45 which has an interval of 10-15 min (10 min at peak time in the morning and evening). Other S-Bahn lines are more like regional trains in terms of coverage.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

I just found this great documentary on PBS about Detroit city, its present state, the mistakes that were made, and the revitalization plans to come in the hope to someday save this city. An hour and a half long, but an interesting watch.

"Beyond the Motor City"
http://video.pbs.org/video/1409024983/#

(give the player a minute to load)


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Substructure said:


> I just found this great documentary on PBS about Detroit city, its present state, the mistakes that were made, and the revitalization plans to come in the hope to someday save this city. An hour and a half long, but an interesting watch.
> 
> "Beyond the Motor City"
> http://video.pbs.org/video/1409024983/#
> ...


Wow, great video. With stories like that, you can't help but get really pissed off at people that still oppose public transport for their own selfish interests. 

I really hope Detroit can rise again. At the moment it's the city many non-Americans look at as being 'the real America'. Prove everyone wrong, and show the world what America can do.


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

Substructure said:


> I just found this great documentary on PBS about Detroit city, its present state, the mistakes that were made, and the revitalization plans to come in the hope to someday save this city. An hour and a half long, but an interesting watch.
> 
> "Beyond the Motor City"
> http://video.pbs.org/video/1409024983/#
> ...


I thought the documentary was pretty depressing. I don't see how the plan, such as it is, can work. More likely the operating costs of the new light rail line will put further strain on Detroit's transit funding, leading to further cutbacks in bus service. That's what usually happens.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Tom 958 said:


> I thought the documentary was pretty depressing. I don't see how the plan, such as it is, can work. More likely the operating costs of the new light rail line will put further strain on Detroit's transit funding, leading to further cutbacks in bus service. That's what usually happens.


Agreed , The Northeast is becoming a showcase for new Transit and Regional Restoration and New Connections. NJ's Light Rail networks together will grow by 300 miles by 2025 , and 2 new networks will form , the demand has grown and the roads can't handle it anymore. So the NE will have alot of its discontinued network come back or we will build a new network. Becuz Majority of Suburban / Urban and Rural connector highways and roads are maxed out. 

~Corey


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

chicagoboulder said:


> Some cities, such as Denver, CO, are too heavy to put in a subway. The soils in different parts of the country don't allow for the same transit solution to be built everywhere, why else would there be so many different examples of mass transit? I think cities should put in more rail because the traffic engineering is more productive per mile than road. If the ridership is there, some light rail systems could eventually become above ground metros.


You're right. Tunneling the Rockie's fringe is feasible, but utterly expensive. That is the reason by which, for instance, there are far fewer road tunnels in mountanious regions in US than in Europe. It's just too strong.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

I typed this on another site that i use daily...

The Best States are ,by Regional Rail , Bus , Light Rail & Streetcars systems & Metros

Lower New York
New Jersey
Southeastern PA
Eastern Mass
Rhode Island
Northern Delaware
75 % of Maryland
Northern Virgina
Coastal Maine
Coastal New Hampshire (along the Downeaster corridor)
Northern Oregon
Northern Illinois
Northwestern Indiana
40% of California
Dense Suburban / Urban Washington State

Future States for Best Transportation systems

2020 70% of Virgina at the current rate
Upstate New York by 2030
Western Mass by 2020
Vermont by 2020 or 2025
70% of California by 2030
80% of Dense Urban / Suburban by 2030
Urban / Dense North Carolina by 2030
All of Urban / Dense Suburban Texas by 2030
All Cities in Minnesota by 2025
All Urban areas of Florida by 2035
Western , Northeastern PA by 2015 or 25
Central Delaware by 2020
Majority of Georgia by 2025

For Cities here are my picks.

NYC
DC
Chicago
Portland
Boston
Philly
SF
Dallas
Jersey City
Baltimore
Atlanta
Newark,NJ
Phoenix


Now For the future cities that have plans to build Streetcars / Light Rail , should all be in place form what i'm reading by 2030.

Providence
New Haven
Worcester
Springfield
Stamford
Des Moises
Elizabeth,NJ
New Brunswick,NJ
Reading,PA
Temple,AZ
Fort Worth
San Antonio
Austin
Atlanta
Orlando
Richmond
Hampton roads
Lancaster,PA
St. Paul,MN
Kansas,MO
Tampa
Jacksonville
Harrisburg
Allentown
Scranton-Wilkes Berra
Albany
Rochester
Syracuse
Binghamton
Portland,ME
Paterson,NJ
Wilmington,DE
Annapolis,MD
Alexandria
Raleigh-Durham
Augusta,GA
Boise
Colorado Spring's
Albuquerque
Prescott
Las Vegas
Reno
Kansas City
OKC
Tulsa
Birmingham
Honolulu
Mobile


I might have left some out.......I collected the majority of those cities & Towns form there regional 2020 / 30 plans. Notice how a big chunk of the Northeast is in there, we here are forging ahead with our restoration and system expansions.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

Searched 5 pages for anything for the Midwest, could not find anything so I will just make this. 


Ohio Hub Advances as Passenger Rail Connections to Toledo and Pittsburgh Studied

Image: Ohio Hub potential corridors, from Ohio DOT

» Governor Ted Strickland’s push to connect state via intercity rail is likely to go beyond initial Cincinnati-to-Cleveland corridor.

Following through on a years-long promise to include fourth-city Toledo in the next phase of rail investment in Ohio, the administration of Governor Ted Strickland has announced the awarding to an engineering firm an $8 million study of future intercity routes that would connect the Lake Erie city to the rest of the Buckeye State. A line into Pittsburgh is also up for evaluation.

Because of its geographic position between the Chicago-based Midwest rail network and that of the East Coast focused in New York, Ohio could serve as an essential link in a national rail network if the state makes the right investments.

In January, Ohio received $400 million from the federal government to implement intercity rail service on the 256-mile 3C rail line between Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton — the state’s four largest metropolitan areas. According to current plans, initial 79 mph operations would begin in 2012 on an improved freight corridor, bringing trains to the state’s capital in Columbus for the first time since 1977. The 3C project does not qualify as high-speed rail under anyone’s definition, especially considering its 6h30 estimated travel time, but future investments could increase speeds to 110 mph. The FRA is expected to approve the first direct grants for the state sometime in the next few weeks.

The 3C corridor, however, is not the be-all and end-all, since it lacks connections to Toledo, Akron, and Canton, three other large metropolitan areas. In addition, it does not provide for direct links either to Pittsburgh (and the East Coast network) or Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis, three major Midwest cities. Thus the newly announced study, which builds upon the larger Ohio Hub proposal, illustrated above and studied repeatedly over the past decade.

Consultant AECOM will specifically consider potential upgrades for the 3C route, plus new 110 mph links between Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland; Cleveland and Pittsburgh; and Toledo and Columbus.

The new study is the long-expected next step for Ohio, but it comes at a fortunate time for Governor Strickland, a Democrat who is running for reelection in a tightly contested race against Republican John Kasich. Depending on the timing of the study’s results, Strickland may be able to claim that his administration aims to spread rail throughout the state; Toledo was especially frustrated by the fact that it wasn’t included in the state’s initial priorities. Though the Ohio Hub’s current plan suggests that the next major investment in the state will be connection between Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit (arguably the more important link from a national perspective), other sources suggest that the new study may prioritize a capital-centric line between Columbus and Toledo.

But Ohio is not steps away from a massive rail network. The 3C corridor has been subject to relentless criticism from state Republicans, who claim that it is a boondoggle since operations would require an annual state subsidy and train running times between termini in Cincinnati and Cleveland would be a full two hours longer than typical car travel. Republican Kasich has been no major supporter of rail (and has posted an anti-rail editorial from another source on his site), so if he were to win the election, the federal government’s $400 million grant and the 3C line in general could be abandoned, leaving any rail improvements considered in the new study by the wayside.

Nonetheless, assuming Strickland remains in the Governor’s office (no sure thing), rail service along 3C will begin as expected. All of the major connections considered in the Ohio Hub plan seem worthy of eventual use as part of the national rail network, especially those that eventually lead to major cities outside of the state, like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, Indianapolis, and Chicago. Ohio is relatively dense and many of its cities, despite losing population in the last few decades, have strong urban cores (or at least the potential to restore them).

Moreover, Ohio’s position as the connection point between the Midwest and East Coast rail networks cannot be passed over; any trains between Chicago and the East Coast would have to pass through the state. As part of what is truly a national imperative to improve intercity rail service, the state has an obligation to restore its system. The 3C plan, followed by the investments to be proposed by AECOM’s study, are the right ways to begin.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

*Readying Streetcar Plans, Cincinnati Considers Reducing Parking Requirements*
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/06/21/readying-streetcar-plans-cincinnati-considers-reducing-parking-requirements/
» With municipal and state funds aligned for transit project, a more livable downtown on its way.

Cincinnati is thinking seriously about how to make its proposed streetcar system a vital element of a growing downtown, not simply a trophy piece to parade around in demonstration of its progress. The city’s Planning Commission has taken a major step in that direction by signaling its support last week to significantly reducing parking requirements in areas within two blocks of future streetcar stops. The city council will have to approve the decision for the zoning code to be altered.

If it goes through with the change, Cincinnati will be demonstrating its support for a new type of urban living and promoting a model for other cities looking into funding inner-city transit systems like streetcars.

With $86.5 million currently reserved for the project and $25 million more likely to be awarded to it by the federal government later this month, Ohio’s southern metropolis is virtually assured to have a streetcar system up and running in the next three years. Cincinnati hopes that the streetcar will help spur regeneration of the communities along the line, including the riverfront area, downtown, and Over the Rhine, three areas that have significant potential thanks to beautiful existing building stock intermixed with vacant plots.

Yet a streetcar in itself will provide no guarantee that those neighborhoods will see redevelopment. Transit may encourage some people to build new housing and retail, but it certainly compels no one to do so. Just as problematic, even if the new construction comes, there is no promise from future residents or office users that they will actually use the streetcars to get around; the vehicles could be underused if implemented poorly.

That’s why the city’s decision to reduce parking minimums would be a reassuring sign that local planners understand the necessity of designing neighborhoods to encourage transit use. Today, the city requires one to two parking spaces per housing unit, even for apartment buildings constructed right downtown. The new law, if approved as likely later this year, will halve those requirements in all new construction within 600 feet of streetcar stations, even reducing them to nil in some cases for buildings with six or fewer units.

As the Cincinnati Streetcar Blog points out, this change may have the positive effect of reducing the cost of new development in Cincinnati by allowing builders to avoid building underground garages or acquiring adjacent sites for surface parking. This will reduce not only the initial investment necessary to construct in neighborhoods near the streetcar but also the cost of individual purchasing or renting, making it more likely that there will be a market for new housing in the area.

In turn, by reducing the number of parking spaces per unit, the city is encouraging people who live in downtown areas to use transit to get around — and they’ll be getting a high-quality service through the center city with the new streetcar, so that shouldn’t be much of a problem. Though some may argue that Cincinnati could have gone a step further and eliminated all parking minimums to areas near the streetcar, the initial line is short and won’t even reach the University of Cincinnati north of downtown; if and when the system is expanded, the city council may want to reevaluate the use of parking minimums at all along this corridor.

What seems likely is that by making it more difficult for people to park their cars when they decide to live in apartments along the line, they will also be more likely to take advantage of the streetcar system, take advantage of nearby retail, and generally lead a walking life. Such communities are more likely to be self-sufficient in the long-term because of support for local shops and restaurants, and they will contribute to Cincinnati’s clear interest in developing for itself the image of being an “urban” city. This is a net positive for a place that is investing a large amount of local funds in this project.

Other cities planning new modern streetcar systems — Detroit, Dallas, Tucson, and Washington, for instance, have lines mostly funded — should examine Cincinnati’s proposed zoning changes and evaluate whether they could enact similar alterations in their municipal parking requirements to encourage around the new transit lines the creation of inner-city neighborhoods in which automobile use comes second to walking and alternative transportation.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

*Minneapolis Advances Streetcar System Plan*

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/01/minneapolis-advances-streetcar-system-plan/

» With approval on Friday, council will endorse 30-year proposal for street-running rail after neglecting the project for a year. The city is expected to move forward with one route in the fall.

When Minneapolis released its seven-line network plan for urban streetcars back in 2007, the city appeared to be at the head of its game, likely to follow Portland as one of the first U.S. cities to develop a modern trolley system.

Unfortunately, when the economic crisis hit and the lack of interest from the Bush Administration made clear to the city’s leaders that the only way their project would be built would be to sponsor it entirely with local funds, the program was “filed” away, to be revived at some more prosperous time. In the meantime, after Ray LaHood took reigns of the federal Department of Transportation, Detroit, Dallas, Tucson, Portland, and New Orleans received millions of dollars for their respective streetcar lines and other cities have applied for $130 million in inner city circulator grants the DOT expects to reward later this year.

All of which leaves Minneapolis a little behind in the game.

Nevertheless, tomorrow the City Council is expected to approve the 30-year vision for local rail transit corridors first laid out in 2007 and passed by the Public Works and Transportation Committee last week. In addition, it will take the first step in readying one “starter” corridor for further planning later this year, with plans to eventually ask Washington to fund 50% of construction costs.

The Minneapolis streetcar route network would extend the reach of the region’s existing and planned rapid transit lines by connecting stations in the city’s dense urban core.

Three routes would run along Hennepin Avenue through downtown, allowing a transfer to the Hiawatha Light Rail line at 5th Street and extending south to Lake Street along Hennepin Avenue, north to 44th Avenue along Central Avenue, and east to the University of Minnesota along University Avenue, connecting to the planned Central Corridor light rail line.

Three other routes would also connect to the light rail line at 5th Street and transform the existing Nicollet Transit Mall into a streetcar route. Lines would extend south along Nicollet Avenue to 46th Street, southeast along Chicago Avenue to 38th Street, and northwest along Washington Avenue towards Crystal Lake, linking to the planned Bottineau Transitway.

A final corridor would renovate the Midtown Greenway by adding east-west streetcar service from the Lake Street Hiawatha Line Station to the planned Southwest Transitway just west of Lake Calhoun.

These routes are well-designed because they don’t duplicate existing or planned light rail lines and they limit themselves to the city’s densest areas — exactly where streetcar lines should go if they’re going to attract adequate ridership and spur increased development. Six of the seven lines would directly replace popular bus routes. If constructed correctly, the lines could make up for some of the region’s bad decision-making in route alignments for light rail lines.

The seven-corridor network described by the city’s planners, however, is a long way off, primarily because its several-hundred-million cost is out of reach. As a result, the city has developed a series of starter lines that could be implemented more quickly, short segments with respective construction costs of $100 million or less that could be built in a few years and extended later on. Each would provide access just to the city’s downtown and not be long enough to replace any existing bus service.

The council will narrow the potential lines to two or three this summer after conducting further research on the project and then select one line for investment this fall. None of the corridors could be built today unless the federal government steps in with significant monetary support. If the city commits adequate financial aid for the project and if it is capable of submitting an application by September, it seems likely to win a grant from the National Infrastructure Investment Program (formerly TIGER) for construction beginning in early 2012.

A funding study released last week indicates that one line could be funded if the city increases revenues through a 12.5% increase in parking fees downtown as well as either through a dedicated TIF tax-reallocation district in affected areas or a special streetcar benefit zone assessment. The latter two options would encourage the construction of streetcar lines through the wealthiest areas of the city since it would rely on moving any increases in area property tax receipts from the city’s general fund to streetcar construction. The parking surcharge, which would increase the cost of downtown spaces by about $50 a year, would require state legislation to be implemented.

Minneapolis could advance its status among a large field of competitors for limited federal streetcar funds by proving that it has a reliable local revenue source. (A majority of urban areas demanding grants have made no such commitment.) Once it has settled on a preliminary route, the council should approve such a financial device quickly. Of course, long-term financing for the entire network is not assured.

Initial planning documents show that the city is likely to pursue a combination of the Hennepin Avenue and Central/University Lines, a 2.3-mile alignment that would cost about $100 million to construct and which would link the Walker Art Center southwest of downtown with the East Bank of the Mississippi River, via downtown. Other routes are either too short to provide adequate benefits and provide a model for future expansion, or, in the case of the Midtown Greenway, too expensive to implement without an additional revenue source (because of the lack of adequate property tax revenues).

The Hennepin Avenue line is an appropriate selection for a starting segment, running roughly perpendicular to the existing light rail corridor downtown and reaching some of the city’s busiest neighborhoods. A Nicollet Line, the other serious contender for initial construction, would likely disrupt bus service along the downtown mall, not necessarily a good idea. But, if selected, the Hennepin project should be prioritized to reach the vibrant Uptown Midtown district south of existing route plans as soon as possible; it may even make sense to build that southern link before connecting the line north over the Mississippi, in opposition to current proposals.


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm assuming this thread is for the MidWest region in general: applying to all forms of rail transportation RATHER than the Chicago Hub Network High Speed Rail proposal. If so, each city deserves its own individual thread, especially with this many different plans and proposals.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

IDk, I mean I posted some stuff that spans a few months. This site does not have THAT much mid westerners(especially if you exclude Chicago). Check out the SkyScraperPage transit page where there is tons more info on US rail than here. There also is the fact that the little US rail threads that get made get lost due to the tons more of other city/country rail threads that exist. 

However, if you wish to, you can turn this thread into a thread for Ohio (first article deals with Ohio intercity Rail).


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

I guess what we could have is a Midwest thread but I don't see the point of that, esp when I believe Chicago has its own thread already. You can always post this in the Urban Transport Discussion Bar.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

Sorry, I don't know under what is _Urban Transport Discussion bar _(could you link it please), I can't find it.

I would rather (if its ok with you) just keep this here as a place for MidWest rail. Perhaps you could say "*MidWest Rail News -Excluding Chicago*" Or "*Midwest General Rail Transit News -Excluding Chicago*".

It would be great if we could make threads like that for the major regions of the US here:


*SouthEast Rail News thread- Maybe minus Miami since we have decent rail Thread. 
[*]Midwest rail News Thread -Minus Chicago
[*]Northeast Rail News Thread-Minus New York 
[*]West Coast Rail News thread - Minus Los Angeles. *


Take away those cities(maybe I missed one or two), and you have very little activity or post for rail transit for any threads that includes any other cities. The threads that include those other cities get lost or get very little attention. Plus it might help un-clutter the Subways and Urban Rail Transport section a tiny bit, as well as help others find stuff more easy. The reason I added "*New*s" was to exclude threads that are mostly just pictures/videos of a certain cities rail transit, like the New Jersey Rail thread. 

Just my opinion though, don't mean to impose on you.


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

My memory is dying. Chicago doesn't have its own thread since the new forum structure was introduced. Thread has been renamed already and follows the structure of other regional-wide forums, such as Japan, Korea, and Russia.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

*Streetcars on track for Minneapolis*
*If granted federal funding, project analysis will focus on starter lines.*
Picture of proposal streetcar route here:http://http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x553800063/Construction-to-start-on-high-speed-rail-track-outside-of-Springfield

Published: 07/21/2010 
By Danielle Nordine 

Although the last streetcar rolled out of Minneapolis in 1954, city officials are moving forward on plans to bring the city’s extensive streetcar network back to life.

The city recently submitted an application for $900,000 in federal funding to study the details of the project more closely, Minneapolis Transportation Planner Anna Flintoft said.

The analysis would include costs for construction and operation, environmental effects, community input and possible economic development related to rebuilding the network, she said.

"It’s the next logical step in terms of the technical analysis that needs to be done," Flintoft said.

Plans to revive the streetcar system in Minneapolis date back to 2006, when the city began a feasibility study to determine if rebuilding the network would be possible and beneficial to the city.

The study, completed in December 2007, was part of Access Minneapolis, a 10-year plan to address issues and options related to transportation.

The streetcar study examined several aspects of the project — from basic cost estimates to possible track locations to ridership numbers — and found that rebuilding the streetcar network could ultimately be beneficial for the city, Flintoft said.

Streetcars set off economic development because of their permanence and frequent stops, Flintoft said.

Additionally, other cities that have rebuilt their streetcar systems, such as Portland, Ore., have seen higher ridership than on similarly located bus lines, she said.

Improving public transit, including streetcars, has also been a long-term goal of Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. Rybak has said streetcars could reduce the city’s oil dependency and create more of a community downtown with the shorter lines and more frequent stops.

If the city receives the federal funding for the analysis, it will focus most of its resources on two starter lines — the Central Avenue line, which would run along Central Avenue Northeast from Washington Avenue to the Columbia Heights Transit Center, and the Nicollet Avenue line, which would run along Nicollet Avenue from 46th Street South to Washington Av enue, according to the 2007 Streetcar Feasibility Study.

The city won’t know whether it will get the funding until fall of this year, Flintoft said.

Streetcars land between buses and light rails when it comes to cost, Flintoft said, although the price can vary depending on the line’s location.

While the upcoming study would determine more specific costs, the project could run between $40 million and $50 million per line, according to the 2007 study. Each line is between two and 3 1/2 miles long, and there would be seven lines total.

By comparison, the 11-mile Central Corridor Light-Rail Transit line is projected to cost $957 million to construct.

In addition to the two starter lines, five other potential track locations, including two running through the University of Minnesota campus, are being considered.

Funding is a concern for the project, Flintoft said. In the past, other cities that have tried to rebuild streetcar lines have had to completely finance the projects, although within the past year the federal government has started supplying grant money for streetcars, she said.

Streetcars essentially use the same technology as light-rail trains but stop more frequently and run in the streets instead of in separate, designated tracks, said Aaron Isaacs, a historian at the Minnesota Streetcar Museum and a retired transit planner.

"You could take that old wood streetcar and put it on the Hiawatha line, and it will run," he said.

The problem comes from the fact that streetcars run on tracks in the streets, subjecting them to traffic delays while not

allowing them to take different routes or easily maneuver like buses, Isaacs said. The city will examine this issue in the upcoming study, Flintoft said.


Minneapolis’ streetcar history

Streetcars in Minneapolis were built mainly between 1870 and 1930, Isaacs said, and were popular during that time due to the lack of automobiles and the ease they provided for traveling through the city.

In their heyday, Twin Cities streetcars had more than 500 miles of tracks, Isaacs said, most of which ran in the city, though some extended to nearby suburbs.

"If you see a Metro Transit bus route today, there’s a pretty good chance it was a streetcar line," Isaacs said.

Streetcars maintained their popularity through World War II because of rationing on gas, rubber and other automobile supplies. After the war, however, many people moved to the suburbs and purchased vehicles, decreasing the need for streetcars.

The city began to tear out streetcar lines after 1945, and by 1954, the last of the streetcar operations had been shut down.

In 2001, though, Portland, Ore., set off a trend by rebuilding its streetcar system, and many cities have been following suit due to its success.

The permanence of rail attracts businesses, Isaacs said, and is more attractive to visitors and occasional users.

Streetcars also offer a smoother ride than buses, Flintoft said, and the tracks and cables make it easier for users to spot stops or routes.

In addition to concrete benefits, though, streetcars seem to have an intangible appeal for people, Isaacs said.

"People just seem to like rail more than they like buses," Issacs said. "There is this sort of undefined sizzle factor when it comes to rail."


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

*High-Speed Rail work to begin in September*
http://http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x553800063/Construction-to-start-on-high-speed-rail-track-outside-of-Springfield

_*Work will begin in September on a high-speed rail line between Chicago and St. Louis, Gov. Pat Quinn announced Tuesday.*_

The $98 million for new rail and concrete ties on 90 miles of Union Pacific tracks between Alton and Springfield and between the capital city and Lincoln is just a fraction of the $1.2 billion in stimulus money the federal government awarded Illinois in January.

The announcement comes despite lack of an agreement between the Federal Railroad Administration and freight rail companies that have balked at federal demands that they either repay stimulus money or pay for additional infrastructure improvements if passenger trains don’t run on time.

Without an agreement, more than $1 billion in federal funds can’t be released, and railroads can’t be forced to allow high-speed rail projects in their rights of way. However, Rob Kulat, FRA spokesman, said the federal government has agreed to pay for the improvements announced Tuesday.

The conditions under which the federal government will pay for the rest of the work on the entire St. Louis-Chicago corridor are not yet final. Kulat confirmed that the FRA has not reached agreement with freight rail companies that own rights of way on high-speed rail corridors throughout the nation that have won federal funding.

City route undecided

Christina Mulka, spokeswoman for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the senator who has long supported high-speed rail in Illinois is confident any outstanding issues between the FRA and Union Pacific will be resolved.

“High-speed rail is an exciting thing for Illinois,” Mulka said. “If there are issues that come up, Sen. Durbin will certainly monitor the situation.”

According to the news release from the governor’s office, the project set to start in September “will support an estimated 900 jobs.”

No work is planned for Springfield, where Union Pacific has already upgraded tracks and the state is paying for a study to determine the best route through the city. Civic leaders have objected to using Union Pacific tracks along Third Street, saying that rail traffic should be consolidated on tracks along 10th Street to avoid dividing the city.

Complete plan needed?

Supporters and critics of high-speed rail, respectively, hailed and panned Tuesday’s announcement.

“This is a key step forward,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago. “Rome wasn’t built in a day, and high-speed rail between St. Louis and Springfield and Chicago isn’t going to be built instantaneously. … It breaks the ice.”

Learner downplayed the lack of an agreement between the FRA and Union Pacific that would allow the entire corridor to be completed.

“Not everything needs to be resolved at once,” Learner said. “What we need to do is move the process forward in a responsible way.”

But Kristina Rasmussen, executive vice president of the Illinois Policy Institute, which opposes high-speed rail funded by the government, said a more complete plan should be in place.

“It sounds like the governor’s getting ahead of himself — it sounds like we’re on a high-speed trip to disaster here,” Rasmussen said. “We’ve got concerns about high-speed rail, but I think everyone can agree this should be done in a prudent manner, and we should get our ducks in a row.”

Bruce Rushton can be reached at 788-1542.

Railroad, IDOT agreement a mystery

According to a news release from Gov. Pat Quinn’s office, $98 million in publicly funded improvements to Union Pacific track will be done pursuant to an agreement between the railroad and the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Just what that agreement says is a mystery.

IDOT did not provide a copy after The State Journal-Register requested one in telephone calls to press offices for the agency and the governor. IDOT spokesman Josh Kauffman did not return messages left on his cell and office phones, nor did he respond to an e-mailed request for a copy.

The newspaper subsequently submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act request, and Kauffman followed up with an e-mail stating that the FOIA request has been sent to the agency’s FOIA officer.

Mark Davis, Union Pacific spokesman, declined to discuss the contents of the agreement with the state, referring questions to IDOT.

— Bruce Rushton


----------



## Tågälskaren (May 9, 2005)

*Is a commuter light rail system in Syracuse's future? *

SYRACUSE, N.Y.—In the future will riders take a bus, a train or a streetcar to get to some of Syracuse's most popular destinations[...]


----------



## Fan Railer (Dec 1, 2010)

samer.riad said:


> I know that NY has 1.6M commuters per day!


False.... NY has 10s of times more than that number. NYC Subway alone transports 5.6M daily. Then you still have to factor in buses, Metro-North, and Long Island Rail Road.


----------



## Tower Dude (Oct 13, 2013)

Fan Railer said:


> False.... NY has 10s of times more than that number. NYC Subway alone transports 5.6M daily. Then you still have to factor in buses, Metro-North, and Long Island Rail Road.


Don't forget about NJT and PATH!


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

The bus transit system in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (combined area population about 170,000) may be forced to shut down 2017.01.01 due to delays in receipt of state funding.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...cle_bfd4f024-cf72-5531-8543-f09d47814d71.html


----------



## Tower Dude (Oct 13, 2013)

Woonsocket54 said:


> The bus transit system in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (combined area population about 170,000) may be forced to shut down 2017.01.01 due to delays in receipt of state funding.
> 
> http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...cle_bfd4f024-cf72-5531-8543-f09d47814d71.html


Ugh, Bruce Rauner has been Atrocious for transit.


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...transit-ballot-measures-pass.html?channel=535
> 
> *Nearly 70% of US transit ballot measures pass*
> Thursday, November 10, 2016
> ...


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> The first step has to be intensification. Or else the problem will never be solved. If they can only plan and build cities right in the first place ... now we may have a problem that will last a few generations.


Actually, the first step is to have the infrastructure in place. This is because public transit (in the West) is planned and funded by the government and isn't subject to the same market forces as real estate allowing communities to plan for what they want, rather than just build for what they have. So you don't need to have enough density to "support" it All you need in order to support it is the decision to do so, since tax funding doesn't rely on consumer demand. Therefore, you can choose to build it in anticipation of where density will be in the future.

You can't do this with real estate in the West since most of it is market based, because just changing zoning to allow for denser construction is pointless if you can't attract people to live there due to the lack of transportation options. You either need to build automobile accommodation into the developments increasing their cost and providing a dis-incentive against other modes that may be provided later on, or you need to find people willing to live their before infrastructure is provided without any guarantee of when that might be. The development is likely to fail.


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

In Indianapolis, Indiana, voters approved an income tax increase that would be used for bus rapid transit.










http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ters-consider-tax-hike-mass-transit/93284726/


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

Update on construction of "FAX-Q", a rapid bus line in Fresno, California










http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article115816013.html


----------



## spot_skylines (Nov 14, 2016)

The Best States are ,by Regional Rail , Bus , Light Rail & Streetcars systems & Metros

Lower New York
New Jersey
Southeastern PA
Eastern Mass
Rhode Island
Northern Delaware
75 % of Maryland
Northern Virgina
Coastal Maine
Coastal New Hampshire (along the Downeaster corridor)
Northern Oregon


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

Bus drivers' strike in Peoria, Illinois is scheduled to start 2016.12.01.

http://www.cinewsnow.com/news/local/CityLink-workers-set-to-strike-403297266.html


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

The Springfield, Illinois bus network will eliminate Saturday evening bus service and will reduce weeknight bus service by one hour.

http://www.smtd.org/news/2016/11/29/smtd-to-reduce-night-service


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...-as-transportation-secretary.html?channel=535
> 
> *Trump nominates Chao as US transportation secretary*
> Wednesday, November 30, 2016
> ...


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

Woonsocket54 said:


> Bus drivers' strike in Peoria, Illinois is scheduled to start 2016.12.01.
> 
> http://www.cinewsnow.com/news/local/CityLink-workers-set-to-strike-403297266.html



strike has been averted; both sides now get until 2017.01.31 to work out a deal

http://www.pjstar.com/news/20161129/citylink-contract-extension-will-keep-buses-running


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

Woonsocket54 said:


> The bus transit system in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (combined area population about 170,000) may be forced to shut down 2017.01.01 due to delays in receipt of state funding.
> 
> http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...cle_bfd4f024-cf72-5531-8543-f09d47814d71.html


Shutdown has been averted

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...cle_cd41e443-4f29-59c9-ab79-ed9c121bd427.html


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

A potential transit strike in Dayton, Ohio beginning 2017.01.09 would shut down the bus and trolleybus systems

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...swers-major-questions/AoEHGAipByHGCVQVO0HJMN/


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

Bus and trolleybus service is shut down in Dayton, Ohio due to a strike.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...ention-future-strikes/ySJ8j6idWeHE5Yrb8PSOTP/


----------



## Buffaboy (Nov 20, 2012)

Funding will be secured for the extension of Buffalo's "Subway to Nowhere." The stunted 6.4 mile line has existed in its current state since 1986. The extension would most likely be the light blue line in the attached document.

http://metro.nfta.com/TO/Documents/Tier2Final.pdf


----------



## LMWX (Jan 22, 2014)

great progress


----------



## Woonsocket54 (May 7, 2005)

Woonsocket54 said:


> Bus and trolleybus service is shut down in Dayton, Ohio due to a strike.
> 
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...ention-future-strikes/ySJ8j6idWeHE5Yrb8PSOTP/


strike ended 2017.01.13

http://www.i-riderta.org/atu/rta-board-of-trustees-will-meet-tuesday-to-ratify-atu-contract


----------

