11/14/2005

Perference for LRT over buses no surprise to transit advocates

The Star Tribune reported that the Hiawatha light rail ridership numbers are 65% over predictions. Most of the discrepancy is due to riders' preference for LRT over buses. The Metro Council estimates that 40% of LRT riders never ride the bus.

The preference for rail over buses is no surprise for transit advocates. This phenomenon has been observed time after time in cities that (re-)build light rail systems. The Star Tribune article hits on the reasons why people prefer trains: "Rail's smooth ride and consistent schedule make it appealing to riders who would not consider the bus. The permanence of the track and the frequency of service make it easy to use without knowing a schedule."

Exactly. When the trolleys and streetcars were ripped up all over the nation by a conspiracy lead by GM, one of the arguments made to replace trains with buses was that bus lines could easily be reconfigured. It turns out that's exactly the wrong way to go. When a rail line and transit stop are put down, the land around it becomes instantly more valuable, because people know that they can count on that train stopping there several times a day for the indefinite future. In fact, cities like Portland are using that increase in value to fund LRT development through Tax Increment Financing.

The anti-transit Republicans in charge at the state capitol make transit funding for the core cities hard to come by. I hope that Minneapolis and St. Paul will get smart about using TIF to fund our own streetcar projects.

7 Comments:

At 10:15 AM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

Ryan -- an argument for making the Metro Council an elected body?

 
At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if a train runs at 165% of planned capacity, does it cost 165% of expectation to operate too? That is to say, are we losing even more than we expected to? My point is ridership doesn't tell much of the story.

The cost of rail is way to high compared to the benefit, and there IS benefit. Its just not worth it.

One of the key problems with public transport is that it the P really ought to stand for politics. There's always representation issues, growth questions and differing priorities. And when inevitably there are competing agendas (like add Roch or St Cloud) the compromise invariably costs even more (link both.)

Certainly the Met Council should be elected, but the question is by whom?

Too many questions, too many problems - and the need to solve it is artificial too. The last transit strike had a minimal impact on the state's economy, (worse it was settled in a way that virtually ensures another strike.) The need for this program just isn't there.

-Censored

 
At 9:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ryan - Fargo is North Dakota, I do not think anyone (conservative or otherwise) cares what trains and buses operate in the Twin Cities.

Re: San Francisco public transportation. Several transit organizations serve the city (SamsTran, CalTrain, SFMUNI/BART, GG Transit, et cetera), several of these are currently suffering financial shortfalls, to the point of one advocating a cyclist/walking toll when crossing the Golden Gate bridge. In September, MUNI raised the 90 minute fare 25 cents to $1.50 (transfers are good in any direction for 90 minutes) and cut numerous bus lines and service times, the buses are seldom on time, and I usually end up walking the six miles to work because if the 8:00 doesn't arrive by 8:15, I'm fucked. SFMUNI (The City's bus and metro service) is at the mercy of our board of supervisors, and our occasionally proactive mayor newsom, also, SFMUNI needs to appease the SF Cycling Coalition, and neighborhood groups (one such on Russian Hill succesfully petitioned for the termination/rerouting of one line because of the noise. Keep in mind that the buses are electric and generally make noise when "kneeling"). Oh, and the F-Line is actually a museum (The City purchased old electric street cars from around the world & refurbished these) and the Cable Cars, also run by MUNI, will set one back $5.00 per ride. I didn't even mention the ferry services to Vallejo, Alameda, Tiburon, etc.
My point? Maybe it is a bad idea to bring up San Francisco public transit as a model. Granted, BART is great ($5 to the airport in 30 minutes), though also faced with concerns beyond a lack of money (the trans bay tube which connects the east bay to the city is built on silt, so the entire thing needs seismic retrofitting, which Arnold does not think is a state problem (kind of like the the new Bay Bridge)). I think by at least hinting that public transit systems are better off being run solely by a city is dangerous. I mean, can you honestly tell me that when the Bay area suffers the next large earthquake, and if the transbay tube is no longer operable for several months, would this not have an impact on the rest of the state? I mean, last year the Cable Car operators had a sick in, and the first one to bitch about it was our governor.
-lj

 
At 4:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lower cholesterol diet
recipes to lower cholesterol
lower cholesterol naturally | lower cholesterol

 
At 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

paxil settlement
ultram - tramadol hcl - buy fioricet - carisoprodol online

 
At 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

computer hardware
indian motorcycle - domain registration - bible online - weather station

 
At 9:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

free motorola ringtones - free verizon cell phone ringtones
http://idisk.mac.com/alyashko/Public/free-nextel-ringtones.html - http://idisk.mac.com/alyashko/Public/index.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home