Transportation department officials say the light rail would be intended to transport residents within the ward, rather than to other parts of the city. (Considering the abysmal average speeds of street-based light rail, that's all it would be good for anyway.) They did make an interesting point I hadn't considered: light rail trains can make turns on narrow streets more easily than buses. (Is that worth millions of dollars, I don't know...)
Post Author:
massysett | 3:29 PM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
They did make an interesting point I hadn't considered: light rail trains can make turns on narrow streets more easily than buses. (Is that worth millions of dollars, I don't know...)
That's an interesting point, one I hadn't thought of.
But of course buses could be designed to turn their rear wheels as well as their front wheels, thus cancelling out that advantage as well.
Right- "residents" fear reduced parking, more traffic, and poor economic development. But in reality, better transit means less traffic, and in the Wash DC area has meant more and better economic development. Too bad the WaPo can't bring their readers up to speed with a little reporting of the facts, but that's the WaPo for you.
Riders like rail, it's more comfortable. In one study in the midwest they learned that people would walk two extra blocks to take light rail instead of new buses. People who build apartments, condos, and commercial like rail- it's an indication that the system will be there for a while, and the route won't suddenly change or be discontinued. Administrators like rail because labor costs don't rise rapidly with ridership increases like they do with buses, and when you figure in all the costs, adding full-time employees is very expensive. Planners like rail because smart growth reduces the costs for sewers, fire protection, police, and street maintenance. Reducing the land used for streets and parking increases the amount of land paying taxes.
Incidentally, busses and trucks have been built with all turning wheels for about 80 years. Believe it or not, the people involved in these projects actually know a number of facts about the past. Try it, it's more fun than television.
better transit means less traffic, and in the Wash DC area has meant more and better economic development
Unfortunately, this begs the question whether street-running light rail is indeed "better transit" than buses. I would argue that it is not.
Riders like rail, it's more comfortable.
Only if the streets on which buses run are poorly maintaned.
In one study in the midwest they learned that people would walk two extra blocks to take light rail instead of new buses.
What city? What study?
People who build apartments, condos, and commercial like rail- it's an indication that the system will be there for a while, and the route won't suddenly change or be discontinued.
If permanence is what you're interested in, why not just pass a law saying "Bus Route X will be operated along this route in perpetuity", instead of dumping money for the infrastructure necessary for a light rail system?
Planners like rail because smart growth reduces the costs for sewers, fire protection, police, and street maintenance. Reducing the land used for streets and parking increases the amount of land paying taxes.
Once again, this begs the question of why street-running light rail is assumed to be "smart growth" and buses which can do the exact same thing for a lot less money and nuisance are not assumed to be "smart growth".
What happens when (not if) a light rail car breaks down in route to its next stop? How lengthy a delay will it be? How will this affect other cars on that same track? How will riders, affected by the breakdown, be transported to the next station? How were situations like this resolved when streetcars ran in DC, before ceasing operation in 1962?
