tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post1241402824074399392..comments2024-01-12T00:32:20.149-08:00Comments on The Overhead Wire: Light Rail Kills Babies 2Pantograph Trolleypolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17833159138533550544noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-55882758654325348832009-12-08T09:21:20.054-08:002009-12-08T09:21:20.054-08:00based on some of the last transport measure result...based on some of the last transport measure results nationwide, it says something when 60-70% of voters approve a measure to tax themselves for mass transit projects. its hard enough getting 60-70% of a given group of people to agree on anything, let alone to tax themselves for it in this extreme anti-tax climate.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01946240918282472258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-7529346483200905952009-12-04T00:40:09.349-08:002009-12-04T00:40:09.349-08:00Babies already die on their own for no reason. Lig...Babies already die on their own for no reason. Light rail is the least of their worries!Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-14105568360914321842009-12-03T21:00:23.841-08:002009-12-03T21:00:23.841-08:00rajan: not true that none of NYC's public tran...rajan: not true that none of NYC's public transit operators are profitable. There are a few private bus companies that run through the Lincoln Tunnel that are profitable. Of course, if you confine your analysis to just the public (i.e. structurally unprofitable) agencies, you're going to (unsurprisingly) find that they're unprofitable.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-50927746222582836072009-12-03T13:54:58.092-08:002009-12-03T13:54:58.092-08:00Right. Both the Transitway and the O-Train have ma...Right. Both the Transitway and the O-Train have made Ottawa more rail supportive. In the case of Ottawa, rapid transit should be a mix of BRT and LRT, with BRT only existing to support LRT (if the demand in certain corridors doesn't justify rail). But I don't want to start "mode wars".Matt Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18289893559555812236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-64243503857582728102009-12-02T23:53:35.841-08:002009-12-02T23:53:35.841-08:00BruceMcF: First off, the reason why cities like Si...BruceMcF: First off, the reason why cities like Singapore and Hong Kong started taxing cars and congestion (or in Hong Kong, parking spaces) is to deal with scarcity and cost. Not to boost public transport usage.<br /><br />Neither does usage of public transport equal profitable public transport. Take New York for example - high rider share, higher than Singapore and Hong Kong. Yet none of NYC's transit operators are profitable.rajan rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10713478750088044267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-28366162818152634972009-12-02T20:20:51.577-08:002009-12-02T20:20:51.577-08:00who cares??who cares??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-9775034673688165032009-12-01T19:53:04.934-08:002009-12-01T19:53:04.934-08:00For Ottawa, it would have to be the O-train.For Ottawa, it would have to be the O-train.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12818721984298857987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-60267861935624888242009-12-01T15:08:03.708-08:002009-12-01T15:08:03.708-08:00Oh yeah. Ottawa's Transitway has paved the way...Oh yeah. Ottawa's Transitway has paved the way for light rail to come to Ottawa and for bus rapid transit worldwide.Matt Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18289893559555812236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-38404638930291763992009-12-01T14:39:22.540-08:002009-12-01T14:39:22.540-08:00In Salt Lake City, I think "BRT" is not ...In Salt Lake City, I think "BRT" is not a busway or even in a way dedicated lanes, which is what BRT should be only regarded as. It's just more or less gonna end up as just a rebranded bus. :)<br /><br />But don't forget there's commuter rail there, to an extent.<br /><br />In closing, and I have two assignments due this week in classes for a total of about 18 pages, I believe that these guys would probably say this s**t. They'd like to stoop to the lowest common demoninator. It almost would amount to sounding like Sideshow Bob stepping on the rake again. He's my favourite Simpsons villain.Matt Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18289893559555812236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-39249223238693734872009-12-01T14:30:33.266-08:002009-12-01T14:30:33.266-08:00Of course, having no subsidies also distorts deman...Of course, having no subsidies also distorts demand, where there are substantial third party costs and third party benefits. A major point about the Singapore case is the internalization of third party costs into the market via congestion charges.<br /><br />Indeed, in Cap'n Transit's <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2009/09/magic-formula-for-transit-ridership.html" rel="nofollow">Magic Formula for Transit Ridership</a> - dedicated transit corridor, and make cars expensive and hard to use - making cars pay their full economic cost already gets one third of the formula in place, and of course in a densely settled urbanized area, two thirds are in place.<br /><br />With only one hurdle to cross for profitable transit, its not surprising that both Singapore and HK have succeeded in crossing that hurdle.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-70032787855529826952009-12-01T09:49:46.506-08:002009-12-01T09:49:46.506-08:00I must say, if only in the slight defense of the a...I must say, if only in the slight defense of the anti-tax conservatives, that perhaps the best way to fund transport (both automobile and public) is through user fees - and then more.<br /><br />A good example would be Singapore. Cars aren't subsidised - the roads they use are paid by the petrol tax and car excise, and for the Causeway and the 2nd Link, a toll. To manage demand, Singapore also prices scarcity - of overall islandwide road space through policies like car quotas/COE (or a daily tax for Malaysian cars) and a congestion charge/ERP and demand-based public parking rates.<br /><br />On the other than, you have an entire public transport system that is paid almost entirely by farebox collection, with construction and maintenance covered partially by retail space and advertising. The two companies licensed to run public buses, light rail and the metro are extremely profitable, while fares are quite low (even though things like children concession fares are crossed-subsidised by regular adult fares).<br /><br />Singapore isn't the only example. Hong Kong too practice similar policies - and have both highways and public transport unsubsidised (in fact, for the prior, revenue-generating). In Japan, most urban public transport is profitable - or almost all if you discount initial capital cost. Tolls on highways in Japan, as well as parking rates, are very high. Even the Delhi Metro managed to get by with a profit.<br /><br />There is a usefulness for this: having byzantine, opaque subsidy structures makes it difficult for policy makers and the public to gauge demand and viability. In Singapore, most new construction is along the north-central corridor where congestion charges are most astronomical.<br /><br />Decisions like building a metro line is easier with a clear methodology - a line only gets built when it is financial viable. And with the difficulty of adding more road capacity and rising congestion and parking charges have led to a shift to public transport - which allows the government to double its rail density without breaking the bank. Having a structure of subsidies cloud that, and distorts demand.rajan rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10713478750088044267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-2717381949638934502009-12-01T09:31:35.425-08:002009-12-01T09:31:35.425-08:00Implicit taxes should still count as taxes! If the...Implicit taxes should still count as taxes! If the government builds infrastructure such that participation in normal civic life requires having, say, Micrsoft Windows, then they're effectively forcing everyone to buy Windows. Even if the government doesn't get any money out of it, it's still money they're requiring you to spend. Same goes for cars.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-58136892623434674222009-12-01T06:13:54.694-08:002009-12-01T06:13:54.694-08:00I have to defend the sign mentioned in the article...I have to defend the sign mentioned in the article, because <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2009/01/loading-zone-dishonesty-kills-children.html" rel="nofollow">I've made similar statements</a> in my headlines. It is important to acknowledge that any train line, if in operation for long enough, will eventually be involved in the death of a child.<br /><br />What's missing is the context. In my blog post, I discussed replacing a dangerous practice (unattended idling while double parked) with a less dangerous one (standing in loading zones). It's quite possible that children would be killed by cars in loading zones, but probably a lot less.<br /><br />Similarly, there are already lots of children who are killed on a daily basis by cars. Getting people to switch from driving to light rail will mean less children killed, not more.<br /><br />The problem is not the statement, but the fact that it was misleading.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.com