Rail-- deceased equine
What are some goals that rail could achieve?
Rail could provide faster, more economic, more convenient transportation than alternative means. Mass transit could reduce the need for cars and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. But, unless it is more convenient and fast to ride the rail than it is to ride buses and cars, then NOTHING is being achieved, as the rail will not significantly increase the use of mass transportation. This has been typically the case for rail projects in the United States. In Portland, mass transit usage was higher in the 1970’s than it is today with rail, per a widely available Cato study.
Unlike in other places of the world, where economic growth is assumed, and visionary transportation systems are being built, in the United States architects design based on the past. For more about the rest of the world, see New York Times Magazine, June 9, 2008, page 72.
At about $10 billion per year, the FTA grossly underfunds mass transit, as is becoming increasing obvious, with gas prices at $4 per gallon. However, the current design of the Central Corridor through the University and elsewhere is not an investment that will reap dividends in the future. It is merely an expense that makes us poorer, as we drive by car from Minneapolis to Saint Paul, since that will continue to be the quickest, most economic way to travel.
If the Central Corridor is to be an investment, then the design must increase use of mass transit by an order of magnitude, rather than by a few percent. The Bangkok design and the Kyoto design give that potential.
More comments can be found here.
Rail could provide faster, more economic, more convenient transportation than alternative means. Mass transit could reduce the need for cars and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. But, unless it is more convenient and fast to ride the rail than it is to ride buses and cars, then NOTHING is being achieved, as the rail will not significantly increase the use of mass transportation. This has been typically the case for rail projects in the United States. In Portland, mass transit usage was higher in the 1970’s than it is today with rail, per a widely available Cato study.
Unlike in other places of the world, where economic growth is assumed, and visionary transportation systems are being built, in the United States architects design based on the past. For more about the rest of the world, see New York Times Magazine, June 9, 2008, page 72.
At about $10 billion per year, the FTA grossly underfunds mass transit, as is becoming increasing obvious, with gas prices at $4 per gallon. However, the current design of the Central Corridor through the University and elsewhere is not an investment that will reap dividends in the future. It is merely an expense that makes us poorer, as we drive by car from Minneapolis to Saint Paul, since that will continue to be the quickest, most economic way to travel.
If the Central Corridor is to be an investment, then the design must increase use of mass transit by an order of magnitude, rather than by a few percent. The Bangkok design and the Kyoto design give that potential.
More comments can be found here.
Labels: central corridor, light rail, UPDC
posted by David Rasmussen at 9:46 AM
<< Home