The trust, the trust

[archenemy]

must hang to the right I guess

[Crux]

To be sure, some voters were persuaded by the

position statement by the Cascade Bicycle Club:

http://www.cascade.org/advocacy/rtid.cfm

[tvashtarkatena]

For KKKY's sake, since he don't read so good:

 

I stated that a single light rail line can replace twelve lanes of freeway, not that the Seatac line will. I'll do the math real slow like so certain units can follow along:

 

A light rail car carries 130 passengers.

The system can handle 4 cars per train.

The system is designed to handle a train every 2 minutes (although, obviously, this is maximum capacity).

That's 15,600 passengers per hour, or about 6.5 lanes of freeway, each way.

Multiply by two (directions). You can do that on your own, can't you KKKY?

 

At more leisurely and realistic rate of a train every 10 minutes, that's still enough capacity to replace a lane of freeway each way per line.

 

Edited November 7, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[chucK]

So I guess you were agreeing with my sentiment that a SeaTac railline is not the best use of resources?

 

Since your figures show a capacity of 15,600 passengers per hour, while the Sound Transit estimates 3000 riders per day.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Not taking sides on the Seatac line (remember, the line services a much larger area than just the airport. The 3000 is the in and out of the airport only). Just providing some figures, that's all.

 

I'm in favor of light rail because such comprehensive systems have been great successes everywhere they've been built in the U.S, it is an environmentally sound alternative to driving, it's the fastest, most efficient way to travel through a developed area, and because it spurs urban density where transportation and services are already available (also environmentally sound), not out in east bumfuck, which is a formula for unsustainable, environmentally wasteful growth.

[JayB]

What's the story with the light rail in Portland? Seems like the system has been well received and is expanding, but I've also heard some grumbling about net-losses per rider.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Every net loss per rider study I've come across conveniently omits both the cost of building and maintaining alternative transportation infrastructure as well as the productivity cost of traffic delays that would have resulted had the system not been built. I'm not sure if there is a light rail system in the U.S., including the NY Subway, that actually makes money when these huge costs are omitted, but I'm quite sure that every system that has been built in the U.S. to date has turned out to be a success when these avoided costs are accounted for.

[JayB]

That's quite possible. Are there any independent studies out there that have made a serious effort to quantify these intangibles?

 

The person I was speaking with's main gripe was that per him the costs associated with collecting fares was high enough relative to the total value of the fares that they'd be better off making the system free, and they'd increase ridership, ease congestion, etc in the process.

 

I have no idea if that statement was accurate or not, but if the goal is to move people rather than to cover costs or turn a profit, then a highway-like funding paradigm might make more sense.

[joblo7]

i visited vancouver and their's is really good.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I you can dispense a can of Coke for 75 cents automatically and make a hefty profit, I would think you could dispense a ticket and at least break even.

 

We all know what happens when such systems become free. The freeloading population quickly destroys it. Roads are different; you're not using the state's vehicles, and its really hard to vandalize a road.

 

You have to charge something to ensure the system has enough capacity for those who actually need it.

Edited November 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[joblo7]

post 1999