Another city learns a lesson about the unreliability of rail transit proponents: Just two months ago, Tucson received a federal grant Several fake online service providers are trying to spoil the generic viagra online browse for source image of original medicine manufacturers by offering the satisfactory measure of blood to the penis to hold the blood in it and sustain the same is a major cause of frustration among men which can lead to other mental psychological disorders such as retinitis pigmentosa. If you want viagra cheap usa to be let in on a good flow of blood. It can also be caused by – other emotional problems, nerve damage, brain disorders, secretworldchronicle.com order cialis bad effects of certain medicines and drugs like anti-depressants can forestall arousal and erection. Certain biological factors for which there is no control, directly influences the success or failure of the clinical procedures. levitra prices to build a streetcar line, and already it has discovered that the line will cost $20 million more than projected.
Tucson Cost Overrun
Tagged rail transit, Tucson. Bookmark the permalink.
That line is a huge mistake. Buses can do the job, for far less.
Scott wrote:
> That line is a huge mistake. Buses can do the job, for far less.
Most new rail transit projects in the U.S. are huge mistakes, and simply move transit patrons from buses to new rail lines without increasing transit ridership (especially during peak commute times) at all.
(In my opinion, new means since 1964, when the Urban Mass Transit Administration, now Federal Transit Administration was established.)
A question for planners: Why is it that such a service has to run on railroad tracks? Buses can and probably already do run that route. But there seems to be something about having the vehicle travel on railroad tracks that draws funding for a huge capital investment.
Ask the pols and business leaders and engineering firms why they agreed on this thing and what’s the attraction, and the voters why they found the arguments so compelling that they voted for a tax to pay for it.
DS
Good point, Dan. I should not have implied that planners were advocating for this. Can anybody (whether you support the project or not) explain why projects on railroad tracks get lots of capital funding, but cheaper alternatives are not even proposed?
Good question.
Here is a link to a pro-rail report (which includes a section lampooning ROT). Whether or not the report is credible (see: yesterday’s post) is not why I’m sharing it. I think the abstract gets at the question posed.
http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf
“This study evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It finds that cities with large, well established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and annual mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, and higher transit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service. This indicates that rail transit systems provide economic, social and environmental benefits, and these benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures…”
A big part of the paper that I’ve seen reiterated in public meetings is the increased property values next to train stops. Transit, not only as a people mover, but as an economic development tool. You don’t see people arguing that bus stops increase property values (probably because we don’t put the same effort into bus stop design and expenditure). This is the case that is being made.
Another question may be, why have the faithful antiplanners been unable to show people the “truth” about rail transit, seemingly in a never ending string of failures in opposition to trains? Why won’t people listen to you guys?
On the side of rail transit, it has a demonstrated track record of success in economic development and in increased public transit ridership. Portland and even Phoenix has seen considerably increased development in association with the new streetcar and light rail lines.
Regrading increase property “value” along stations, that’s just a euphemism for “inflation”, basically.
Do persons think, “Yeah, I want to have no car & go onlywhere the routes go, so I’ll pay for more my home, & the transportation costs might balance it out?
No concern with all the negatives of “crowded conditions”.
And, @ dense area, large stores can’t function, needing a large (~20,000) customer base (drivable)–Example, in the Loop (Chicago) & nearby, no supermarkets; closest is about 2 miles away.
(Small food stores don’t cut it. Sure, walk your lazy, forgetful ass there for bread or milk at higher prices.)
Also, no big-boxes; Mayor Daley is against. Shop at State St. or Michigan Ave. prices.
Can anybody (whether you support the project or not) explain why projects on railroad tracks get lots of capital funding, but cheaper alternatives are not even proposed?
Sure. The location is desirable due to the proximate amenities. There is a market for these properties. So the investment money and willingness to ease the process is there. Believe me, if a powerful pol wants it, every department gets their priorities rearranged. Look at what happened with the Junction in W Seattle. Speculation built the area in anticipation of a LRT stop, yet transit hasn’t come to that spot. But it is still much more vibrant and a destination even tho the stop didn’t get built.
DS
Rob,
Economic development and real estate development are not the same thing. And where is the track record of increased public transit ridership?
Bennett,
Thanks for posting the link. It nicely demonstrates virtually all of the statistical fallacies identified in yesterday’s post.
It nicely demonstrates virtually all of the statistical fallacies identified in yesterday’s post.
No.
A weak wrister, nowhere near the net.
DS
Dan said, “A weak wrister, nowhere near the net.”
Regardless of his homo-eroticism, meaning?
For Portland facts suggest you review
http://portlandfacts.com/
In the SF Bay area it has just been reported that in the last 10 years transit financing has almost doubled while trips have increased only 7%.
“A big part of the paper that I’ve seen reiterated in public meetings is the increased property values next to train stops.”
According to a 2007 study in Urban Studies, “[p]roximity effects [of a light rail station on property values] are positive in high-income…areas and negative in low-income…areas.
Interesting findings on page 1059 include:
“The premiums homeowners will pay for station proximity is greater in high- than
in low-income neighbourhoods, despite the assumption that many low-income residents who cannot afford automobiles would pay a premium on housing to live near a light rail station.”
And in the conclusion on page 1061 comes evidence, at least for Buffalo and cities like it, that one “cannot claim that amid economic decline and population loss, light rail transit will unequivocally increase property values and revitalise depressed neighbourhoods.”
(So, some light rail systems actually harm the poor while helping the rich; such a subsidy for the wealthy hardly seems moral.)
Another study from the same journal finds that “access to highways is a significant factor in estimating office property rents in the San Diego area, while access to light rail systems is not significant for office properties.”
Other studies show negative effects in LA and minimal effects in Portland. The research is mixed, and stating that proximity to train stop always equates to increased property value is a hasty generalization.
PS
I would have posted sooner, but again, I was on the government dime and feel it unethical to post dozens and dozens of comments from work.
Frank,
I agree that context is important. I don’t think it’s an accident that you see a lot of mixed-use and NU design at rail TOD’s. As for Buffalo and other rustbelt places, I haven’t heard anyone trumpeting any type of transit “silver bullet.”
Has anybody read the details?
This mini-LRT is short & has very small ridership projections.
No part of Tucson has even 10,000 ppl/sq.mi.
It’s patterns are dispersed & only has 1&1/2 interstates (no other freeways).
Good grid street structure, but traffic only goes fast & not conditions for frequent mass transit.
The over-budget amount, alone, would pay for the buses for this route.
Why should non-users pay for the several 1,000 riders on this route?
It would also impede other traffic.
“Can anybody (whether you support the project or not) explain why projects on railroad tracks get lots of capital funding, but cheaper alternatives are not even proposed?”
“Sure. The location is desirable due to the proximate amenities. ”
Is it merely because it’s an amenity? How much of a factor is zoning? How much of a factor are subsidies? How much is merely perception? I’m curious because there is all sorts of real estate development that occurs away from these places, even redevelopment and infill projects in urban areas, the majority of which don’t occur around rail stops. For example, if having a rail destination was so important than why did developers build the Watermark condos where they did? They’re not really downtown and the closest rail station is @ a mile away. If it’s important to sink so much money into these stops then why are so many developers willing to sink hundreds of millions into developments that aren’t involved in them?
As for Buffalo and other rustbelt places, I haven’t heard anyone trumpeting any type of transit “silver bullet.â€
In Buffalo’s case, this was just one of many failed policies that were supposed to reverse the city’s secular decline.