Riders of Washington, DC’s Metrobus system are much more likely to be low-income minorities than users of the Metrorail system, according to a 2007 survey. The median income for Metrorail riders is $102,100, while the median income for bus riders is only two-thirds as much at $69,600; more than half of bus riders are minorities while three-quarters of rail riders are non-Hispanic white.
Back in the 1970s, public subsidies to transit were justified on the grounds that cities needed transit to serve low-income people who could not afford to own their own cars. That reason has been forgotten in the rush to build rail lines that will attract middle-class people out of their cars.
from uk viagra Researcher’s haves demonstrates about men that are overweight negatively impacts sexual health. Before you browse around to find out more cialis 10 mg start using this medicine, be sure to consult your doctor so that you don’t exceed the dosage. What’s going to happen if that part doesn’t fit in to one of those industries. viagra order canada You can also benefit online viagra from free shipping to your home.
The survey showed that 20 percent of bus riders do not own a car, while 98 percent of rail riders have at least one and often two cars in their households. Yet, when budgets run short, Metro cuts bus service more than rail service. Bus service is “less consistent” with “one in four buses arriving late.” Many bus routes also have truncated schedules, only operating during rush hours.
But who cares about poor people? After all, they are less likely to vote, and since the real goal of transit agencies today is to maximize their budgets, voters count for more than non-voters.
Then why did it take an act of Congress to get rid of streetcars in Washington DC?
The citizens liked them, the riders liked them, even the company liked them.
The streetcars were making a profit and until Congress (people from other states, DC still has taxation without representation)ordered them closed they continued to.
The DC transit systems ridership fell after the conversion to buses and didn’t pick up again until after the heavy rail system METRORAIL began running.
This is all well and good, but let’s not forget that numerous auto-oriented highways and byways have been intentionally constructed in poor/minority neighborhoods over the year, causing the destruction of homes, “community fabric”, etc., not to mention the fact that residents in such areas then have to breathe countless amounts of auto exhaust for the rest of their residency.
The Highwayman [sic} asked and asserted:
> Then why did it take an act of Congress to get rid of streetcars
> in Washington DC?
Not just Washington – the District of Columbia’s street railway system extended into the Maryland suburbs.
But to answer your question, streetcar service was abandoned in several major corridors prior to the Congressional mandate
to convert to buses was passed in 1956.
The WB&A Interurban (which ran on D.C. streetcar tracks in the
District of Columbia) was shut-down in 1935 because the Maryland
General Assembly declined to grant tax subsidies to the WB&A’s
owners.
Streetcar service was converted to rubber-tired buses in
the late 1930’s in the Connecticut Avenue, N.W. corridor,
because that’s what the patrons wanted. And along the
H Street, N.E. and Benning Road corridor, transit service
was converted from streetcars to buses in the late 1940’s
because the streetcars could not serve the demand.
Congress passed the 1956 law mandating that buses replace
streetcars as a direct result of a long strike by transit
workers that year. By Congressional mandate, the franchise
to operate transit in the District of Columbia was revoked
from then-owner Louis Wolfson and given to O. Roy Chalk.
> The citizens liked them, the riders liked them, even the
> company liked them.
Chalk (the owner) did indeed like the streetcars. Not so
sure that riders liked then as much then as you claim, for
one simple reason – air conditioning (and the lack thereof).
The streetcars, with one exception, PCC Car 1512, the
Silver Sightseer, were not airconditioned, and they tended
to be very hot during the steamy summers for which D.C.
is justly famous.
> The streetcars were making a profit and until Congress (people
> from other states, DC still has taxation without
> representation)ordered them closed they continued to.
At least one of the four bus transit companies serving the
Washington region made a profit until they were taken-over
by WMATA in 1972 and merged to form what is today known
as Metrobus.
> The DC transit systems ridership fell after the conversion
> to buses and didn’t pick up again until after the heavy
> rail system METRORAIL began running.
It fell even more after the April, 1968 D.C. riots. So your
point is?
Once again the highwayman is proven wrong.
When is he going to tell us who pays him to spread his crap on this forum?
So, a while ago I pointed out that Randal’s bus solution is a non-starter because there is a stigma with buses and certain demographic groups won’t ride the bus.
Now, Randal claims rail is for elites.
Can it get any more pathetic? Try for some substance Randal. The ideologues wiht their small-minority solutions should try dipping their toe in non-ideological reality.
snork
DS
If rail is as inconvenient, dangerous, etc. etc. etc. as the Antiplanner has told us it is, we’re left to wonder why wealthy/educated people choose to use it so much.
If rail is as inconvenient, dangerous, etc. etc. etc. as the Antiplanner has told us it is, we’re left to wonder why wealthy/educated people choose to use it so much.
Makes them feel good, like driving a Prius.
Makes them feel good, like driving a Prius
But they’re not driving their Priuses: they’re taking the train. That’s part of point of the Antiplanner’s post.
The Antiplanner wants us to believe that taking the train will mean a longer commute, and one that subjects the rider to getting mugged or otherwise attacked. Yet, we’re supposed to simultaneously believe that wealthy people who own multiple automobiles nevertheless choose to leave their cars at home in exchange for a longer, more dangerous commute. And we’re supposed to believe they do so because “It makes them feel good”…?
Not buying it.
And another thing: are bus riders and train riders in DC generally going to and from the same locations? If not, I’d want to know more information before deciding whether it’s meaningful or not to compare their incomes.
What The Antiplanner means by the “elite” riding the Washington Metrorail is that the demographics of the typical Metrorail rider is generally very close to the average demographic for the region; that is, the “typical” person is much more likely to use Metro–if they can–than the bus. This is no surprise, since BART in the S.F. Bay Area also attracts a demographic that closely matches the regional averages. The fact that “poor people equal poor transportation” (or most other public services) is a political question, not a valid argument, per se, against rail.
The Antiplanner’s faux social progressivism on this matches the Marxist Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles, so it’s fishy. By The Antiplanner’s logic, the Los Angeles-Long Beach LRT line is bad becasue it carries a somewhat higher but still small percentage of white people than the L.A. buses, even though it mainly carries minority folks, at much higher overall speeds than the buses do.
“If rail is as inconvenient, dangerous, etc. etc. etc. as the Antiplanner has told us it is, we’re left to wonder why wealthy/educated people choose to use it so much.”
The light rail lines where I live were intentionally set up to run between ‘nodes’ of mostly middle class and up people. So the lines were intentionally set up to exclude the poor, not to injure the poor, but to serve the middle class. The system is set up for them and caters to them – big surprise they use it.
Lefties never accept that all of their plans to assist the poor by centralizing and socializing services always fail because the main benefits always go to those more well off and so much money is seized by the bureaucracy. Even worse, the socialized service is so inefficient that society as a whole is made worse by the evaporation of resources.
Coyote (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/phoenix-light-rail-fail-half-my-light-rail-bet-settled.html) has just shown we’d be better off to buy light rail riders a Prius and fuel it for them.
All this comes down to is that wealthy people do not like the bus or ride it, not the false statement that the rail is somehow exclusive to only wealthy people or serves their needs.
Try getting a rail line to run through a wealthy neighborhood. GOOD LUCK.
You didn’t really answer the question of why “middle class and up people” ride rail lines, if (as the Antiplanner tells us) they are inconvenient and dangerous.
File under: Randal’s allies are at it again
Bad stats and egregious use of logic here by Wendell Cox.
I love Wendell’s pictures of “suburbs” in other cities of the world: They’re more urban than many cities in the US and are near rail lines, etc. Too funny.
msetty said: The Antiplanner’s faux social progressivism on this matches the Marxist Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles, so it’s fishy.
THWM: Funny how you mentioned the Bus Drivers Union, in that they and Reason(sic) have worked together on anti-rail projects.
It’s ironic that Marxists & Libertarians have so much in common.
But they’re not driving their Priuses: they’re taking the train.
I guess you missed the word like in my sentence.
JimKarlock said: Once again the highwayman is proven wrong.
When is he going to tell us who pays him to spread his crap on this forum?
http://www.examiner.com/x-696-Auto-Examiner~y2009m5d21-Which-automakers-are-the-most-gayfriendly–Find-out
Which automakers are the most gay-friendly?
Gaywheels.com is a website that promotes responsible consumerism by encouraging car buyers to support gay-friendly automakers. On the site you can get information about automakers that offer domestic partner benefits to their employees which qualifies them as ‘gay-friendly.’ Gaywheels released a national survey recently of gay and lesbian car owners’ car buying preferences.
The survey revealed that both gay and lesbian car owners believe that Subaru is the most gay-friendly automaker. Subaru has been noted for its positive advertising and partnerships targeting in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual (LGBT) community. Who are the second and third runner ups? Volkswagen and Ford respectively.
Despite being ‘gay-friendly,’ Subaru is not the most popular automobile purchase made by lesbians and gay men, Toyota takes this honor. “One of the most interesting findings is that Subaru is not the most popular brand with either lesbians or gay men. Toyota holding the top spot is not a surprise; they sell more cars,†said gaywheels.com’s founder Joe LaMuraglia. “What really stands out is when we compared market share of the LGBT new car buyer in this study to the overall market. Subaru isn’t in the Top 10 for gay men and is only fourth for lesbians.â€Â
According to the survey, gay men are 18 times more likely than the general population to own Saabs, five times more likely to own Audi’s and four times more likely to own a Mini, VW or Jaguar. Lesbians on the flip side are 11 times more likely to own a Saab, five times more likely to own a Scion and three times more likely to own a Jeep, Subaru or Saturn.
What about new car buying? Gay men are more likely to buy a BMW, Audi and Toyota and lesbians prefer Toyota, Honda and Subaru. Want to know more about the survey? Check out http://www.gaywheels.com .
I’m selling my Montero for an Audi. Solidarity, baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG_qcud1ShM
C. P. Zilliacus said:
The Highwayman [sic} asked and asserted:
> Then why did it take an act of Congress to get rid of streetcars
> in Washington DC?
Not just Washington – the District of Columbia’s street railway system extended into the Maryland suburbs.
But to answer your question, streetcar service was abandoned in several major corridors prior to the Congressional mandate
to convert to buses was passed in 1956.
The WB&A Interurban (which ran on D.C. streetcar tracks in the
District of Columbia) was shut-down in 1935 because the Maryland
General Assembly declined to grant tax subsidies to the WB&A’s
owners.
Streetcar service was converted to rubber-tired buses in
the late 1930’s in the Connecticut Avenue, N.W. corridor,
because that’s what the patrons wanted. And along the
H Street, N.E. and Benning Road corridor, transit service
was converted from streetcars to buses in the late 1940’s
because the streetcars could not serve the demand.
Congress passed the 1956 law mandating that buses replace
streetcars as a direct result of a long strike by transit
workers that year. By Congressional mandate, the franchise
to operate transit in the District of Columbia was revoked
from then-owner Louis Wolfson and given to O. Roy Chalk.
> The citizens liked them, the riders liked them, even the
> company liked them.
Chalk (the owner) did indeed like the streetcars. Not so
sure that riders liked then as much then as you claim, for
one simple reason – air conditioning (and the lack thereof).
The streetcars, with one exception, PCC Car 1512, the
Silver Sightseer, were not airconditioned, and they tended
to be very hot during the steamy summers for which D.C.
is justly famous.
> The streetcars were making a profit and until Congress (people
> from other states, DC still has taxation without
> representation)ordered them closed they continued to.
At least one of the four bus transit companies serving the
Washington region made a profit until they were taken-over
by WMATA in 1972 and merged to form what is today known
as Metrobus.
> The DC transit systems ridership fell after the conversion
> to buses and didn’t pick up again until after the heavy
> rail system METRORAIL began running.
It fell even more after the April, 1968 D.C. riots. So your
point is?
THWM: That you’re against rail for political reasons, that’s it.
Most of you missed the point again.
LRT is geared for those up to upper-middle income (ie office), rather than for those who need it–the lower income people (ie labor).
Still, transit is a very small portion of passenger-miles; it’s not going to change.
In fact, once non-gas cars become economical, highways will be even more needed, but much less capable of handling the traffic, because of negligence.
People learn! LRT is almost always a mistake in cost-benefit!
Look at ridership (ie 40,000).
Compare to freeway, or even an arterial.
Don’t forget distance traveled, such as length of transit route (ie 20mi) & trip (ie 4 mi).
You’ve loaded the deck, transport policy has been very hostile to rail & transit for over the past 90 years. A 100 years ago the toll rates on arterial roads were 10 cents a mile, today that would be close to $2 for a car to drive one mile.
In a high traffic area trams cost half as much to operate as buses.
Scott, all you push for are double standards!
“Double standards”? How so?
Please stop with with the slander.
You keep forgetting gas & prop tax (for roads), compared to “whatever” taxes for transit.
Over the last century:
Transit use has declined from ~90% to ~5%, by choice of the people.
Transit was private & paid for itself.
What is your point, for tollways, of $0.10/mile, 100 years ago, increasing to $2.00/mile now?
That’s actually counter to your point, whatever it is.
Meaning: road costs increase, yet people still drive. (Duh!)
However, without reference (ie CPI & mass-transit figures), those #s are meaningless.
Everything you say is indicative of you not even graduating HS.
I’m not sure why I bother w/your limited intellect.
It would take hours to educate, & you would have to lose your bias misconceptions.
Your example of “high-traffic areas cost 1/2 as buses” is ridiculous.
You are leaving out capital costs.
And forfeiting road space taken up.
Your consideration only covers a very small section of an area.
You want to force people to live in “high traffic” areas” so that they can have a job only along that route?
If you want that, live in NYC. It’s daily avg commute time is 39 minutes, 50% more than the national avg.
Again, please elaborate on the perceived inconsistencies?
About “all” pay for transit, yet <4% use.
Over 80% drive & all benefit.
Hello!
Interesting change of heart…
Now Rail is for the elite. Not long ago, The “Anti”planner’s “faithful ally” considered transit an “inferior good”:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/33371
Do expect things to makes sense with the likes of Cox or O’Toole?