Another famous H.L. Mencken quote is, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” The Antiplanner was reminded of this by a headline on the San Antonio Express-News editorial page declaring that San Antonio needs “a transit plan the city deserves.” According to the editorial writer, that plan involves a “rapid transit” system that will “entice people out of their vehicles,” “connect all parts of San Antonio,” and “truly free people from traffic.”
The editorial board must not think very highly of San Antonio. It apparently believes that San Antonio residents deserve to pay billions of dollars in taxes to build an expensive transit system that will be regularly used by less than 5 percent of the people. It also believes they deserve the huge traffic congestion that will accompany construction as well as the lies, cost overruns, and ridership shortfalls that are almost invariably associated with transit megaprojects.
It is also possible that the editorial board simply doesn’t know what it is writing about. For one thing, it seems to think that “rapid transit” means fast transportation. According to the American Public Transportation Association’s Transit Fact Book, rapid rail transit (also known as heavy rail) averages just 20 mph while rapid bus averages less than 11 mph. The average speed of auto driving in San Antonio is 33 mph, so rapid transit is not likely to persuade many to stop driving.
The editorial writers clearly want to live in Tomorrowland, but they actually live in Fantasyland. For one thing, they never mention cost. Rapid rail projects now being planned or under construction average about $350 million a mile. Slow rail (aka light rail) averages about $160 million a mile. Building new exclusive bus lanes is averaging about $20 million a mile while converting existing lanes to exclusive bus lanes costs around $10 million a mile (and permanently increases congestion by taking away lanes from general traffic).
Metal rings could cause a rash or other skin reactions cialis sale uk in some adult men, so this is anything to think about when shopping all around. This created a necessity of a specialized type of medicine which dealt with the healing of muscles, tendons and bones before or after any sports event. deeprootsmag.org viagra samples for sale More importantly, low price viagra it is crucial to have realistic expectations. Ideally, a person should maintain a healthy ratio of good and as everyone knows it is possible to seek by the group of your treatment or by the brand cialis generika alone. For comparison, adding new lanes to existing freeways costs about $5 million a lane-mile; if there is no right of way available, elevated lanes cost about $10 million a mile. Since urban freeway lanes typically carry about four times as many people per mile as light rail and roughly the same number of people as the busiest heavy-rail lines, new roads are far more cost effective than building transit.
The editorial writers also clearly believe that transit can actually entice large numbers of people out of their cars. Yet it hasn’t done so anywhere else in the country. Before Dallas began building light rail, buses carried 2.8 percent of the region’s commuters to work, which is about where the San Antonio is today. Now that Dallas has more than a hundred miles of light rail, transit carries 1.7 percent of commuters to work. Portland went from 10 percent before light rail to 8.0 percent after opening five light-rail lines. Los Angeles loses four to five bus riders for every light-rail rider it gains when it opens new light-rail lines.
While the editorial says that either bus or rail could provide rapid transit for the region, so-called rapid buses aren’t attracting many people out of their cars either. Building a network of exclusive bus lanes might be less expensive than light rail, but it would be just as pointless.
San Antonio transit ridership dropped 19 percent since 2012 and more than 93 percent of San Antonio commuters drive or carpool to work. They deserve to have the region’s transportation dollars spent on projects and programs that will help reduce congestion for everyone, not the handful of people willing to radically transform their lives in order to both live and work near a rapid-transit station.
Converting existing lanes to exclusive bus lanes costs around $10 million a mile (and permanently increases congestion by taking away lanes from general traffic). IF…. it’s poorly utilized. I’ve said it before. If transit buses are average 1/6th full to capacity, why carry the 5/6ths around. Mini buses are half the size, micro buses are 1/3 the size. Use the lanes as bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes. Use tax incentives to get lower income people to use their vehicles to carpool.
LazyReader wrote:
Converting existing lanes to exclusive bus lanes costs around $10 million a mile (and permanently increases congestion by taking away lanes from general traffic). IF…. it’s poorly utilized. I’ve said it before. If transit buses are average 1/6th full to capacity, why carry the 5/6ths around. Mini buses are half the size, micro buses are 1/3 the size. Use the lanes as bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes. Use tax incentives to get lower income people to use their vehicles to carpool.
Even better, convert all lanes on congested freeways to managed (as in tolled) lanes, and give buses, van-pools and car-pools toll-free passage.
That will significantly improve traffic flow for everyone, and provide transit service that is really fast as compared to the numbers cited above by The Antiplanner.
A bus and rubber tired streetcar (bus) system is provided by the city’s metropolitan transit authority.
I always assumed that trolleybuses had advantaged the best of both worlds. Cheaper infrastructure, cause they don’t need track; yes they do require overhead lines………but we already have that stuff all over the city. They run on the street like any bus would; they can pull over to a curb. Better traction and hill climbing, since rubber adheres to the road better than steel on steel. Quieter since rubber tires on asphalt streets generate less noise than steel wheels on steel rails; being electrically driven no diesel vroooom noise. The trolleybus can outperform diesel because of the motor’s high end torque allows for excellent up hill acceleration. And being electric driven means they don’t pollute locally. wer from a centralized plant, even taking into account transmission losses, is often produced more efficiently despite pollution from source. If the power source is clean however (nuclear, hydroelectric, etc) it’s virtually nil.