An op-ed in last Friday’s San Antonio Express-News argues that San Antonio is “one of the least-suited big cities in the world for building rapid transit.” This is because, though San Antonio is the nation’s seventh-largest city, it’s jobs are so spread out that transit just can’t work for most people.
According to Wendell Cox’s report on downtowns, in 2008 transit carried more than 10 percent of people to work in just five metropolitan areas: New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington. These also happen to be the only metro areas that had more than 240,000 downtown jobs. Transit in Philadelphia, which had just under 240,000 jobs, carried only 9.3 percent of metro-area jobs. San Antonio has only about 60,000 downtown jobs, so is less than a quarter of the way to needing an improved transit system.
Note that Cox is counting jobs in metropolitan areas, which include all the land within the counties surrounding the cities, whether that land is urbanized or not. Most data cited by the Antiplanner is for urbanized areas, which only includes the urbanized land (roughly, land developed to more than 1,000 people per square mile). Transit’s share of commuting will be slightly higher in an urban area than in a metro area.
By either definition, Seattle recently joined the list of regions with more than 10 percent transit commuters. This not due to light rail but to downtown job growth: according to the Downtown Seattle Association (DSA), the city had about 200,000 downtown jobs in 2010, and now has more than 280,000. DSA’s definition of “downtown” probably includes a little more land than in Wendell Cox’s definition; Cox said Seattle’s downtown had 164,000 jobs in 2008, when DSA said it had 236,000. But it still represents a remarkable concentration: today well over half the jobs in the city of Seattle (as opposed to the Seattle urban area) are located in the greater downtown area which occupies less than 10 percent of the city.
Transit’s share of Seattle commuting first reached 10 percent of the urban area in 2013 and 10 percent of the metro area in 2014. Seattle’s downtown also happened to reach 240,000 downtown jobs in 2013. This suggests that downtown job growth, not light rail or any other rail transit, is the key to Seattle being the only major urban area whose transit ridership is growing. While this might give hope to transit advocates in cities like Atlanta and Houston, which have close to 200,000 downtown jobs today, it means transit is hopeless in cities such as Austin, San Antonio, and San Jose, all of which have well under 100,000 downtown jobs.
Exercise Daily for Better Erections- Well, cardiovascular exercises help you enhance blood circulation and thereby improve blood flow to be blocked prix viagra pfizer again. cialis online This article is relationship consequences focused which will tell you that people (especially ourselves) want to be free from erectile dysfunction. We all watch television to some discover content sildenafil españa extent. It is a reasonably priced herb and so, ginseng tea can also be availed at a very cheap price, customers will never http://new.castillodeprincesas.com/directorio/seccion/transportacion/?wpbdp_sort=-field-1 discount cialis have to hesitate a moment or doubt a moment about the quality of sexual health. The reason why rapid transit doesn’t work very well in a city with low job concentrations is that it isn’t very rapid. Here is a case where a marketing term has succeeded in persuading people of something that isn’t true: say “rapid transit” and people have visions of trains zooming 80 miles an hour passed cars and buses stuck on a crowded freeway. The reality is far different. According to the American Public Transportation Association, the average speed of rapid rail (a.k.a. heavy rail) is just 20 mph, while the average speed of rapid bus is less than 11 mph.
According to the 2016 National Transit Database, the nation’s fastest heavy-rail line is BART, which averages 35 mph. Atlanta’s is 31 and Washington’s is 27, while New York City subways average just 18 mph. Considering that most transit riders also have to take time getting to and from transit stations, none of these can compete effectively with door-to-door driving, which in San Antonio averages 33 mph.
People who work downtown might be able to tolerate slow transit speeds, especially because transit allows them to avoid downtown congestion and high parking costs. But most people neither live nor work downtown, and to get to work many of them would have to change trains or buses downtown, making their journey even more time-consuming. Since parking outside of downtown areas is usually free, transit has a much harder time competing.
That’s why rail transit is such a failure in San Jose. Silicon Valley (i.e., the San Jose urban area) has nearly twice the population density as San Antonio but only about half as many downtown jobs. Despite spending billions on light rail and commuter rail, transit carries less than 4.9 percent of San Jose commuters to work, compared with 2.9 percent in the San Antonio urban area.
Could spending billions on rapid transit push San Antonio up to 4.9 percent? Not likely. After building light rail, the Twin Cities increased transit’s share of commuting from 5.5 percent to 6.0 percent. But transit’s share of commuting has declined in Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, and many other regions since they started building light or heavy rail. The truth is that transit riders are a lot more sensitive to things like downtown job concentrations and fuel prices than to the kind of transit that is offered.
Speaking of Baltimore; the Baltimore Sun just released a story “Light Rail Fails Baltimore Residents” where apparently
White Liberal Guilt Syndrome reigns supreme.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-0430-light-rail-20180427-story.html
Quote: “Why am I writing this? Because I was the only white person on that train that Friday night, and presumably one of few people who didn’t really need the train. Because my “opportunity” to support public transportation has given me a front-row seat to MTA’s disrespect for Baltimore residents — most of them black — who have no choice in the way they get around. The light rail fails them daily, in such an obviously racist manner that one can’t help but notice.”
I laughed til I peed.
Commute travel patterns among high and low income workers. High income workers….for the most part aren’t transit dependent. So transit agencies have gone on some bizarre mission to get higher income people out of their cars……..which so far hasn’t worked really well. The people that look to rail transit instead of autos are just like the people who think the Earth is flat. There are three different types.
– The Naive: Who simply don’t know enough about a subject; particularly the technical or economic factor, their opinions are motivated often my the two below and seldom encounter opinions of wavering notion. These are the people whose minds can be changed.
– The Religious: Those who’re motivated by a principal force that is deemed morally superior; cannot be convinced otherwise regardless of evidence. This motivation is often humanitarian or environmental in nature.
– The just plain crazy: These people have for lack of a better word have very little social interaction skills; thus are ill equipped to influence in a manner eloquent as the Religious; whose skills are better. The subset however continue on their way to simply push the status quo, whether they believe in it or otherwise often because of a accolade or compensation involved; short answer, it’s their job.
In transits case the three apply.
1: The naive; They’re…………you or essentially average folks; you really think you can sit them down and give them a lengthy lecture about the ….efficacy of transit; it’s merit’s it’s underpinnings, etc. Give a ten page financial dossier about buses versus trains and light rails versus heavy rails.
2: The religious…… Consist of two groups; one are the environmentalists who look to automobiles with disdain and favor collectivist transit approaches as an ecologically/energy efficient means. The other include the civic minded; who milk the moral fortitude angle. Transit for all is transportation for all; HOW Can you put a price on transportation for the needy (The poor, the elderly, handicapped, children; the BIG FOUR transit is aimed to serve)
3: Finally the just plain nuts. The politically inclined who have essentially manipulated the people in power to serve the demands they set forth; even if it’s unnecessary; the fortification of special interest groups regardless is their intended mission: i.e. providing transportation service is met or otherwise. Like I said before transit agencies have gone on some bizarre mission to get higher income people out of their cars; because assuming they’re big spenders? Transit agencies have enormous public funding shortages and like most agencies in government, worker financial obligations are on a defined benefit package which based on projections is insufficient to met. Rather than pay down their pension and healthcare obligations; they embark on more grandiose spending projects. Living by the philosophy “Spend money to make money” Sadly these endeavors will not meet the cost obligations but will only serve to bankrupt municipalities and worse saddle Taxpayers with future debts which is……….Nuts.