Denver’s FasTracks rail plan gets deeper and deeper into trouble. The fragile coalition of municipal officials supporting the plan has been threatened by a new proposal that would give some lines priority over others. No one seems to think that voters will ever approve the tax increase RTD, Denver’s transit agency, says it needs to the complete system.
The Denver Post published another article questioning whether commuter rail makes sense, following up a previous article questioning light rail. “Besides being pricey to install,” says the Post, rail lines “are pricey to maintain, and other alternatives exist that would clear clogged roadways (and the air) at least as effectively,” namely buses. So “we think RTD ought to return to the drawing board.”
In rare cases, surgery involving veins or arteries may be considered as the same work of levitra price in india purchasing here, but it is so costly that all of us cannot afford it. It is discovered everywhere – in the type levitra online purchase donssite.com of five mg, ten mg, and 20 mg tablets and also the ten mg ones would be the typical initial dose. A person should make cialis no prescription cheap sure that the dosage is proper. Dosage: It should be generic cialis for sale taken within an hour of copulation.
Even Bob Ewegen — the journalist wrote a whopping 138 columns or editorials for the Post supporting FasTracks — has come out in support of bus-rapid transit in at least some of the FasTracks corridors. Buses, Ewegen finally admits, “can be equally fast and much more flexible” than trains. “One ride instead of three makes bus rapid transit usually much more rapid than train lines that require catching shuttles.” One wonders why he still supports trains in some corridors.
Existing tax revenues are not enough to build all the FasTracks lines, and political support crumbles if only some of the lines are built. This is not a recipe for success.
You mean the fourth estate is actually doing some proper criticism?
Well, if cannot be classified as “news”, then it must be wrong.
The proper role of the media is just to report the facts & claims & contradictions (without realizing), that are favorable to statism. And to only look at the positives.
If it’s magical taxpayer money, it’s okay to spend $100 to save $30 or get only $30 of value.
The public sector has no such thing as cost-benefit analysis, opportunity cost, externalities or unintended consequences.
Feel-goodery & good intentions are sufficient & then with added bonus of paying off the constituents.
The issue here is that , as the latest Post report that Randal linked to said:
That is: the voters understand the issue and voted for funds, but the execution has been made a hash of, big time. So the community is discussing the options. And, as was pointed out, congestion problems have never been solved.
So the community either looks ahead, or not, at what the future will look like in Denver. Let us make sure ideologues and their issues don’t…uh…drive the debate. Like the anti-union nutjob yesterday wanting to dismantle a successful school system to implement his failed ideology. Small minorities can inform our decisions, but that is not to say their ideologies actually work on the ground. Fiscal responsibility is necessary. Limiting choice is not.
DS
Dan, if the trains were actually a “necessity,” wouldn’t they be full of riders, whatever the inconvenience? I am not sure the author of the piece you quoted really comprehends what “necessity” means. It doesn’t mean something that would be nice to have.
Mike, the authors (esp DH) are reliably right-wing close to libertarian, but DH’s parroting of typical talking points makes it hard to determine with any certainty, beyond standard shilling. But neither are dumb.
Nonetheless, your “definition” of “necessity” neglected to look at the context of the report for the complete answer. And the BH often gives up her seat on her commute, and I expect to stand during certain periods and esp going to/coming from Pepsi Center.
This is not to say the region has figgered out how to address the “last mile” conundrum, and may not until the sprawl is redeveloped (if it ever is, and the water/climate change problems here may prevent it).
DS
Ah yes the “but someone had to stand” argument as “proof” that light rail is necessary, successful and in fact, more is needed. How does that prove it’s necessary or successful let alone that more is needed any more than traffic backed up on a city street “proves” that more roads are needed?
prk, the question was (so you don’t have to scroll up 1.1 column-cm): “Dan, if the trains were actually a “necessity,†wouldn’t they be full of riders, whatever the inconvenience?”
You’ll want to address your “proof” issue with the person who posed the question. Nevertheless, I contextualized the definition of “necessity” according to the Post authors, right before the “standing” bit, and even b-quoted it in #2. A lot to keep track of, surely.
BTW, how was parking for you at the LR station today? Lighter today with the furloughs?
DS
I haven’t been taking light rail. I can bike to the tech center nearly as fast it takes for light rail. The difference in time is more than easily accounted for in that if I’m going to exercise for an 1/2 hr or hour, it more than makes up for the commute. My random commutes via LRT lately have been driven by the desire to read mixed with knowing that when I get home, I’ll end up pissing away the extra time doing something else.
True, Mike did ask the question but he didn’t reference standing, he asked about full. Giving up a seat nor standing doesn’t mean anything is full. As I’m sure you’ve noticed people will stand long before all seats are full. And as we know, seats only make up 40-45% of capacity. That said, it is true Mike tossed out a nice underhand pitch there in not giving a hint at what is meant by “full”. And of course, just because it’s not 60% or 100% full doesn’t necessarily prove that it wasn’t warranted either.
To clarify with countering examples…
Observe the New York City transit system. I have yet to step on a bus or subway in New York that wasn’t as full as it could stand to be, and it’s well-known that the only times those buses and trains run even moderately empty is during the anti-peak hours. It is entirely conceivable that private transit could succeed at NYC’s transit-rider saturation level, but there’s no point in competing against a subsidized entity, so private options at present remain mainly of the taxicab variety. Whatever it’s costing NYC for its current transit, at that ridership level it should be possible, given enough efficiency in management, for it to turn a profit. And at that point the issue of necessity becomes a tautology: It’s profitable so of course it’s necessary. If it wasn’t necessary, it would not earn enough revenue to be profitable. (This is a shortening of a very deep bit of theory. If you’re hung up on what appears to be my skipping a step here, bridge it with “profitability is sufficient proof of utility, absent fraud” and that should carry today’s exercise sufficiently well.)
Meanwhile, the Phoenix METRO Rail is often standing-room-only going to or from a Suns or Diamondbacks game, and is often damned near empty during the midday stretch. These things average out; the typical commute ride has middling ridership, and at present levels it will take until 2048 for METRO Rail to break even. This is despite the METRO Rail main line replacing the heaviest-traveled city bus route, the Red Line, and subsuming its ridership. Though the trains do at times run “full,” it is hard to argue that they are “necessary,” because if they were that damned necessary then they would have a consistently higher ridership level. It’s hard to argue that it was worth billions of taxpayer dollars over half a century to move a few thousand people to work every day. (I would argue further that spending a single taxpayer dollar to move a million commuters is immoral coercion, but we’ll set that issue aside for today’s exercise because the numbers are so stark that METRO Rail fails even by pragmatic metrics.)
By accounts even proponents appear to concede, FasTracks is even worse situated than METRO Rail. How can it be imagined to be “necessary” when its ridership is so clearly minimal as to spectacularly fail even the most generous economic cost-benefit and impact analysis you could muster?
Dan said: The authors (esp DH) are reliably right-wing close to libertarian, but DH’s parroting of typical talking points makes it hard to determine with any certainty, beyond standard shilling.
THWM: Well that’s just it, automobiles aren’t “necessities”.
Also this “blog” is ran by some one with a political agenda that’s anti-transit.
Railwayman,
Notwithstanding the Obama administration’s fascist takeover of General Motors, automobiles are profitable and therefore satisfy “necessity” in and of themselves.
To highwayman:
Yes, you are entirely correct. The website “Antiplanner” is run by someone who is against planners. You have made that point 100 times. Most of us got the point when we saw the name of the web site.
We also know that thousands of miles of railroads went away. The FBI X-file crew have completed their investigation. They found the rails aren’t missing; but rather they were hauled up and sold because they were worth more as scrap then as an unused right of way.
Those concessions will probably save you hours every day.
Notwithstanding the Obama administration’s fascist takeover of General Motors, automobiles are profitable and therefore satisfy “necessity†in and of themselves.
Not fascist at all (BushCo was much closer to the definition), and history reminds us of failing corporations asking for bailouts (having grown up in Detroit, I wouldn’t have minded GM going under, but my family back there would have).
DS
Dan, WS, Market Urbanist, no one said it was going to be easy dealing with sociopaths.
Andy said: Yes, you are entirely correct. The website “Antiplanner†is run by someone who is against planners. You have made that point 100 times. Most of us got the point when we saw the name of the web site.
THWM: No way, O’Toole’s only against planning that he doesn’t like, thus he’s also called him “The Autoplanner”.
Andy:We also know that thousands of miles of railroads went away. The FBI X-file crew have completed their investigation. They found the rails aren’t missing; but rather they were hauled up and sold because they were worth more as scrap then as an unused right of way.
THWM: That’s great, you’re a hypocrite & an asshole.
Mike said: Automobiles are profitable, therefore satisfy “necessity†in and of themselves.
THWM: You could have written the exact same damn thing about dildos!
To highwayman: Please write again when you have graduated from the 3rd grade and learn that naughty words aren’t necessarily funny. Your endlessly repeated theories about “missing rail lines” and the “Antiplanner website secretly being biased against government planners” are just stupid, and even your closest allies “ws” and “Dan” won’t repeat them.
To everyone else: Please don’t feed this troll.
Notwithstanding the Obama administration’s fascist takeover of General Motors…
Very much fascist. See: Economics of Fascism.
Murrica has bailed out the blunders of private enterprise before. So according to this sort of…of…”logic”…this means our ancestors made a fascist country. All along we were told we were a democracy (then we figured out it was a corporatocracy), but we were deceived..
Who knew that we were fascist all along?
Well, nobody, as this is fear-based bullsh–. Obviously.
DS
Well, if it’s anything like our commuter rail in Seattle, for which they substantially increased sales taxes and vehicle tab fees in a tri-county area of 3.5 million permanent residents, it ought to be a smashing success (in public sector terms, that is, which is to say it is indifferent to cost-benefit analyses and that there are thus no true quantitative benchmarks).
Here are our Seattle “ST Sounder” commuter rail projections vs. realities, a couple years in, current as of last month:
Projected Capital Costs: $650 million
Real Capital Costs: $1.8 billion and counting
Distortion: 177%
Projected Annual Operating Costs: $10 million (through 2010)
Real Annual Operating Costs: $30+ million (as of 2009)
Distortion: 200%+
Projected Farebox Recovery: 27.5% of O/C
Real Farebox Recovery: 13% of O/C
Distortion: 53%
Projected Ridership: 3.8 million boardings
Real Ridership: 2.67 million boardings
Distortion: 30%
Projected Completion Date: 2002
Real Completion Date: 2013 (Revised Projection)
Distortion: 85%
Projected Length: 82 miles
Real Length: 75 miles
Distortion: 9%
Projected Number of Trains: 15 (by 2002)
Real Number of Trains: 10 (as of 2009)
Distortion: 33%
If you add it all up, the average distortion of all of their claims was about 84%. Good luck to Denver!
“Existing tax revenues are not enough to build all the FasTracks lines, and political support crumbles if only some of the lines are built. This is not a recipe for success.”
But why does political support matter at this point? Is there anything in the original referendum that says all lines have to be built? I thought, if RTD wanted, under the terms of the referendum if they really wanted the could say “oh, we’re not going to do rail to Boulder nor Longmont” and just not build it. I though if they wanted to at this point they decide to screw building the line to airport and instead build BRT on Arapahoe out to Smoky Hills.
At this point, RTD can change the building schedule for Fastracks as they want and even drop routes or portions of routes, correct?
Distortion. And a straw man.
Not all along. We used to be told (the fact) that America is (was) a republic.
The modern corporation didn’t exist until the late 19th century, and while the revolution resulted partially in response to mercantilism (which the federalists eventually succeeded in reviving), the two systems were different. Not sure who you mean by the “we” in “we figured it out”. I doubt most modern Americans understand corporatism.
Never made this claim. You’re mischaracterizing (again) and falsely accusing me of committing anachronisms. This is a straw man shown by you next statement, an attempt to dismiss (your deliberate distortion of) my position:
Compare Mussolini’s government’s actions to our modern government. There are many similarities: nationalized banks, militarism and increased military spending (thanks to the corporatist MIC), protectionism, state economic planning, and more.
I made no appeal to fear and used no hyperbolic alarmist rhetoric. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements in an attempt to dismiss them.
Better yet, just ignore me. My “puerile” arguments shouldn’t get me any “play” from you.
Andy: Your endlessly repeated theories about “missing rail linesâ€
THWM: It’s not any theory, it’s a point-blank fact.
Andy: “Antiplanner website secretly being biased against government plannersâ€
THWM: His bias isn’t against government planning.
His bias is against railroads, transit & development that is not auto dependent.
Dear misguided highwayman (who lied even with his username),
Please tell us about all the thousands of miles of rail lines that that disappeared, other than those that were salvaged because they were worth more as scrap than as a developed rail line.
And please tell us why the “Antiplanner” website is secretly biased against planners.
And please tell us how you graduated from third grade without the snot being beaten out of you.
OMG, Andy you’re a nincompoop!
Apparently Frank doesn’t like to see his own logic used. Huh.
Ah, well. No decision-maker, policy-maker, person with influence, someone in authority, leader, community champion will give the time of day to such an argument anyway. But, please, by all means: argue that way in public. Please. Go ahead. Share those…erm…”ideas”.
DS
Oh, highwayman, you missed your nap today. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never harm me — and all the other third grade retorts to schoolyard idiots. Why don’t you go play SimCity with your Facebook friends and live out your urban planning fantasies?
ROTFLMAO!
Don’t follow the news, much, eh? A congressman has made this argument, calling our corporatist system a form of “soft fascism”. A candidate for a senatorial seat has also made such arguments.
There are always exceptions. But I love your sweeping generalizations. Please, by all means, keep making them. I need something to make me laugh early in the morning.
At this point, RTD can change the building schedule for Fastracks as they want and even drop routes or portions of routes, correct?
Who likes highways?
Drive? Walk? Take public?
The ~$0.50/gallon pays for most.
Sure there’s property tax for roads… Benefits all.
Will +$0.50/gallon pay for all more highways?
Get the hell out of here with subsidized public transit.
Even NYC cannot survive with tickets/payment only (1/3 of all US public transit).
Hello!
Do research!
Including math.
Example,
CBD: 20,000/sq.mi.+
(not the only requirement)
If public transit “worked”, in being efficient & cost-effective, there would not be reasons to be “against”, & for people to “choose” cars.
People used to choose candles & horses, but technology & development have provided better options.
Though Scott you activley work to prevent people having choice to begin with.
Yes, it’d be a shame if we didn’t spend billions so a few middle class folks had a choice of riding a train downtown instead of the bus. That’s a much more important than repairing existing infrastructure that is in serious disrepair. Why spend money on addressing the 1/4 of high school students who fail to graduate when we could have some pretty trains instead of pretty buses? Why spend billions to address childhood poverty in Colorado, where it’s growing faster than anyplace else in the nation, when we could spend billions so so a few people can ride the train the airport instead of Skyride? And of course having a few more trains is more important than making sure everyone has enough to eat (9% of Coloradans do not).
Choice is a wonderful concept to throw around. But this isn’t about choice. It is about priorities.
Prk166, you’re full of shit.
Railwayman: Prk166, you’re full of shit.
Well, that definitely settles it. What a masterful refutation. So full of facts and evidence and so on…
prk, you know ding-dang well that LRT monies aren’t sucking the education monies away. This state’s population is sucking education monies away. And you also know well that bus-riding is stigmatized and most folk don’t like to ride buses. We have been over this numerous times, which is why THWM didn’t need to explain.
DS
Highwayman –> Again, another reply that makes me suspect higwayman posts are not from a thinking human being but the result of grad student’s AI computer science project.
Any money spent on one thing is money that is not spent on something else. A billion spent on expanding I25 is a billion that could’ve been spent on education. A billion and a half spent on rail to the airport is a billion and a half that could’ve been spent on programs to address homelessness.
Can a concept as basic as opportunity cost really be that difficult for some people to grasp? No, that doesn’t mean we don’t spend any money at all on transportation until we’ve 100% addressed hunger, childhood poverty, health care, or education. But we do need to keep all of these issues in mind. We need to prioritize our resources to reflect what’s most important.
A for most folks don’t like to take the bus, we know that rail has 3 times the upfront costs, similar operating costs when capital costs are ignored, and about a 25% premium on ridership. Saying that “most folk don’t like to ride the bus” would mean that by most, you mean 25% of transit riders. For most folk, that ain’t “most”.
The reason why opportunity costs are important relates the the original blog posts. RTD is not in an all or nothing situation. This is an issue of how fast they can build lines; an issue of not building everything they originally promised. But that’s far, far from nothing. Much of Fastracks will still be able to be built. The question is, is having another 75,000 – 90,000 trips a day in 2030 occur on trains rather than buses and cars worth a few billion? Wouldn’t a few billion dollars, if it’s going to be spent, be better spent on other problems facing the region?
Wouldn’t a few billion dollars, if it’s going to be spent, be better spent on other problems facing the region?
This is the Lomborg-type argument, which is in effect a hand-wave, as we wouldn’t be spending this money on these problems anyway – it is simply a cry not to spend money on something that someone doesn’t want.
If we wanted to truly spend money on education, we would. And Colo would get rid of TABOR. But we won’t anytime soon until the problems are obviouls even to the ideologues and they’ll stop flooding everybody with their spam.
My 2¢
DS
Thank you Dan!