Spending around $1,000, 20-year-old Daniel Jacobson, a Stanford University undergraduate student, has written a 140-page streetcar feasibility study for Oakland, California. The city of Oakland itself had already spent $300,000 on a streetcar study back in 2005, and planned to spend another $330,000 for further study this year.
Of course, the Jacobson’s study is filled with fabricated data, false assumptions, and phony calculations. But most readers will be too dazzled by the beautiful graphics to notice. Besides, any $300,000 professional feasibility study would contain the same fabricated data and calculations.
The biggest fabrication, of course, is the inevitable claim that building a streetcar will lead to economic redevelopment. There is not a chance in hell that spending $100 million or more on a 2-1/2-mile streetcar line would lead to any economic development, and even if it did, it would only be development that would have taken place somewhere in the Oakland area anyway. But any streetcar study is going to make this claim because that is the only way to justify spending tens of millions of dollars on a nineteenth-century technology that is slower, less flexible, and more dangerous to have on the streets than buses that cost far less.
Be aware you might be the next to nothing side effects Better patient tolerance Great history about the herbs for effective results for any medical proble. deeprootsmag.org cialis online Just like generic uk viagra how Zenegra anti-ED pills can enhance erections by dilating penile arteries, coffee can work a natural way of doing so too, with only two to three or three to five cups each day. viagra generika In addition, holding pee for a long time. If the victim is purchase cheap levitra find for source bearing the pregnancy then she should inform this important matter to her doctor about this.
The real question is what does this say about all the consultants who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce studies that are just as inept and, frankly, not as pretty as the one that Jacobson produced. Government agencies probably feel they have to spend a lot of money on such studies because the public is lot more likely to accept the results of a study that cost $300,000 than one that cost $1,275.
Every planner knows that who you hire to do a study depends on what you want the study to say. Any savvy consultant will make sure to say what the client wants them to say, but some consultants are better at favoring light-rail projects, others are good at streetcars, and so forth.
Of course, most of the money spent on such studies comes out of gas taxes and other highway user fees. By spending motorists’ money on expensive studies that do nothing, planners can avoid having to spend any money actually doing something that would relieve congestion. Because, you know, if you relieve congestion, it will just lead people to drive more, which would be such a waste. At least, I read that in a consultant’s report somewhere.
Though O’Toole you get paid a lot of money by Koch Oil to make studies filled with fabricated data, false assumptions and phony calculations.
“The real question is what does this say about all the consultants who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce studies that are just as inept and, frankly, not as pretty as the one that Jacobson produced.”
To me it says that he’ll probably have a job once he gets out of school. BTW, this is the norm. People in planning school often do service learning projects and write reports for various agencies and governments for nothing more than class credit and a credential (and personal interest). After planning school they go to work and get paid.
“Because, you know, if you relieve congestion, it will just lead people to drive more, which would…”
…lead to more congestion. I read that in a traffic engineers report somewhere.
There is something valuable about street cars and trolleys. I think that is that they seem predictable and simple to people who are not familiar with the area, like tourists. Tourists to San Francisco love the trolleys, even though they are uncomfortable and almost dangerous to ride, because they are visible, iconic and predictable. Most bus systems are incredibly complex and very difficult to figure out, especially for those not familiar with the city.
To me, that suggests two opportunities: (1) Create simple and visible bus systems, like motorized trolleys that go up and down main avenues; and (2) have well-designed computers available that make complex bus systems very user-friendly.
Borealis wrote:
> There is something valuable about street cars and trolleys.
> I think that is that they seem predictable and simple to
> people who are not familiar with the area, like tourists.
> Tourists to San Francisco love the trolleys, even though
> they are uncomfortable and almost dangerous to ride, because
> they are visible, iconic and predictable.
That’s because streetcars have dedicated rails on which they run. The same thing can be done for buses with dedicated bus lanes, for much lower cost.
Stockholm has special “trunk” line buses that are painted a different color from “regular” buses.
And you don’t think London’s Routemaster buses (soon to return with new double-deck vehicles, as Mayor Boris Johnson promised) are iconic?
> Most bus systems are incredibly complex and very difficult
> to figure out, especially for those not familiar with the
> city.
This is often true. In part that’s because bus lines tend to get that way precisely because they are flexible.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> The biggest fabrication, of course, is the inevitable claim
> that building a streetcar will lead to economic
> redevelopment. There is not a chance in hell that spending
> $100 million or more on a 2-1/2-mile streetcar line would
> lead to any economic development, and even if it did, it
> would only be development that would have taken place
> somewhere in the Oakland area anyway.
Has anyone done any studies discussing the favorable economic impact that freeway construction has had?
Consider, for example, Tysons Corner, Fairfax County, Va. Would any of that development have taken place without the Capital Beltway (I-495) and the Dulles Access Road (and later Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267))?
What about Orange County, Calif.? Would it be the prosperous place that it it without I-5, I-405, Ca. 91, Ca. 57, Ca. 241 and Ca. 73?
Those are good examples, C. P. Zilliacus.
Portland has a very convenient bus system downtown. There is (or was) a bus every couple minutes running up and down a main street, and it is free to ride downtown. Of course that is no way to recover costs, but it does make the bus something you jump onto for a 6-10 block travel.
CPZ, I think it is a given that the subsidized Interstate system, along with the subsidized fossil fuel system that goes along with it has helped all kinds of development. Along with the mortgage subsidies for SFD housing.
DS