Investigators have narrowed down the cause of Monday’s Chicago Transit Authority train crash at O’Hare Airport to either “operator fatigue” or a failure of the rail line’s automated safety systems. Neither explanation is very reassuring.
On one hand, taxpayers are paying more than $200 million a year to pay Chicago train and bus riders some of the highest wages in the nation, only (it is alleged) to have them fall asleep at the metaphorical wheel. On the other hand, the Chicago Transit Authority wants to spend $2-$4 billion “increasing the capacity” of some of its rail lines when it can’t afford to maintain the rail lines that it has now. Back in 2007, the agency said it needed more than $16 billion to bring its rail lines up to a state of good repair, and since then it hasn’t found more than a small fraction of that amount.
Ayurveda believes cost viagra that disorders can’t be treated just with medicine. The functioning of viagra 25 mgs results in thick, full, firm and long-lasting erections after a certain response time. stores for viagra It keeps your mind busy and stops thinking about sexual activities. No man will like to end up early canada viagra cialis in the game.
Many people from medium-sized urban areas who visit Chicago wonder why their city can’t have a rail system like that–a system that is deeply in debt, has a huge maintenance backlog, and is suffering from declining ridership. The truth is that rail transit doesn’t work anywhere in the United States except possibly Manhattan, and even there it is questionable.
Since The Antiplanner is now making a blanket statement and perhaps conceding that rail “works” in at least Manhattan, I wonder:
WHAT EXACTLY are The Antiplanner’s qualitative and quantitative criteria for a rail system that “works”?
While ridership may have declined at the CTA in 2013, the decline is misleading since between 2001 and 2012 CTA rail ridership increased by over 50%, an increase likely driven by the rehabilitation of the Blue Line and the Brown Line. In fact, the only reason CTA rail ridership probably declined in 2013 is due to the 6 month closure of the Red Line for reconstruction. In fact, according to the Transport Politic rail ridership increased in all cities that had rail in 2001 between 2001 and 2012 except for the sad cases of Cleveland and Atlanta. I expect to see a large increase in ridership at the CTA for 2014 as a result of the new and improved Red Line. By the way, the $2-4 billion is both for maintenance and improving the capacity – two things that can be done simultaneously.
There are plenty of places that rail lines do not work (San Jose, North San Diego County, etc) to talk about. We do not need to try and present essential rail cities as rail failures.
WHAT EXACTLY are The Antiplanner’s qualitative and quantitative criteria for a rail system that “works”?
Hate to speak for the characteristically non-interventionist (when it comes to comments) Antiplanner, but I’d guess that one criteria is basic cost/benefit. Certainly government schools and the war on drugs fail based on this metric; most rail systems likely fail when put to this test.
Well, “cost/benefit” is easy to calculate on the “cost” side, e.g., how much something costs in money terms is relatively easy to figure out.
On the other hand, the impacts that one counts as “benefits” depends highly upon what one values. Since persons like myself and others who put a high value on urbanism disagree fundamentally with those who don’t, e.g., like The Antiplanner, I guess we’re condemned to continue to argue over such things indefinitely.
“myself and others who put a high value on urbanism”
Not a high enough value apparently since you and others live in the suburbs or countryside because of unwillingness to make the sacrifices to live in urbanism.
“e’re condemned to continue to argue over such things indefinitely”
Someday you’ll see the light.
Frank:
Someday you’ll see the light.
Well, you’ll never be the one to convince me.
And what “sacrifices?” You mean things like the protests against tech workers living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where “urbanism” is in such demand and short supply that there are protests? Sheesh.
Why is it in 2014 agencies like the CTA are allowed to run trains that don’t have black box data recorders?
“myself and others who put a high value on urbanism”
Not a high enough value apparently since you and others live in the suburbs or countryside because of unwillingness to make the sacrifices to live in urbanism.
And what “sacrifices?”
Well, ones that require you to pay more to live in density rather than your current location “on a winding mountain road 14 miles from downtown Napa for family reasons”; and yes, you’ve recently said you just can’t live in the city; it’s too expensive; “family reasons”; if urbanism is so great, I still don’t understand why you don’t sell your very valuable property and buy a big enough place for your family in the city. Certainly they would be closer to medical care. Yes, it might be a sacrifice, but you can do it! Live your dream! Live in density! The sacrifices will be totally worth it!
PS: I’m still waiting for an explanation of why you think others should pay to ship your books.