One of the conclusions of the Antiplanner’s recent paper on rapid buses was that regions that had fewer than 40,000 downtown jobs didn’t need rapid buses, much less light rail. Austin has about 72,000 downtown jobs, but rapid bus isn’t working well there either.
One reason can be found in census numbers, specifically table B08141 of the American Community Survey. For 2012, this table reports that just 2.2 percent of Austin workers live in households that lack access to an automobile, yet 28 percent of them drive alone to work and 12 percent carpool, while only 25 percent take transit to work. In other words, as I’ve noted for other urban areas, transit is just not relevant to most people.
In March of this year, Austin’s MetroRapid bus attracted nearly 6,500 trips per day. This declined to 5,900 in April and 5,300 in April, rising slightly to just under 5,500 in June.
However, few oversensitive men may experience prolonged erection, shortness of breath and skin cialis tablets australia rashes. Dermamelan and Cosmelan: Dermamelan prevents pigmentation by reducing cialis canada mastercard Tyrosinase enzyme. Foods such as eggs, dark chocolates, carrots, walnut, banana, avocado, oats, etc. help in increasing and boosting sexual canadian viagra generic drive. If all have been finished completely, levitra samples valsonindia.com you will get your condition mend easily.
When confronted with light-rail proposals, people sometimes say, “Why doesn’t the transit agency try a bus first?” Austin’s rapid bus appears to have failed, and some of its other bus lines aren’t doing so well either.
Despite this, the agency wants voters to approve a light-rail plan this November. Apparently, planners think rail will succeed where bus has failed. Even if it does attract a few more riders, however, it won’t be worth the high cost.
Based on the low numbers of daily trips by bus, even if light rail increases ridership substantially, it is doubtful that the fares would even cover the cost of operation and maintenance, let alone repay the tens or hundreds of millions for construction.
Nut we you are spending other people’s money, who cares?
Make no mistake about it, the light rail plan is about land development in the Highland Mall area and has little to do with mobility. Highland Mall is a vacant mall in a part of town next to the old airport. It has long been deemed an area from revitalization by the powers at be. Many leaders see light rail as the ticket to revitalization. “Build it and they will come.”
As a transit advocate that seriously believes that transit should first serve auto-less households and help these households reach essential services, the light rail plan and “Project Connect” drives me up the wall. Transit and highway development in Austin are often used to try and direct the substantial growth our community is experiencing. I often wonder why existing communities that are undeserved by transit and roadways keep getting the shaft.
Needless to say there is one planner in Austin beating the drum against these ridiculous proposals, and more importantly offering solutions that will better serve the communities that keep getting ignored.
“I often wonder why existing communities that are undeserved by transit and roadways keep getting the shaft.”
Cronyism. Politics.
BRT doesn’t work anywhere except Eugene, OR:
(from the article):
Compare that with the rapid bus results in Eugene, Oregon which launched a BRT system called Emerald Express, EmX, in 2007. Ridership there increased by 50 percent within the first month.
Tom Schwetz, planning and development manager of EmX, says rolling out a complete rapid bus system at the beginning was one of the crucial factors in creating a successful system.
The day EmX was launched, priority lanes were built and designated to the line. And traffic lights were already coordinated with the new buses, Schwetz says.
Imagine their disappointment when they hear from the Antiplanner that they’re going to need to shut it down because the number of their downtown jobs don’t justify it.
Hey troll who can’t hyperlink, a skill that has been around for at least two decades: tutorials are available on the Internets.
Are you cherry picking again, because the AP showed problems with Eugene’s bus long before this.
You’re just a wanker. Wank off wanker.
I see during my sabbatical from responding to Metrosucks and Frank, that Frank just still can’t control himself, and still engages in name-calling whenever someone points out facts that refuse to conform to his ideology.
For the record, the original segment of Eugene’s EmX BRT line is now timetabled for between 15 and 18 minutes in each direction between downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield, depending on the time of day. And ridership now exceeds 7,000 daily boardings on the original EmX segment, which is an excellent return relative to the original $26 million investment.
http://www.ltd.org/viewroute.html?routeid=1915&submit=Go
http://www.ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=0823b43d0c6fb372c3fd423dfb2e2167
http://www.ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=6d517154d17fc3e09be84a0ee196bd7b
Operating and financial data for the Lane Transit District serving Eugene-Springfield from 1996 through 2012 can be found at the NTD website” http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/cs?action=profileSrch and then typing in “Eugene” in the search line.
According to NTD data for Fiscal Year 2011-12, EmX ridership was about 2.6 million unlinked trips, or likely over 10,000 daily trips when the University of Oregon is in session (~9,000 annualized average).
msetty takes off six posts, including one “back in the air” post (which has three comments, ALL by the gilfoil troll) and calls it a “sabbatical.” What a laugh!
Especially when in at least one of those posts I was challenging the prevailing and unsupported myth that UGBs are the primary driver of housing costs and that governing bodies are maniacally plotting to run people out of town.
What a wanker!
No one was talking to you, wanker.
Go wank off.
No one noticed you were gone. No one cares about you. Or your comments. This blog is better without your trolling. Don’t talk to me if I’m not talking to you.
Go away.
Stay away.
Wanker.
Bennet I have a question for you, as a transit advocate. You say: “As a transit advocate that seriously believes that transit should first serve auto-less households and help these households reach essential services……”. Please define what you mean by “essential services”, please. Also why isn’t your goal to connect “consumers and markets” in auto-less households instead? I do not believe these goals are “the same” or complementary, and submit to you that your goal of connecting households to “essential services” actually destroys markets and hurts consumers.
Tom,
Maybe you’re right in a theoretical vacuum. Maybe connecting households to essential services and connecting consumers to markets are antithetical. However, sometime today a person with a functional disability (probably on medicaid, no doubt another government program you want to end) needs to get to a dialysis treatment. Today a 95 year old grandma who doesn’t drive and has lived in the same house her dead husband built for the last 50, needs to get to the senior meal center (no doubt another government program you want to end). Today many people depend on public transportation to get from their origin to their destination, and even if they represent a very small portion of all people that are going somewhere I’m going to work to get them there, today, most likely on public transportation. Tis my job.
Obviously the methods and system are far from perfect as highlighted from today’s post. Changes could be made to improve productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of the system. Many people (often a majority of voters) also believe that public transit should be for the general public not just those that depend on the service, and many of those people also believe in publicly financing these services even if they rarely use them (or even never use them). I suppose that I agree. I also agree with the primes of the other programs I mentioned earlier (senior meal centers, medicaid), and that it is incumbent upon us to help those in need. That is why I fight my battles in transit within the context of the systems at play right now.
If you have a better system, particularly one that can be implemented without letting those who are dependent on public transportation today fall through the cracks tomorrow, I welcome the debate. My views on planning, public transportation and land use have no doubt evolved because of my participation on this blog. However I will warn you that to convince me it’s going to take more than a discussion about the vagaries of free market capitalism, the virtues of Randian philosophy, and the reason we should privatize damn near everything (not that that was necessarily where you where going).
So Bennett, what do you say about the failure of Public Transportation to do exactly what you envision it to do? Few are served in any socioeconomic group, let alone the one you advocate for, which is the one group most of us would support serving. Here in Portland less than 7% of commuters are served by public transit and I would guess that few are part of the group you are talking about, why do you think that is?
I’m not sure I agree with your premiss Tom. I agree that only a small portion of the population use transit. That’s okay to me. I don’t know much about Portland transit, other than when I visit I use it often. In OKC for example, public expenditures are $5 on transit to every $100 on highways. So only transporting about 3% of commuters seems just about right. In places like OKC, Tulsa, Little Rock, Austin, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque (these are the transit systems I am most familiar with) the far majority of riders are either students or in the “transit dependent” cohorts. What I hate to see is when transit serving these groups is cannibalized to fund new rail projects that are about real estate development and not mobility (or at least not current mobility needs). Maybe this is/was the case in PDX rail projects?
In Austin, a roll out of the new commuter rail coincided with a dramatic reduction in the ADA Paratransit service area. People noticed and were rightly pissed. As Mr. O’Toole always notes about rail, it lacks the flexibility of buses. Commuters between Santa Fe and Albuquerque seem to have preferred the intercity bus service to the Rail Runner now in place. The buses were more comfortable and now the trip requires a transfer. IMHO, transit only serving a small percentage of commuters is nothing to get upset about. When service to that small percentage is cut so that a new streetcar line can be built to attract revitalizing development in an area deemed blighted, that is something to get pissed about.
… and while I appreciate the discussion, you’ve ignored my question (what’s your alternative?).
A better system? I don’t think that is possible in Portland. Not that it can’t be don’t better, but those in charge have no interest in making it better here.
If things were to be improved here, or anywhere, I would first suggest putting together a marketing plan that would identify the target user, focus on their destination, and their expectation of service. Currently I’ll bet all the transit plans focus on the desired effect of public transit, the bureaucratic goals to be met and not on serving the needs of consumers.