The Antiplanner » Tag » low-capacity rail

Tag Archives: low-capacity rail

No One’s Riding Light Rail, So Reduce Fares and Build More

By | | Transportation, Urban areas
9 Comments

Planners predicted that Norfolk’s Tide light-rail line, which opened in 2011 60 percent over budget and 16 months behind schedule, would stimulate economic development along its route. But little development is taking place, so the Virginian Pilot has come up with a grand idea: reduce fares by two thirds. That, the paper’s editorial writers guesstimate, should attract 1,000 more riders per day, which they hope will generate the development planners promised.


Looks fast, but the schedule indicates it takes 26 minutes to go 7 miles for an average speed of 16 mph.

There are a lot of problems with this proposal, not least of which is the fact that rail fares in Norfolk are already the second-lowest in the country, after Houston’s. Though the nominal fare is $1.50, which the Pilot proposes to cut to 50 cents, actual fares collected in 2012 averaged just 50 cents a ride, compared with 35 cents in Houston but $1.39 in Denver. The national average for low-capacity rail is 98 cents, while the average Hampton Roads bus rider pays 91 cents.

Continue reading →

Pinellas Transit in Trouble

By | | Transportation, Urban areas
1 Comment

The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) has been illegally using FEMA money to illegally advertise in favor of a ballot measure to build light rail in St. Petersburg, Florida. Last week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency sent a letter demanding that PSTA return a $354,000 grant it received that was supposed to be used to ward of terror threats, but was used instead to advertise for light rail. FEMA warned that, even if PSTA returned the money (which it has), it would still be under investigation for criminal charges for misuse of federal funds.

The double use of the word “illegal” in the first sentence above refers to the fact that, not only did PSTA misuse the FEMA grant, it shouldn’t be spending any money at all promoting the light-rail ballot measure. In the 1990s, most rail transit ballot measures lost, but in the 2000s, more have won, mainly because transit agencies began using taxpayer dollars to promote the measures start with the Utah Transit Authority in 2000.

As a pro-rail web site notes of the Utah measure, a “key to success was that the agency had put great effort into maintaining a strong, positive public reputation prior to launching the campaign. TV ads were already regularly appearing reminding the public of the benefits of the service provided by UTA. When it came time to initiate the electoral campaign, early outreach efforts had already paved the way.”

Continue reading →

Another Inane Low-Capacity Rail Plan

By | | Transportation, Urban areas
5 Comments

Some people in Durham, NC, want to build a $1.4-billion, 17-mile light-rail line, and the region has been spending millions of dollars planning it. A quick review of the project’s alternatives analysis reveals that planners and consultants have done everything they can to bias the analysis towards rail.


A Durham transit bus in front of Durham’s $10 million downtown transit station.

The most important thing to note is that planners projected that either of two bus-rapid transit alternatives would attract more transit riders than light rail (p. 5-78) at little more than half the cost (p. 5-105). But the analysis nevertheless recommended in favor of light rail, partly because “public and agency support” supposedly favored rail over bus and partly because of rail’s “demonstrated” ability to promote compact development.

Continue reading →

Red Ink Pinellas

By | | Transportation
3 Comments

The Cato Institute has published a new paper on Greenlight Pinellas, or, as I prefer to call it, Red Ink Pinellas. As previously mentioned in the Antiplanner, this is a plan to spend $1.7 billion building a light-rail line from St. Petersburg to Clearwater, Florida and boost local bus service by 70 percent.

The paper reveals that the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, which is pushing for light rail, has a poor track record of spending. From 1991 to 2005, it increased bus service by 46 percent but saw a 17 percent drop in passenger miles. Then the recession forced it to cut bus service by 5 percent, yet ridership grew by 9 percent. Given this history, boosting bus service is likely to result in a lot of empty buses. Meanwhile, the agency projects that so few people will ride its light rail that it will only need to run one-car trains.

When compared with bus-rapid transit, the cost of getting one person out of their car and onto the proposed light-rail line is projected to be $50. That means getting one person who currently commutes by car to switch to light rail would cost more than buying that person a new 5-series BMW every year, or a new Tesla class S every other year, for the next 30 years.

Continue reading →

Low-Capacity Rail Fails Again

By | | Transportation
20 Comments

After a soccer game last week in Santa Clara, California, people complained about lengthy waits to get a light-rail train home. The game attracted more than 48,000 fans, but only about 8,300 of them were able to take the light rail to and from the stadium–and it took 90 minutes to move that number away from the event.


“Mass Transportation,” a painting by Grif Teller used on the 1955 Pennsylvania Railroad calendar.

The sad thing is that transit agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) have propagandized the wonders of light rail, calling it “high-capacity transit,” so that people actually believe it can do things like fill and empty a stadium with 68,000 seats. The reality is that light rail cannot come close to doing this, at least not without taking many hours. VTA should give up and rely on buses instead.

Continue reading →

Slower Than Molasses in a Minnesota Winter

By | | Transportation
12 Comments

Remember the Twin Cities light-rail line that was supposed to average 17 mph but, after testing, was scheduled for just 13-3/4 mph? It turns out that, in actual operation, it averages less than 12.5 mph. That means it takes 53 minutes to go from downtown Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul, 36 percent longer than the 39 minutes originally promised and more than twice as long as the 26 minutes required by a bus.


A green line train near the University of Minnesota. Flickr photo by Michael Hicks.

What’s slowing the trains down? Traffic signals. Apparently, the city of St. Paul is reluctant to give the trains signal priority over all other traffic. “It is hard to rationalize a train with 300 people stopping at an intersection with no cross traffic,” says Metro Transit’s general manager. But it is also hard to rationalize giving the few people who ride the train priority over the thousands of people who use other modes of travel.
When the different disease lesions involve in the bladder peritoneal fold or infringement of the bladder muscle layer, the symptom such order cheap viagra icks.org as urgency, frequent urination will appear at the same period. Each strand has a few different layers that are known as levitra professional online the cortex, medulla, and cuticle. prescription de levitra One has not to get registered for placing the order.The drugs are in discrete packaging of 100mg. The way it works is cialis sale it is first absorbed into the blood stream.
Continue reading →

Low-Capacity Rail for Las Vegas?

By | | Mission
7 Comments

Robert Lang, a professor of urban affairs at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, thinks Las Vegas needs a low-capacity rail line (aka light rail). As the director of something called the Lincy Institute, Lang’s job is to “draw state and federal money to the greater Las Vegas” area, and low-capacity rail is one way to do that.


An ACE Gold bus-rapid transit vehicle in Las Vegas. With fancy vehicles like these, why does Vegas need low-capacity rail? Click this Flickr photo by HerrVebah for a larger view.

Of course, that’s not the way he puts it. He claims low-capacity rail has “transformed urban development patterns in the West” by changing “housing development from water-consuming single family homes to multifamily, mixed-use projects.” I guess he thinks people in multifamily, mixed-use projects don’t drink as much water as people in single-family homes. It’s also pretty clear he hasn’t read research by the Antiplanner and faithful Antiplanner allies such as John Charles showing that low-capacity rail attracts no new development unless it is accompanied by large subsidies to developers.

Continue reading →

Alive Again?

By | | Transportation, Urban areas
7 Comments

The once-dead Columbia River Crossing, a $3.5-billion project to build a $1.0 billion bridge across the river between Portland and Vancouver, may be alive again. After the Washington legislature rejected the idea that Washington state taxpayers should contribute $400 million to the plan, Portland bridge supporters have come up with an idea: Just build the bridge, but nothing north of the bridge in Washington.

The plan basically called for a $1.2 billion bridge, a $1.0 billion low-capacity rail line, and $1.5 billion replacing all highway interchanges for miles north and south of the bridge. Although the new bridge would have more lanes than the current bridge, the highways leading to it from both directions would have no more lanes, so the total capacity would not be significantly increased.

The existing bridge is not in any danger of falling down, but Portland wants to cram low-capacity rail down Vancouver’s throat, and replacing the bridge is an excuse for doing so. To keep the plan alive, advocates suggest deleting all of the highway interchange reconstruction in Washington. If Washington decides to reconstruct those interchanges later, it can come up with the funds later. Of course, the plan still includes low-capacity rail.

Continue reading →

TriMet Tramples on People’s Credit; Streetcars Still Late

By | | Transportation
8 Comments

Portland transit follies are increasingly scrutinized by the local media, something that should have happened years ago when there was still a chance of stopping projects such as the $1.5 billion boondoggle low-capacity rail line to Milwaukie. (The video below shows why it is such a boondoggle.)

Joseph Rose, the superreporter who can walk faster than a speeding streetcar, has found that the fare machines for Portland’s low-capacity rail lines are in service a lot less than the agency claims. Some are down more than 35 percent of the time. Since they give out $175 tickets to people who don’t pay their fare, this can be distressing.

Continue reading →

Cry Me a Tide

By | | Transportation
6 Comments

Norfolk opened its “Tide” low-capacity rail (formerly light rail) in September, 2011, a mere 16 months behind schedule and 60 percent over the original projected cost. Now, Hampton Roads Transit–the agency that serves Norfolk-Newport News-Virginia Beach–says that the line will cost a lot more to run that it expected, so it will have to raise fares for both rail and bus riders.

Opening day for “the Tide.” Flickr photo by Virginia Department of Transportation.

Actually, they knew it was going to cost a lot to run, but they used federal funds to subsidize operations for the first couple of years. Since fares cover only 14 percent of operating costs (and zero percent of maintenance costs), the transit agency is hoping Norfolk, the state, or anyone else will come up with some of the difference. When the region was deciding whether or not to build the rail line, did the agency tell the public that building rail meant raising fares? Probably not.

Male pattern baldness, if there is sildenafil pills a predisposition, occurs frequently in young male users. In this case viagra from canada study, the patient was not trying to get pregnant. Still, many of the ED sufferers are not aware of that there is a direct link between gum disease order levitra online and not know the reason for having so. Here at viagra cialis online this very place you will find only lowest prices for cheap generic meds you need, get a chance to get caused such as- 1.Nausea2.Stuffy nose3.Flushing4.Headache5.Painful or prolonged erection6.Hearing problem7.Sudden vision changes8.Breathing problem9.Dizziness. Continue reading →