Search Results for: rail

Some Transit Riders Never Coming Back

By | | Transportation
8 Comments

At least 20 percent of former Long Island Railroad commuter-train riders are “lost forever,” predicts Gerald Bringmann, the chair of the transit agency’s commuter council. This raises the question of whether capital improvements to the railroad that “sounded great” before the pandemic make any sense today.

“The longer people work remotely, the more businesses are finding, ‘You know what? This is working,'” says MTA board member Kevin Law, who is also the president of a Long Island business group. People like working at home, Law added, and don’t like spending hours trying to get to work on someone else’s timetable.

The decline in commuter-train ridership had “been a trend, but COVID-19 accelerated it at a massive rate,” notes the chief editor of Railway Age magazine. Commuter railroads “are going to have to adjust, if they can, to these new commuting patterns.” Continue reading →

BLM: Following the Money

By | | Policy brief
2 Comments

Before Black Lives Mattered, the acronym BLM usually referred to the Bureau of Land Management, an agency in the Department of the Interior that manages more than 10 percent of the nation’s land as well as mineral resources located under another 19 percent of the nation. After the creation of the national forests, national parks, national monuments, and fish & wildlife refuges, the BLM was formed in 1946 to manage the remaining federal lands.

Click image to download a four-page PDF of this policy brief.

The BLM manages areas that were never claimed as a railroad land grant, under the Homestead Act, or under some other law, leading people to sometimes call them “the lands that no one wanted.” In some cases that is true, but in other cases someone might have wanted the lands but laws such as the Homestead Act restricted the number of acres that a settler could claim for themselves. Continue reading →

Glaring and Frequent Errors

By | | Transportation
2 Comments

A supposed “analysis” of a proposal for high-speed rail between Vancouver, BC and Seattle is full of “glaring and frequent errors” and is more of a “promotional brochure” than a serious analysis, says transportation accountant Tom Rubin in a report published last week by the Washington Policy Center. Rubin’s first clue that the so-called analysis was more like political propaganda was that it was proposing not just any old high-speed rail but ultra high-speed rail — a term, Rubin points out, that has never been previously used but that is defined in the analysis as trains going more than 250 miles per hour.

The second problem Rubin found is that the trains in the proposal didn’t meet this definition, having actual top speeds of 220 miles per hour. Rubin speculates that the company doing the analysis used the term “ultra” to try to distance its proposal from the California debacle, even though that plan was also for trains going at a top speed of 220 miles per hour.

The analysis was prepared by a company called WSP, which itself has earned $666 million on the California project and could reasonably be expecting to earn more if Washington decides to build a high-speed rail line. Rubin suggests that maybe this indicates that the company has a conflict of interest when preparing this analysis. Continue reading →

Telling Clients What They Want to Hear

By | | Regional planning, Transportation
6 Comments

The Washington State Transportation Commission hired the Boston Consulting Group to develop a “sustainable growth vision” for the Cascadia Corridor, which means Vancouver, BC to Portland, Oregon. The Boston Group did taxpayers a disservice by telling the commission what it wanted to hear, rather than what it needed to know.

The group observed that the cities in the corridor have the opportunity to become “a global innovation hub.” To find out how to do that, the Bostonians looked at other major innovation hubs and discovered they fall into two rather distinct groups that it called “affordable sprawl” and “expensive and congested.” The best representative of the former is the Texas Triangle, meaning Dallas-Houston-San Antonio. The best representative of the latter is the San Francisco Bay Area.

When measured on two axes of housing affordability and a rush-hour congestion, the Texas Triangle is high on affordability and low on congestion, while the Bay Area is low on affordability and high on congestion. The Bostonians noted that the Cascadia Corridor is currently right in the middle on both, but warned that if it wasn’t careful it would end up as bad or even worse off than the Bay Area. Continue reading →

High-Capacity Transit Deceptions

By | | Policy brief
9 Comments

Transit advocates routinely make deceptive claims about the advantages of transit over cars or rail transit over buses. Often those claims deal with the capacity of different modes of transportation to move people. This policy brief will scrutinize some of these claims.

Click image to download a four-page PDF of this policy brief.

Deception #1: Buses vs. Cars

Transit advocates often use a particular photo set that purports to show the “space required to transport 60 people by car, bicycle, and bus.” The photo on the right shows a conventional 40-foot bus, which has about 40 seats in it and room for about 20 people standing. Next to the bus are the 60 passengers. Continue reading →

New Transit Lines Won’t Relieve Congestion

By | | Policy brief
3 Comments

Voters in Austin and Portland will be asked to increase local taxes to pay for rail transit this November. Less than 8 percent of Portland-area workers and just 2.3 percent of Austin workers take transit to work, so why do transit agencies think that a majority of voters would support spending billions of tax dollars on rail transit?

Click image to download a four-page PDF of this policy brief.

The answer to this question is provided by a famous article in the Onion that claimed a survey by the American Public Transportation Association had found that “98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.” Congestion in many American urban areas has grown significantly and the Onion article quotes a commuter as saying, “It’s about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars off the road.” Continue reading →

Electrification Cost Shocks Caltrain

By | | Transportation
3 Comments

Electrifying the commuter trains between San Francisco and San Jose not only cost $2 billion, it will increase the cost of operating those trains by 33 percent. When seeking federal funding for part of the capital cost, local officials called the route “overburdened” and said that electrification would increase capacity. Today, the route is carrying just 6 percent as many riders as it did before the pandemic, and since it is likely that many of those passengers will never return, the new capacity probably isn’t needed.

As I’ve previously noted, the real reason California wanted to electrify the train was as a hidden subsidy to the San Francisco-Los Angeles high-speed trains. Those trains needed to be electrified and if the cost of doing so could be counted against the commuter trains it would make the high-speed rail project look less expensive than it really was.

The problem with that was that the state had promised to run trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles in two-and-two-thirds hours, which would require faster trains than the commuter trains. Since 220-mph trains can’t safely run on the same tracks as 50-mph trains, the original plan was to build brand-new high-speed rail tracks between San Jose and San Francisco. Cost overruns and revenue shortfalls made that impossible, so California officials came up with the idea of running the high-speed trains on the same tracks as the commuter trains, which would make it impossible to run them fast enough to keep the promise of SF-LA run times of 2:40. Continue reading →

Ideologues or Experts?

By | | Transportation
4 Comments

The goal of the original Progressive movement, which started in the 1890s and peaked in the 1910s, was to put experts in charge of government bureaucracies. That meant doctors should head health-care agencies, foresters should head forestry agencies, and engineers should head transportation agencies. The system actually worked fairly well, especially for agencies such as state forestry and highway departments that were funded mainly if not entirely out of user fees. The feedback from the user fees combined with the expertise to know what to do with that feedback led the production of tremendous resource values.

Today’s Progressives aren’t interested in experts. In fact, they often would rather have anyone but an expert head a government agency because they view the experts as people who have bought in to some world view that the Progressives don’t like.

Case in point: the director of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is not an engineer, nor even a transportation planner, but a historian. Shoshana Lew, who has been in charge of CDOT since February, 2019, has a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and a master’s degree in history from Northwestern. Prior to working for CDOT, she spent two years as chief operating officer for the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. Continue reading →

August Transit Ridership Down 63 Percent

By | | Transportation, Useful Data
Leave a comment

August transit ridership was 63.2 percent lower than in August, 2019, according to data released yesterday by the Federal Transit Administration. This is not much of an improvement over July, when ridership was 64.9 percent below July 2019.

As in previous months, rail ridership was down by more than bus ridership: 74.2 percent vs. 51.8 percent, reflecting the fact that rail riders tend to have higher incomes and are more likely to be able to work at home than bus riders. Similarly, the worst-performing transit systems tended to be in urban areas with large numbers of people who can work at home: San Francisco-Oakland ridership was down 79.4 percent while Washington DC-area ridership was down 79.1 percent. In contrast, ridership in San Antonio, which has no rail transit and whose riders are mainly working class, was down by 49.2 percent.

Despite staggering losses in ridership, many transit agencies have made only modest reductions in service thanks to the credulity of Congress and other funders. Congress gave the transit industry a $25 billion bailout as a part of the CARES Act, and while most transit agencies will soon have burned through those funds, they are counting on another bailout before they run out. Continue reading →

NYC Transit Is Not Vital to the Nation

By | | Transportation
2 Comments

According to “experts,” saving New York City’s transit is “vital to the U.S. economy,” reports an article in Business Insider. These “experts” include the usual gang of transit advocates, including the chair of New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), an urban planning professor at New York University, and the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas, all of whom fervently believe that New York financial workers are, if not the masters of the universe, still critical to making the earth successfully rotate around the sun.

New York is “the only place where you have an abundance of face-to-face contact,” says Gelinas, which is supposedly is why its economic productivity was so high. Because Manhattan is so compact, “you can have many, many meetings every day with your potential vendors, your customers, your competitors,” something that supposedly isn’t possible in the suburbs.

I skeptical that maximizing the number of boring meetings per day somehow makes people more productive. Besides, what good are face-to-face meetings when everyone is wearing a mask? If they need to, people can have more meetings per day over Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime without masks and without having to travel from one meeting to the next. Continue reading →