Walter Powers
June 26th, 2013, 12:03 AM
I'd like to part away from your substandard capitalism/communism debate that seems to plague these forums. This is different kind of issue.
How do you feel about mass transit? Should it be government run? If so, should it have to be self sustaining?
I understand the Europeans might have a different perspective, since your cities are so densely populated. In less populated areas, however, anything other then buses is impratical. But I've formed my opinion here because of my own experience in my town.
This is kinda complicated, as government agencies often are, so bear with me. The Portland Metropolitan Area has one big regional government, called Metro. Metro is made up of three counties: Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas. People who live in these counties are required to pay a lot more income tax then those who don't. Plus, a lot of what they do is funded by the state and federal governments, which comes from taxes. Metro has a couple of duties, but it's biggest one is transportation. Metro's transit agency is called "TriMet."
TriMet provides bus services, but by far the biggest part of it's budget is their hallmark achievement: The MAX light rail system. We are one of the only cities in North America to have light rail. The thing is, this light rail system is absolutely terrible in almost every respect.
http://mazama.canvasdreams.com/~eastpdxn/images/090821/4-1-EastMax.jpg
The newest model of MAX train.
For one, it's impractical. They have built train track with the electrical overhead almost all the way to the urban growth boundary where the farms start. The trains capacity is over 160! They shouldn't be going to places where they can transport only a few people! Another example of this impracticality is how they spent almost 200 million dollars to put in a tunnel to build ONE station 250 feet below a PARK. No, not the city center, a public park.
http://netninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/coyotemax1.jpg
A coyote using the MAX system. Due to the lack of people in the train in the off hours, it's a nice and quiet retreat for the animal.
Second, it's unpleasant. Usually the train is either entirely empty, which is spooky (and, like I said, is impractical), or everybody is packed as close as sardines and your extremely lucky to find a seat. And they wonder why people don't want to ride it.
Third, in this town traffic sucks. A lot more then it should in a city of this size, anyways. The problem is we are spending so much money on light rail that we forget about adding lanes to the freeway. The environmentalists say cars are bad for the planet, and yet they divert funds away from doing things that will make people use their cars for less time by making traffic better, get people on and off the road faster, and in turn lowering emissions.
Finally, they rarely ever enforce people riding without paying the fair. Investigative journalists have got on without a ticket many many times and they were never stopped.
So from this personal experience here's my position: Mass transit is great, however only if it is sustainable completely from just fares. Not a private company even; just an agency that doesn't get tax revenues. When somebody buys a ticket, they shouldn't pay $3 meanwhile the taxpayer who doesn't live near the system has to pay $7 for them to ride it! If the system is truly as good as it claims to be, people will use the tax money they save because of the lowered taxes to buy their ticket. If not, you know it's not something you should be pursuing. Your thoughts?
Right now some big projects are happening in America to build a high speed interstate rail system (150 - 200 MPH). They claim it'll be better then flying. I don't buy it. Anything you need hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to do can't be that good. My prediction is that the project will go way over budget, nobody will ride it, and it'll be a maintenance burden for decades to come.
http://m.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/rail_map_blog.jpg
President Obama's proposed high speed rail routes.
How do you feel about mass transit? Should it be government run? If so, should it have to be self sustaining?
I understand the Europeans might have a different perspective, since your cities are so densely populated. In less populated areas, however, anything other then buses is impratical. But I've formed my opinion here because of my own experience in my town.
This is kinda complicated, as government agencies often are, so bear with me. The Portland Metropolitan Area has one big regional government, called Metro. Metro is made up of three counties: Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas. People who live in these counties are required to pay a lot more income tax then those who don't. Plus, a lot of what they do is funded by the state and federal governments, which comes from taxes. Metro has a couple of duties, but it's biggest one is transportation. Metro's transit agency is called "TriMet."
TriMet provides bus services, but by far the biggest part of it's budget is their hallmark achievement: The MAX light rail system. We are one of the only cities in North America to have light rail. The thing is, this light rail system is absolutely terrible in almost every respect.
http://mazama.canvasdreams.com/~eastpdxn/images/090821/4-1-EastMax.jpg
The newest model of MAX train.
For one, it's impractical. They have built train track with the electrical overhead almost all the way to the urban growth boundary where the farms start. The trains capacity is over 160! They shouldn't be going to places where they can transport only a few people! Another example of this impracticality is how they spent almost 200 million dollars to put in a tunnel to build ONE station 250 feet below a PARK. No, not the city center, a public park.
http://netninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/coyotemax1.jpg
A coyote using the MAX system. Due to the lack of people in the train in the off hours, it's a nice and quiet retreat for the animal.
Second, it's unpleasant. Usually the train is either entirely empty, which is spooky (and, like I said, is impractical), or everybody is packed as close as sardines and your extremely lucky to find a seat. And they wonder why people don't want to ride it.
Third, in this town traffic sucks. A lot more then it should in a city of this size, anyways. The problem is we are spending so much money on light rail that we forget about adding lanes to the freeway. The environmentalists say cars are bad for the planet, and yet they divert funds away from doing things that will make people use their cars for less time by making traffic better, get people on and off the road faster, and in turn lowering emissions.
Finally, they rarely ever enforce people riding without paying the fair. Investigative journalists have got on without a ticket many many times and they were never stopped.
So from this personal experience here's my position: Mass transit is great, however only if it is sustainable completely from just fares. Not a private company even; just an agency that doesn't get tax revenues. When somebody buys a ticket, they shouldn't pay $3 meanwhile the taxpayer who doesn't live near the system has to pay $7 for them to ride it! If the system is truly as good as it claims to be, people will use the tax money they save because of the lowered taxes to buy their ticket. If not, you know it's not something you should be pursuing. Your thoughts?
Right now some big projects are happening in America to build a high speed interstate rail system (150 - 200 MPH). They claim it'll be better then flying. I don't buy it. Anything you need hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to do can't be that good. My prediction is that the project will go way over budget, nobody will ride it, and it'll be a maintenance burden for decades to come.
http://m.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/rail_map_blog.jpg
President Obama's proposed high speed rail routes.