| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"richard schumacher" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2005 11:29:24 AM |
| Object: |
In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16810
.
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
06 Mar 2005 12:47:54 PM |
|
|
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:no-spam-504A54.11292406032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16810
Its a puff piece by the head of a transit advocate group. The chances of
it being anywhere near true is zero.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
12 Mar 2005 01:30:41 AM |
|
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7tWdnQZD9qPTzbbfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:no-spam-504A54.11292406032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16810
Its a puff piece by the head of a transit advocate group. The chances of
it being anywhere near true is zero.
Here are the results from the November election on an issue to approve a
0.4% sales tax increase to fund transit projects.
Adams Yes - 58,661 (47.09%) No - 65,906 (52.91%)
Arapahoe Yes - 121,407 (56.15%) No - 94,831 (43.85%)
Boulder Yes - 95,900 (64.45%) No - 52,902 (35.55%)
Broomfield Yes - 11,968 (53.87%) No - 10,249 (46.13%)
Denver Yes - 141,181 (65.16%) No - 75,487 (34.84%)
Douglas Yes - 43,098 (55.06%) No - 35,182 (44.94%)
Jefferson Yes - 145,953 (56.04%) No - 114,486 (43.96%)
Weld Yes - 618 (50.20%) No - 613 (49.80%)
TOTAL Yes - 618,786 (57.91%) No - 449,656 (42.09%)
Source: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/general/CO-RC-1329.htm
For the record, Bush carried Arapahoe, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, and
Weld Counties, while Kerry carried Adams, Boulder and Denver Counties.
Also, Bush carried Colorado by about 100,000 votes out of over 2,100,000
votes cast.
--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
12 Mar 2005 01:41:23 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:BUwYd.127342$Th1.51631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Here are the results from the November election on an issue to approve a
0.4% sales tax increase to fund transit projects.
Adams Yes - 58,661 (47.09%) No - 65,906 (52.91%)
Arapahoe Yes - 121,407 (56.15%) No - 94,831 (43.85%)
Boulder Yes - 95,900 (64.45%) No - 52,902 (35.55%)
Broomfield Yes - 11,968 (53.87%) No - 10,249 (46.13%)
Denver Yes - 141,181 (65.16%) No - 75,487 (34.84%)
Douglas Yes - 43,098 (55.06%) No - 35,182 (44.94%)
Jefferson Yes - 145,953 (56.04%) No - 114,486 (43.96%)
Weld Yes - 618 (50.20%) No - 613 (49.80%)
TOTAL Yes - 618,786 (57.91%) No - 449,656 (42.09%)
Source: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/general/CO-RC-1329.htm
For the record, Bush carried Arapahoe, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, and
Weld Counties, while Kerry carried Adams, Boulder and Denver Counties.
Also, Bush carried Colorado by about 100,000 votes out of over 2,100,000
votes cast.
Much lower support than California. It appears that Colorado voters are
new at the transit game and have not yet seen the rail cost escalate, the
roads falling apart for lack of money siphoned off for rail, the projections
of use turning out to be pure fantasy, and increases instead of decreases in
congestion.
By that time the rail fanatics will have gotten the object of their love and
lust with the voters being left with the shambles as has happened so often
in so many places.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
12 Mar 2005 04:37:27 PM |
|
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HpWdndbsIqqHAK_fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
Much lower support than California. It appears that Colorado voters are
new at the transit game and have not yet seen the rail cost escalate, the
roads falling apart for lack of money siphoned off for rail, the
projections
of use turning out to be pure fantasy, and increases instead of decreases
in
congestion.
By that time the rail fanatics will have gotten the object of their love
and
lust with the voters being left with the shambles as has happened so often
in so many places.
So far, the transit projects in Denver have been on time, on budget, and the
ridership is way above projections. This is probably because the RTD board
of directors is directly elected rather than appointed.
--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
12 Mar 2005 10:05:43 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:HaKYd.129524$Th1.33955@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
So far, the transit projects in Denver have been on time, on budget, and
the
ridership is way above projections. This is probably because the RTD
board
of directors is directly elected rather than appointed.
Sounds like a good start but the problems occur later in the process when
the cost of the transit system starts to effect road spending and making it
very difficult to continue solving transportation problems.
Being way above projections is a political technicality. Projections are
routinely adjusted in a political environment to allow a claim of success.
Being above projections does not mean that the number of users will be
anywhere the number required to more than offset the unbuilt road capacity
that results from large spending on transit.
If the funding of the transit does not lead to a faster growth in
congestion, it would be the first transit system to reduce congestion. An
unlikely scenario.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
14 Mar 2005 12:17:59 AM |
|
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:R-qdnW_dFeWQIa7fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:HaKYd.129524$Th1.33955@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
So far, the transit projects in Denver have been on time, on budget, and
the
ridership is way above projections. This is probably because the RTD
board
of directors is directly elected rather than appointed.
Sounds like a good start but the problems occur later in the process when
the cost of the transit system starts to effect road spending and making
it
very difficult to continue solving transportation problems.
Being way above projections is a political technicality. Projections are
routinely adjusted in a political environment to allow a claim of success.
Being above projections does not mean that the number of users will be
anywhere the number required to more than offset the unbuilt road capacity
that results from large spending on transit.
If the funding of the transit does not lead to a faster growth in
congestion, it would be the first transit system to reduce congestion. An
unlikely scenario.
In Denver, they are currently working on a project to widen I-25 and I-225
by one line south of downtown Denver, along with building a parallel light
rail line. With the highway widening, a trip from Lincoln Avenue to
downtown Denver (approximately fifteen miles) during rush hour would take
three minutes less with the highway widening than without, whereas the
parallel light rail line would reduce that same trip time by over 20
minutes. A portion of the light rail line is available for testing now,
even though service isn't supposed to begin until December, 2006.
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
14 Mar 2005 01:08:13 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:r0aZd.134058$Th1.70804@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In Denver, they are currently working on a project to widen I-25 and I-225
by one line south of downtown Denver, along with building a parallel light
rail line. With the highway widening, a trip from Lincoln Avenue to
downtown Denver (approximately fifteen miles) during rush hour would take
three minutes less with the highway widening than without, whereas the
parallel light rail line would reduce that same trip time by over 20
minutes. A portion of the light rail line is available for testing now,
even though service isn't supposed to begin until December, 2006.
The main question is if all the money were spent on the freeway, would the
typical trip time be less. Since the typical speed of a light rail is 20
MPH (including all the stops), you are saying the freeway is mainly in
gridlock.
With gridlock, adding enough capacity to get just below freeway capacity
will produce a dramatic reduction in trip time. By splitting the money you
then get the worst of all worlds. A slow rail and not enough money to get
traffic flowing smoothly. Most cities are using ramp metering to keep the
traffic flowing. It sounds like they didn't have enough money to put in
ramp metering after paying for the rail
Your example is exactly the incredible stupidity that people fall into when
they start funding rail. Congratulations, you have just proven that Denver
is a hick town that is not capable of making sophisticated design decisions.
There is also a delay for the time to get to a station, the waiting for the
train, and getting from the station to the destination which must be
included in the total trip time. The person in the car does not have the
waiting time and getting to the vehicle.
Getting to and from the freeway will add time, but far less than making the
connections from and to the rail. The total time to get somewhere with rail
is what kill off the use of rail for most middle class and above people.
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail. The Big
Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not applicable. Using the Big
Dig in a comparison of typical values is a form of lying with statistics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
14 Mar 2005 09:23:39 PM |
|
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Y8ednS7GqobSpajfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:r0aZd.134058$Th1.70804@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In Denver, they are currently working on a project to widen I-25 and
I-225
by one line south of downtown Denver, along with building a parallel
light
rail line. With the highway widening, a trip from Lincoln Avenue to
downtown Denver (approximately fifteen miles) during rush hour would
take
three minutes less with the highway widening than without, whereas the
parallel light rail line would reduce that same trip time by over 20
minutes. A portion of the light rail line is available for testing now,
even though service isn't supposed to begin until December, 2006.
The main question is if all the money were spent on the freeway, would the
typical trip time be less. Since the typical speed of a light rail is 20
MPH (including all the stops), you are saying the freeway is mainly in
gridlock.
Typical operating speed for light rail is 35 mph. Freeway operating speeds
are getting closer to 25 mph during peek periods. In the case of I-25, the
freeway would need to be widened to 16 lanes to keep peek travel speeds near
60 mph
With gridlock, adding enough capacity to get just below freeway capacity
will produce a dramatic reduction in trip time. By splitting the money
you
then get the worst of all worlds. A slow rail and not enough money to get
traffic flowing smoothly. Most cities are using ramp metering to keep
the
traffic flowing. It sounds like they didn't have enough money to put in
ramp metering after paying for the rail
A four car train with 125 passengers per car operating every five minutes
carries the equivelant of three lanes of freeway traffic, and uses
one-fourth the land the same freeway would require since transit doesn't
require the same buffer zone a freeway does.
Your example is exactly the incredible stupidity that people fall into
when
they start funding rail. Congratulations, you have just proven that
Denver
is a hick town that is not capable of making sophisticated design
decisions.
There is also a delay for the time to get to a station, the waiting for
the
train, and getting from the station to the destination which must be
included in the total trip time. The person in the car does not have the
waiting time and getting to the vehicle.
Getting to and from the freeway will add time, but far less than making
the
connections from and to the rail. The total time to get somewhere with
rail
is what kill off the use of rail for most middle class and above people.
You are forgetting the time to get off the freeway at your destination,
dealing with off-freeway traffic, waiting at stop lights, and finding
parking. You are also not factoring in the cost of operating a vehicle, and
paying for parking.
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail. The Big
Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not applicable. Using the
Big
Dig in a comparison of typical values is a form of lying with statistics.
Sorry, you must count the Big Dig. It is a highway project, and can't be
thrown out because you don't like how it impacts your figures.
--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 10:06:29 AM |
|
|
In article
<%ysZd.389641$w62.219451@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote:
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Y8ednS7GqobSpajfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:r0aZd.134058$Th1.70804@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In Denver, they are currently working on a project to widen I-25 and
I-225
by one line south of downtown Denver, along with building a parallel
light
rail line. With the highway widening, a trip from Lincoln Avenue to
downtown Denver (approximately fifteen miles) during rush hour would
take
three minutes less with the highway widening than without, whereas the
parallel light rail line would reduce that same trip time by over 20
minutes. A portion of the light rail line is available for testing now,
even though service isn't supposed to begin until December, 2006.
The main question is if all the money were spent on the freeway, would the
typical trip time be less. Since the typical speed of a light rail is 20
MPH (including all the stops), you are saying the freeway is mainly in
gridlock.
Typical operating speed for light rail is 35 mph. Freeway operating speeds
are getting closer to 25 mph during peek periods. In the case of I-25, the
freeway would need to be widened to 16 lanes to keep peek travel speeds near
60 mph
Where do you get those data? They contradict every reputable study on
the subjects of LRT speeds, freeway speeds and comparative costs.
With gridlock, adding enough capacity to get just below freeway
capacity will produce a dramatic reduction in trip time. By
splitting the money you then get the worst of all worlds. A slow
rail and not enough money to get traffic flowing smoothly. Most
cities are using ramp metering to keep the traffic flowing. It
sounds like they didn't have enough money to put in ramp metering
after paying for the rail
A four car train with 125 passengers per car operating every five minutes
carries the equivelant of three lanes of freeway traffic, and uses
one-fourth the land the same freeway would require since transit doesn't
require the same buffer zone a freeway does.
12x125x4=6000 or the equivalent of 2 freeway lanes on a passenger basis
and the two rail tracks take up the same footprint as two freeway lanes
unless you weren't planning on send the trains back for more passengers.
Your example is exactly the incredible stupidity that people fall
into when they start funding rail. Congratulations, you have just
proven that Denver is a hick town that is not capable of making
sophisticated design decisions.
There is also a delay for the time to get to a station, the waiting
for the train, and getting from the station to the destination
which must be included in the total trip time. The person in the
car does not have the waiting time and getting to the vehicle.
Getting to and from the freeway will add time, but far less than
making the connections from and to the rail. The total time to get
somewhere with rail is what kill off the use of rail for most
middle class and above people.
You are forgetting the time to get off the freeway at your destination,
dealing with off-freeway traffic, waiting at stop lights, and finding
parking.
He said; "getting to and from the freeway will add time"
You are also not factoring in the cost of operating a vehicle,
and paying for parking.
The total cost of owning and operating an auto is far less than the the
operating costs of rail alone.
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and
delays as transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in
Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail.
The Big Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not
applicable. Using the Big Dig in a comparison of typical values
is a form of lying with statistics.
Sorry, you must count the Big Dig. It is a highway project, and can't be
thrown out because you don't like how it impacts your figures.
Fine, shall we compare the very worst rail projects to the very best
roads projects as well? That's what happens when the Big Dig is held up
as an example of a highway project. The funny thing is that the highway
part of the Big Dig was less than a third of the total cost. The rest
was transit and urban renewal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baxter" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 10:23:39 AM |
|
|
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-C59904.08062915032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article
<%ysZd.389641$w62.219451@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote:
Typical operating speed for light rail is 35 mph. Freeway operating
speeds
are getting closer to 25 mph during peek periods. In the case of I-25,
the
freeway would need to be widened to 16 lanes to keep peek travel speeds
near
60 mph
Where do you get those data? They contradict every reputable study on
the subjects of LRT speeds, freeway speeds and comparative costs.
He probably went out and looked at them in Real Life(tm) - instead of
relying on complex calculations specifically designed to fit an agenda.
A four car train with 125 passengers per car operating every five
minutes
carries the equivelant of three lanes of freeway traffic, and uses
one-fourth the land the same freeway would require since transit doesn't
require the same buffer zone a freeway does.
12x125x4=6000 or the equivalent of 2 freeway lanes on a passenger basis
Not at peak.
and the two rail tracks take up the same footprint as two freeway lanes
unless you weren't planning on send the trains back for more passengers.
Nope. One lane. We're talking couplets.
You are also not factoring in the cost of operating a vehicle,
and paying for parking.
The total cost of owning and operating an auto is far less than the the
operating costs of rail alone.
Nope. IRS says $0.45 per mile. TriMet says an average MAX ride (which
you've clamed is 5 miles) costs about $1.50 - which means the MAX ride costs
2/3 the auto.
Sorry, you must count the Big Dig. It is a highway project, and can't
be
thrown out because you don't like how it impacts your figures.
Fine, shall we compare the very worst rail projects to the very best
roads projects as well? That's what happens when the Big Dig is held up
as an example of a highway project. The funny thing is that the highway
part of the Big Dig was less than a third of the total cost. The rest
was transit and urban renewal.
Wiggle and squirm and bluster and lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Sprunk" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 02:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:113e30f3od9ld6b@corp.supernews.com...
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-C59904.08062915032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
and the two rail tracks take up the same footprint as two freeway
lanes unless you weren't planning on send the trains back for
more passengers.
Nope. One lane. We're talking couplets.
You could potentially operate 12 trains per hour on a single track. Or, if
you pay a little more, you can grade-separate the line and consume little to
no ground footprint by putting the tracks under or over an existing road.
Of course, Cote always forgets that during peak typically occurs only in one
direction on a freeway -- the lanes going the other way are just as empty as
the transit vehicles. For rare freeways that actually peak in both
directions, so will a parallel transit line.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 01:17:25 PM |
|
|
In article <113e30f3od9ld6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-C59904.08062915032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article
<%ysZd.389641$w62.219451@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote:
Typical operating speed for light rail is 35 mph. Freeway operating
speeds
are getting closer to 25 mph during peek periods. In the case of I-25,
the
freeway would need to be widened to 16 lanes to keep peek travel speeds
near
60 mph
Where do you get those data? They contradict every reputable study on
the subjects of LRT speeds, freeway speeds and comparative costs.
He probably went out and looked at them in Real Life(tm) - instead of
relying on complex calculations specifically designed to fit an agenda.
Where do you get that idea? Real Life(tm) has these FAct thingies also
know as raw data. The National Transit Database (NTD) has the speeds of
every LRT in the nation and NONE reach 35mph. The Texas Transportation
Institute (TTI) calculates the peak period speeds for every major metro
region in the US and NONE drop to 25mph. I do note that the TTI number
is a calculation but then a major financial contributor is the APTA so
that failing is hardly surprising.
A four car train with 125 passengers per car operating every five
minutes
carries the equivelant of three lanes of freeway traffic, and uses
one-fourth the land the same freeway would require since transit doesn't
require the same buffer zone a freeway does.
12x125x4=6000 or the equivalent of 2 freeway lanes on a passenger basis
Not at peak.
and the two rail tracks take up the same footprint as two freeway lanes
unless you weren't planning on send the trains back for more passengers.
Nope. One lane. We're talking couplets.
You are also not factoring in the cost of operating a vehicle,
and paying for parking.
The total cost of owning and operating an auto is far less than the the
operating costs of rail alone.
Nope. IRS says $0.45 per mile. TriMet says an average MAX ride (which
you've clamed is 5 miles) costs about $1.50 - which means the MAX ride costs
2/3 the auto.
The IRS says 37.5 cents but then that is a FAct not a baxterism. See
for yourself:
http://www.biztaxadvisor.com/IRS-mileage-rate.html
That is per VEHICLE mile.
2003: The average ride on MAX is 5.93 miles. The cost is exactly $1.084
per mile. The fare averages $0.105 per mile:
http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/2003+30+Largest+Agencies/0008/
$File/0008.pdf
MAX rides cost at least three times more than via auto.
The more Pavlov Baxter barks at the FActs the worse Potemkin, Oregon
looks. Someone, curb your attack dog.
Sorry, you must count the Big Dig. It is a highway project, and
can't be thrown out because you don't like how it impacts your
figures.
Fine, shall we compare the very worst rail projects to the very best
roads projects as well? That's what happens when the Big Dig is held up
as an example of a highway project. The funny thing is that the highway
part of the Big Dig was less than a third of the total cost. The rest
was transit and urban renewal.
Wiggle and squirm and bluster and lie.
Apparently. And there's little doubt it will ever end. Here I am
trying to use the truth to promote transit and all you do is continually
destroy the pro transit position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Sprunk" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 02:31:43 PM |
|
|
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-A88485.11172515032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
Where do you get that idea? Real Life(tm) has these FAct thingies
also know as raw data. The National Transit Database (NTD) has
the speeds of every LRT in the nation and NONE reach 35mph.
Those are system-wide numbers. I can show you places where DART achieves
over 40mph average speed (85mph max) -- which is what I experience, since I
don't use the stretch where they average <5mph. Few if any passengers use
the entire slow stretch, the average passenger will (de)board somewhere in
the middle of it and thus only experience half the average speed hit.
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) calculates the peak period
speeds for every major metro region in the US and NONE drop to
25mph. I do note that the TTI number is a calculation but then a
major financial contributor is the APTA so that failing is hardly
surprising.
Then the TTI folks need to get out of their lab in the middle of nowhere and
hit a real freeway during rush hour. Sure, out in the burbs average speeds
are high (unless there's an accident), but when you near any car source/sink
like downtown, an airport, a mall, etc. expect to get some good nap time in.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
17 Mar 2005 10:35:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1110918634.b784bfd0a84ac433401c447b9c2eced6@teranews>,
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-A88485.11172515032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
Where do you get that idea? Real Life(tm) has these FAct thingies
also know as raw data. The National Transit Database (NTD) has
the speeds of every LRT in the nation and NONE reach 35mph.
Those are system-wide numbers. I can show you places where DART achieves
over 40mph average speed (85mph max) -- which is what I experience, since I
don't use the stretch where they average <5mph. Few if any passengers use
the entire slow stretch, the average passenger will (de)board somewhere in
the middle of it and thus only experience half the average speed hit.
You clearly can't distinguish between top speed and average speed. Your
anecdote is noted and the NTD says this about DART:
5,633,715 vehicle miles 273,001 vehicle hours. Average speed 20.6 mph.
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) calculates the peak period
speeds for every major metro region in the US and NONE drop to
25mph. I do note that the TTI number is a calculation but then a
major financial contributor is the APTA so that failing is hardly
surprising.
Then the TTI folks need to get out of their lab in the middle of nowhere and
hit a real freeway during rush hour. Sure, out in the burbs average speeds
are high (unless there's an accident), but when you near any car source/sink
like downtown, an airport, a mall, etc. expect to get some good nap time in.
It's a matter of perception. 10 minutes at 60mph and 10 minutes at
30mph is an average speed of 45mph but you don't remember the 60mph
part. Blaming the roads for the failings of cities is likewise a matter
of perception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baxter" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
17 Mar 2005 03:32:58 PM |
|
|
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-7EE4D9.08350717032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <1110918634.b784bfd0a84ac433401c447b9c2eced6@teranews>,
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
You clearly can't distinguish between top speed and average speed. Your
anecdote is noted and the NTD says this about DART:
5,633,715 vehicle miles 273,001 vehicle hours. Average speed 20.6 mph.
Which says nothing about how long it takes a vehicle (auto or transit) to go
from point A to point B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baxter" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 02:14:53 PM |
|
|
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-A88485.11172515032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <113e30f3od9ld6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
He probably went out and looked at them in Real Life(tm) - instead of
relying on complex calculations specifically designed to fit an agenda.
Where do you get that idea? Real Life(tm) has these FAct thingies also
know as raw data. The National Transit Database (NTD) has the speeds of
every LRT in the nation and NONE reach 35mph.
MAX outside of downtown Portland is easily greater than 35 mph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
17 Mar 2005 10:39:00 AM |
|
|
In article <113egi5a8c7qna2@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-A88485.11172515032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <113e30f3od9ld6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
He probably went out and looked at them in Real Life(tm) - instead of
relying on complex calculations specifically designed to fit an agenda.
Where do you get that idea? Real Life(tm) has these FAct thingies also
know as raw data. The National Transit Database (NTD) has the speeds of
every LRT in the nation and NONE reach 35mph.
MAX outside of downtown Portland is easily greater than 35 mph
337,073 vehicle hours 5,664,277 vehicle miles. 16.8 mph.
Don't strain that famous brain of yours Leroy, the difference between
average speed and top speed is one of those math thingies. If you don't
believe me I suggest you demonstrate by stepping off one of the MAX
vehicles that never get below 35 mph.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baxter" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
17 Mar 2005 03:34:11 PM |
|
|
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-5FC1CA.08390017032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <113egi5a8c7qna2@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
MAX outside of downtown Portland is easily greater than 35 mph
337,073 vehicle hours 5,664,277 vehicle miles. 16.8 mph.
Don't strain that famous brain of yours Leroy, the difference between
average speed and top speed is one of those math thingies. If you don't
believe me I suggest you demonstrate by stepping off one of the MAX
vehicles that never get below 35 mph.
Must be too much of a strain for your brain to figure out that calculating
it that way includes all the layover time, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
17 Mar 2005 03:49:17 PM |
|
|
In article <113jtujpf2pfs9b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-5FC1CA.08390017032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <113egi5a8c7qna2@corp.supernews.com>,
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
MAX outside of downtown Portland is easily greater than 35 mph
337,073 vehicle hours 5,664,277 vehicle miles. 16.8 mph.
Don't strain that famous brain of yours Leroy, the difference between
average speed and top speed is one of those math thingies. If you don't
believe me I suggest you demonstrate by stepping off one of the MAX
vehicles that never get below 35 mph.
Must be too much of a strain for your brain to figure out that calculating
it that way includes all the layover time, etc.
It does? Please explain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
14 Mar 2005 12:09:25 PM |
|
|
Jack May wrote:
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
news:r0aZd.134058$Th1.70804@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In Denver, they are currently working on a project to widen I-25 and I-225
by one line south of downtown Denver, along with building a parallel light
rail line. With the highway widening, a trip from Lincoln Avenue to
downtown Denver (approximately fifteen miles) during rush hour would take
three minutes less with the highway widening than without, whereas the
parallel light rail line would reduce that same trip time by over 20
minutes. A portion of the light rail line is available for testing now,
even though service isn't supposed to begin until December, 2006.
The main question is if all the money were spent on the freeway, would the
typical trip time be less. Since the typical speed of a light rail is 20
MPH (including all the stops), you are saying the freeway is mainly in
gridlock.
With gridlock, adding enough capacity to get just below freeway capacity
will produce a dramatic reduction in trip time. By splitting the money you
then get the worst of all worlds. A slow rail and not enough money to get
traffic flowing smoothly. Most cities are using ramp metering to keep the
traffic flowing. It sounds like they didn't have enough money to put in
ramp metering after paying for the rail
Your example is exactly the incredible stupidity that people fall into when
they start funding rail. Congratulations, you have just proven that Denver
is a hick town that is not capable of making sophisticated design decisions.
There is also a delay for the time to get to a station, the waiting for the
train, and getting from the station to the destination which must be
included in the total trip time. The person in the car does not have the
waiting time and getting to the vehicle.
Getting to and from the freeway will add time, but far less than making the
connections from and to the rail. The total time to get somewhere with rail
is what kill off the use of rail for most middle class and above people.
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail. The Big
Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not applicable. Using the Big
Dig in a comparison of typical values is a form of lying with statistics.
Now how did I guess that this wouldn't count?
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 10:13:11 AM |
|
|
In article <d14k0k$p1l$2@titan.btinternet.com>,
Martin Edwards <buzzard554@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail. The Big
Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not applicable. Using the Big
Dig in a comparison of typical values is a form of lying with statistics.
Now how did I guess that this wouldn't count?
It was in very large part a transit and urban renewal project so of
course the usual mathematics didn't work. Hey, I've got an idea. The
demolition of the elevated through downtown Boston made 300 acres
available to non-roads uses. Does Boston want to buy them from the
FHWA? Have you ever even seen the list of what went into the CA/T?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: REPOST: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
17 Mar 2005 12:11:27 PM |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
Robert Cote wrote:
In article <d14k0k$p1l$2@titan.btinternet.com>,
Martin Edwards <buzzard554@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in
message
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and
delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail.
The Big Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not
applicable. Using the Big Dig in a comparison of typical values is
a form of lying with statistics.
Now how did I guess that this wouldn't count?
It was in very large part a transit and urban renewal project so of
course the usual mathematics didn't work. Hey, I've got an idea. The
demolition of the elevated through downtown Boston made 300 acres
available to non-roads uses. Does Boston want to buy them from the
FHWA? Have you ever even seen the list of what went into the CA/T?
No: I am not heavily into lists of figures. I like /Crossing Jordan/
though.
I didn't repost that: I don't know how it happened.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 11:20:01 AM |
|
|
Robert Cote wrote:
In article <d14k0k$p1l$2@titan.btinternet.com>,
Martin Edwards <buzzard554@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail. The Big
Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not applicable. Using the Big
Dig in a comparison of typical values is a form of lying with statistics.
Now how did I guess that this wouldn't count?
It was in very large part a transit and urban renewal project so of
course the usual mathematics didn't work. Hey, I've got an idea. The
demolition of the elevated through downtown Boston made 300 acres
available to non-roads uses. Does Boston want to buy them from the
FHWA? Have you ever even seen the list of what went into the CA/T?
No: I am not heavily into lists of figures. I like /Crossing Jordan/
though.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cote" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 12:59:16 PM |
|
|
In article <d175g0$6b3$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
Martin Edwards <buzzard554@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Cote wrote:
In article <d14k0k$p1l$2@titan.btinternet.com>,
Martin Edwards <buzzard554@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Thomas Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
Highway projects are just as susceptible to cost overruns and delays as
transit projects. Just look at the "Big Dig" in Boston.
The typical overrun for freeways is 8% compared to 80% for rail. The Big
Dig is and extreme point, not typical and is not applicable. Using the
Big
Dig in a comparison of typical values is a form of lying with statistics.
Now how did I guess that this wouldn't count?
It was in very large part a transit and urban renewal project so of
course the usual mathematics didn't work. Hey, I've got an idea. The
demolition of the elevated through downtown Boston made 300 acres
available to non-roads uses. Does Boston want to buy them from the
FHWA? Have you ever even seen the list of what went into the CA/T?
No: I am not heavily into lists of figures.
Can't have none of those icky FAct thingies cluttering up your orderly
mind now can we?
The Central Artery/Tunnel Project:
Created more than 300 acres of landscaped and restored open space,
including over 45 parks and major public plazas.
Major shoreline restoration in the Charles River Basin, Fort Point
Channel, Rumney Marsh and Spectacle Island, as well as in significant
stretches of the Boston Harborwalk.
New sea walls constructed in the lower Charles River Basin, Fort Point
Channel and Spectacle Island.
Boston Harbor water transportation infrastructure and services,
including new ferry terminals at North Station and the Fort Point
Channel; a new major pier and docking facility on Spectacle Island;
improvements to the current docking facilities at the World Trade
Center, Long Wharf and Charlestown Navy Yard; and Inner Harbor ferry
service subsidies.
Sounds like a "freeway project" to me. Not. But don't let these FActs
interfere with any preconceived notions you may "harbor."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baxter" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 02:11:37 PM |
|
|
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-B7B320.10591615032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
The Central Artery/Tunnel Project:
Created more than 300 acres of landscaped and restored open space,
including over 45 parks and major public plazas.
<snip for brevity>
Sounds like a "freeway project" to me. Not. But don't let these FActs
interfere with any preconceived notions you may "harbor."
It's a ***** when road costs include such things as disposal/restoration,
connections and the like and are not confined to just concrete and asphalt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
13 Mar 2005 02:23:55 AM |
|
|
Jack May wrote:
Being above projections does not mean that the number of users will be
anywhere the number required to more than offset the unbuilt road capacity
that results from large spending on transit.
It does, however, delay the formation of the new bottlencks that the new
roads would cause.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
13 Mar 2005 02:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Martin Edwards" <buzzard554@fastmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d10taq$4a0$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Jack May wrote:
Being above projections does not mean that the number of users will be
anywhere the number required to more than offset the unbuilt road
capacity that results from large spending on transit.
It does, however, delay the formation of the new bottlencks that the new
roads would cause.
Just the opposite. We have a long experience in the SF Bay area with money
on roads reducing or eliminating bottle necks.
We have a long experience with funding transit doing absolutely nothing to
reduce any type of congestion at all.
Obviously you are trying to imply that spending money on roads attracts more
drivers which has been well proven to be false. Growth in traffic well
known by people in the Bay Area to be caused directly by the increase in
jobs. Traffic volume is commonly used as an indicator of the economic
condition in the Bay Area.
There is growth in traffic in outer regions as people move out to find
affordable housing with a resulting longer commute. The high cost of
housing is not a result of building roads.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Sprunk" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
14 Mar 2005 07:02:02 PM |
|
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IeWdnUUXZvTvAanfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
Just the opposite. We have a long experience in the SF Bay area
with money on roads reducing or eliminating bottle necks.
This from the only city in the country to _tear down_ an Interstate highway,
incidentally using federal highway _construction_ funds. That neighborhood
is doing noticeably better in air quality, property values, and aesthetics
now that the freeway is gone.
We have a long experience with funding transit doing absolutely nothing to
reduce any type of congestion at all.
So if the 400,000 or so people in SF taking transit to work switched to POVs
suddenly, there would be no increase in congestion? Can I have some of what
you're smoking, please?
What I think you meant is that (in your opinion) transit reduces congestion
less per dollar than road-building. Perhaps, perhaps not. But at least get
the argument right...
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JG" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
15 Mar 2005 05:37:55 PM |
|
|
There's multi-level stack interchange at I-25 and E-470, that gets
little use, judging by
traffic volumes on E-470.
JG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: In Denver even Republicans go for mass transit |
07 Mar 2005 09:09:34 AM |
|
|
In article <7tWdnQZD9qPTzbbfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16810
Its a puff piece by the head of a transit advocate group. The chances of
it being anywhere near true is zero.
Denver did vote a 0.4 cent sales tax increase to fund transit, they are
spending billions on new rail, and there is much TOD going up now. The
chances of your criticism being anywhere near correct are zero.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
