Why are trolleys opposed so much?

[BrooklynIRT]

That s nice in theory, but where will those extra buses and more importantly extra drivers come from? Assuming there s even a depot in the vincinity of the outage.

Could also make use of existing bus service that moves faster than it currently does and thus makes more sense for people to use to get where they need to go in the event of a subway outage.

 

An example would be a Lex line outage and using an M101 SBS (with shorter travel times than those that it currently has) to get to the other parts of the Lex's service area within Manhattan.

 

On weekends it could be easier to get extra buses (not as much bus service as on weekdays, more buses in the depot).

 

They have gotten buses and operators to cover shuttle buses in the event of sudden subway outages before, though.

 

They have put those shuttle buses out there following unexpected outages on weekdays.

[BrooklynIRT]

I'm in a boat now where I'm flat out sick of taking the LIRR, and will start driving b/w E. Flatbush & Mineola soon enough....

Why is that? What are some of the problems with the LIRR?

 

However, this doesn't mean I'm gonna be anti-transit all of a sudden, because I'm not gonna be the person that uses the car to get everywhere.... Mass transit has a place in our society, just like the personal vehicle does...... People have different thresholds & breaking points & will not put up with mass transit if they have the means (the funds) to divert away from it....

What I said about standards after all the quotes in post #117.

 

Perhaps if something like this were done on the right lines it would be more viable to make trips between outer boroughs using mass transit. No more "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit."

Also I have not forgotten that "there could be no parking whatsoever in an entire neighborhood & the two would have nothing to do with each other."

 

==============================================================================

 

I'll admit that you have many motorists that are selfish-minded, but to the tune that they're intentionally f***ing up surface transit whilst on the roads? Now come on.... Talk about embellishment.....

I do not think they go out of their way to interfere with surface mass transit, but this interference, whether it be deliberate or not, still happens very often. It may seem that I am embellishing it, but that is really a reaction to a lot of people doing what they do on the road, deliberately or deliberately, and the fact that they just do not seem to care what the impacts on surface mass transit and outer other road vehicles are. (That strikethrough/word replacement and this sentence in parentheses are the only edits in this post.)

 

The irony is (Lol, and get this), that mentality exists b/w MTA b/o's & everyone else on the road !

This is irony? It makes total sense to me that bus operators would feel that way about other motorists.

 

To sum it up, His disdain is misguided.... He should be more miffed over the lack of enforcement, moreso than the idea of someone owning a car/a motorist...

Traffic law enforcement is not very effective. Also:

 

-"The huge amount of resources required to patrol the roads at even the meager current levels takes away resources from the law enforcement efforts at every other level of society."

 

(Strikethroughs mine; and I totally agree with the above statement.)

 

-"The fact that we are unable to enforce law breaking to even 0.0001% should be considered a cost of our transit system."

 

(I agree with the above statement to some extent.)

 

I will acknowledge that you may be right about my disdain being misguided and my being wrong about several or many things in this entire discussion. Although I do not think it is true that my disdain is absolutely misguided or that I am absolutely wrong about certain things. I do not know if I have the right answers. And again, I do not think I would want any of this to happen:

 

What you're conveying here would likely create a situation where only the rich/famous/"influential" can ride a certain route(s) or whatever....

 

Also, albeit to a lesser extent, this segregational attitude exists b/w the "regulars" & "non-regulars" with the express bus...... Imagine THAT magnified....

 

-"The huge amount of resources required to patrol the roads at even the meager current levels takes away resources from the law enforcement efforts at every other level of society."

 

I should have said I totally agree with the above statements except for the parts I crossed out.

 

That was a correction that was attached to post #128 because I unintentionally posted it soon after I made the post #128.

[BrooklynIRT]

Actually it also makes total sense to me that that mentality you described would exist between motorists that almost never break the law and those that often do (and people who drive aggressively).

 

The times I have driven (which I never do unless asked to and I think the reason is good enough, and I have not done it in about 2 months) and dealt with other motorists, I have certainly felt that a similar environment/situation to the one you described is created...

 

-Double-parked car on W Kingsbridge Road that I have to circumvent. I activate my left signal. Tons of cars in the left lane, moving at about 15-20mph. I scan my mirror. I gradually move over. I cut into the lane. And now we have tons of horns blaring because how dare I attempt to move using the only available moving lane.

 

-Driving south on Paul Ave by DeWitt Clinton and Bronx Science at exactly 30mph (monitoring the speed but also focusing on the road). Cab driver thinks I am driving too slowly and attempts to circumvent me while I am moving at 30mph and the signal at W 205 St is red, so s/he is actually riding alongside me for several seconds while I am moving and slowing down to stop at the signal, even though there is only one lane per direction.

 

-Driving in the left lane because I passed a vehicle in the right lane on the Hudson Pkwy. Now I want to get back into the right lane. The left lane is supposed to be the passing lane. Traffic in that lane is supposed to move faster than traffic in the right lane. A vehicle is in the right lane, behind me while I am in the left lane. That vehicle is speeding. The vehicle just lingers there. I have my right signal on because I want to get back over there. I speed up since I think the vehicle will allow me to get back over; if you are in the right lane I do not think you are supposed to be moving faster than someone in the left lane. So I am speeding up with my right signal on, and then the other vehicle speeds up and passes me and then I can finally move over.

 

-Horn-blowing because somebody is "taking too long" to make a turn when the path has to be clear of pedestrians and vehicles.

 

-People opening doors on the traffic side without first making sure it is safe to do so, [nearly] causing accidents.

The "correction that was attached to post #128 because I unintentionally posted it soon after I made the post #128" was actually a "correction that was attached to post #127 because I unintentionally posted it soon after I made the post #127."

[BrooklynIRT]

Post #126: "It may seem that I am embellishing it, but that is really a reaction to a lot of people doing what they do on the road, deliberately or indeliberately..."

[Vistausss]

@BrooklynIRT: At this rate, after all you've typed so far, you may be better off opening up Word, type all your text, number the pages and finding a publisher... Walmart might have some space left in the books section for yours...

[BrooklynIRT]

Out of complete curiosity, was there any specific reason for the mention of Walmart?

Or could it be any store that sells books? Or are you emphasizing a certain kind of store that sells books?

[Turbo19]

Out of complete curiosity, was there any specific reason for the mention of Walmart?

 

Or could it be any store that sells books? Or are you emphasizing a certain kind of store that sells books?

What he's basically saying is make a quick buck, and that's the jist of it.

 

In short make a profit. Not sure if that contradicts your personal views, but something to consider.

[B35 via Church]

Not very well I suppose, but do you think enough people are involved in pushing for improvements?

In this city? Not in the slightest....

 

What if some of the influential people using the MTA, are the MTA (MTA top brass)?

Then obviously they'd add more service (of which runs near their desired area(s), that is - Which would be the extent of it)....

Forget about the suits opting to add service all over the place, just to account for an increase in patrons that would (in your desired scenario) abandon cars & start taking (surface) mass transit more.....

 

Why is that? What are some of the problems with the LIRR?

I'll save that for the LIRR random thoughts thread.... Don't want to get into that in this discussion.

 

What I said about standards after all the quotes in post #117.

BrooklynIRT, on 26 Jan 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Perhaps if something like this were done on the right lines it would be more viable to make trips between outer boroughs using mass transit. No more "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit."

 

Also I have not forgotten that "there could be no parking whatsoever in an entire neighborhood & the two would have nothing to do with each other."

Don't know what point you're making with this segment of the reply....

 

I do not think they go out of their way to interfere with surface mass transit, but this interference, whether it be deliberate or not, still happens very often. It may seem that I am embellishing it, but that is really a reaction to a lot of people doing what they do on the road, deliberately or deliberately, and the fact that they just do not seem to care what the impacts on surface mass transit and other road vehicles are. 

I'm not gonna argue that motorists don't impact surface transit negatively (b/c that would just be a naive belief), but I do not think it's as often, or as deliberate that you think it does.... I think you're going out of your way to vilify motorists, and this is one way of doing it..... 

 

This is irony? It makes total sense to me that bus operators would feel that way about other motorists.

How is it not..... But anyway, Nice try at trying to garner props from b/o's on here....

 

I'm not implicating that it doesn't make sense for them; That's one of the things I respect about MTA workers.....

Of course you didn't address the fact that there is no such unification between motorists against bus drivers (which was the ultimate point with that).... I mean, how could you - Because it's not true... Lol....

 

Traffic law enforcement is not very effective. Also:

-"The huge amount of resources required to patrol the roads at even the meager current levels takes away resources from the law enforcement efforts at every other level of society."

 

(Strikethroughs mine; and I totally agree with the above statement.)

 

-"The fact that we are unable to enforce law breaking to even 0.0001% should be considered a cost of our transit system."

 

(I agree with the above statement to some extent.)

 

I will acknowledge that you may be right about my disdain being misguided and my being wrong about several or many things in this entire discussion. Although I do not think it is true that my disdain is absolutely misguided or that I am absolutely wrong about certain things. I do not know if I have the right answers. And again, I do not think I would want any of this to happen:

I know traffic enforcement isn't all that effective.... This doesn't mean your anger should be (mis)directed at motorists; that's what you call blame-shifting.... Anyway, I don't have all the answers either (don't claim to), but I couldn't see myself hastily turning anti-car because I'm pro-transit & have noticed a certain mode is not performing the way it could/should - That is absolute misguidance AFAIC..... As far as being absolutely wrong about certain things, well man that's why discussions are had... Open up a dialogue.... 

 

Actually it also makes total sense to me that that mentality you described would exist between motorists that almost never break the law and those that often do (and people who drive aggressively).

Yeah, No brotherhood between motorists.... Motorists tend to have a selfish mindset.

To (grossly) simply your point in post #128, aggressive drivers tend to despise defensive drivers.....

I know what you mean, B35. Even though the amount of bus commuters in and around my city is still increasing heavily, in 2017 lots of subsidies and stuff will vanish and those pro-car guys in politics I don't see them putting extra money into it (they already put extra money in widening the highway and stimulating the development of automatic cars). So sad as is, mass transit will become moot at some point and thus will not be the future. Not for my city, not for NYC, not for the rest of the world.

Bingo.

 

This isn't something I'm advocating for (as again, mass transit does have a place in society), but I do realize that you're only gonna see a stark increase in motorists, not less of em.....

[BrooklynIRT]

In this city? Not in the slightest....

 

Good to know.

 

Then obviously they'd add more service (of which runs near their desired area(s), that is - Which would be the extent of it)....

Forget about the suits opting to add service all over the place, just to account for an increase in patrons that would (in your desired scenario) abandon cars & start taking (surface) mass transit more.....

 

I will have to think about this a lot.

 

Don't know what point you're making with this segment of the reply....

 

You stated that you were getting sick of using the LIRR. I want to know how it is not living up to your standards.

 

Also I mentioned "there could be no parking whatsoever in an entire neighborhood & the two would have nothing to do with each other" because it seems that if parking were entirely removed from Nostrand b/w Flushing Ave and Flatbush Ave except for commercial trucks (for example), this would have less to do with preventing people from having a choice to use a personal auto than I previously thought. Although people who use them would probably think otherwise or pretend to think otherwise in an attempt to prevent such parking removal from becoming a reality, so...

 

====================================================================================

 

I'm not gonna argue that motorists don't impact surface transit negatively (b/c that would just be a naive belief), but I do not think it's as often, or as deliberate that you think it does.... I think you're going out of your way to vilify motorists, and this is one way of doing it.....

 

Do you notice when your bus misses a traffic signal that it would have made if it were not for a vehicle that did something to slow it down? Does anybody want to avoid waiting 16+ minutes for a train when one should not even be waiting more than 12?

 

But anyway, Nice try at trying to garner props from b/o's on here....

 

I was not trying to garner props from bus operators on here at all.

 

I know traffic enforcement isn't all that effective.... This doesn't mean your anger should be (mis)directed at motorists; that's what you call blame-shifting....

 

The NYPD Traffic Division cannot exist without road vehicles.

 

=========================================================================================

 

The only edits were the addition of the series of adjacent equal signs, the present sentence, and one deleted sentence that I decided did not belong here.

[BrooklynIRT]

 

B35 via Church, on 26 Jan 2014 - 4:45 PM, said:

Then obviously they'd add more service (of which runs near their desired area(s), that is - Which would be the extent of it)....
Forget about the suits opting to add service all over the place, just to account for an increase in patrons that would (in your desired scenario) abandon cars & start taking (surface) mass transit more.....

 

I have a response: Would elected officials not want to do anything about this if they used mass transit in their own neighborhoods? Could these elected officials not do something to get MTA to adequately serve their neighborhoods as well?

 

At that point we would have to start thinking about a system of checks and balances, to prevent situations such as the one you described.

[Turbo19]

 

 

B35 via Church, on 26 Jan 2014 - 4:45 PM, said:

 

I have a response: Would elected officials not want to do anything about this if they used mass transit in their own neighborhoods? Could these elected officials not do something to get MTA to adequately serve their neighborhoods as well?

 

At that point we would have to start thinking about a system of checks and balances, to prevent situations such as the one you described.

 

Nothing wrong with the question, but perhaps thinking ahead slightly more than necessary at this point.

 

At any rate I wholeheartedly believe there will always be a demand for public transit of some kind, especially in the epicenter that is NYC.

[BrooklynIRT]

B35: I found your posts in the LIRR Random Thoughts Thread about its problems, so I now have an idea of how it is not living up to your standards.

[B35 via Church]

You stated that you were getting sick of using the LIRR. I want to know how it is not living up to your standards.

That's not the part of your post I'm asking for clarification for... Go back up & re-read my post again.....

 

- Do you notice when your bus misses a traffic signal that it would have made if it were not for a vehicle that did something to slow it down?

Does anybody want to avoid waiting 16+ minutes for a train when one should not even be waiting more than 12?

 

- The NYPD Traffic Division cannot exist without road vehicles.

1) Yeah & Yeah....

But what is your point here? I already stated that it would be naive to believe that motorists aren't impeding surface(honest question, not being snide or anything)

 

2) This doesn't mean you blame motorists.....

 

 

I have a response: Would elected officials not want to do anything about this if they used mass transit in their own neighborhoods?

Could these elected officials not do something to get MTA to adequately serve their neighborhoods as well?

 

At that point we would have to start thinking about a system of checks and balances, to prevent situations such as the one you described.

Local officials you mean? I would assume it depends how high up public transportation is on their list of responsibilities..... Believe it or not, it varies per district....

 

Some local officials care deeply about public transportation, others could give two shits about it.....

 

To your other question, I'm not sure if they could....

Even if they could, how successful would they be in their efforts (rhetorical question)......

 

B35: I found your posts in the LIRR Random Thoughts Thread about its problems, so I now have an idea of how it is not living up to your standards.

You actually went searching... Lol... Well you saved me from making a future post in there then...

[BrooklynIRT]

That's not the part of your post I'm asking for clarification for... Go back up & re-read my post again.....

Which part was it? I mentioned the thing about removing parking to speed up surface mass transit as it relates to standards for travel time on mass transit. I was responding to what you said about "people have different thresholds & breaking points & will not put up with mass transit..."

 

1) Yeah & Yeah....

But what is your point here?

 

I will post an answer to this later tonight.

 

Local officials you mean? I would assume it depends how high up public transportation is on their list of responsibilities..... Believe it or not, it varies per district....

 

I will post an answer to this later tonight also.

 

others could give two shits about it.....

 

Such people probably should not be in office, unless they do not care about mass transit at all because they are successfully putting all of their efforts into something such as crimefighting or fighting poverty. (How often do they successfully do the latter, whether they care about mass transit or not. LOL)

 

To your other question, I'm not sure if they could....

Even if they could, how successful would they be in their efforts (rhetorical question)......

 

Something for me to chew on.

 

====================================================================================

 

Another note about my third sentence: I want to minimize situations in which the "thresholds and breaking points" are reached and cause people to start avoiding mass transit.

[B35 via Church]

- Which part was it? I mentioned the thing about removing parking to speed up surface mass transit as it relates to standards for travel time on mass transit. I was responding to what you said about "people have different thresholds & breaking points & will not put up with mass transit..."

 

- Such people probably should not be in office, unless they do not care about mass transit at all because they are successfully putting all of their efforts into something such as crimefighting or fighting poverty. (How often do they successfully do the latter, whether they care about mass transit or not. LOL)

 

- Another note about my third sentence: I want to minimize situations in which the "thresholds and breaking points" are reached and cause people to start avoiding mass transit.

1) Well now in this post you answer my inquiry.... But originally when I said "Don't know what point you're making with this segment of the reply....", you replied in part by saying:

"You stated that you were getting sick of using the LIRR. I want to know how it is not living up to your standards."

 

In post #133, 4th quote from the top (quoted from you, which is what I'm questioning), there is no mention of the LIRR by you....

(The 3rd quote from the top is where you're asking me about problems on the LIRR)

 

As far as you saying this: "Also I have not forgotten that "there could be no parking whatsoever in an entire neighborhood & the two would have nothing to do with each other."

Aye, You can remember it, jot it down on a notepad, print it, spray paint it on all 4 walls all for future reference, w/e.... It doesn't matter.... The two topics are not directly related.

 

2) Well hell, It's a lot that these officials aren't successful at accomplishing, to address your sarcasm....

I mean really, it's not my fault that there are (local?) officials that don't care about mass transit..... Take it up with them.

 

3) This much is obvious....

[BrooklynIRT]

1) Yeah & Yeah....

But what is your point here?

It is not so much that I think it is deliberate, but again, they just do not seem to care what the impacts on surface mass transit and other road vehicles are. If they do not care, when is it going to end (ignoring the possibility of law enforcement actually doing its job consistently)? I want surface mass transit to be free-flowing and I basically want bus lanes to be treated like train tracks.

 

You said you do not think motorists impact surface transit negatively as often or as deliberate as I think; how often have you experienced delays due to this? Or seen surface transit experiencing them? How often is too often? Then there are also the issues with missing connections due to such delays.

 

The train thing..if the B44 SBS were more free-flowing, then it would be more useful for reaching Flatbush/Nostrand Aves (after transferring to it from a southbound , for example) before the next train in situations where the train is taking 16+ minutes to come and the next train is due to arrive soon. The bus travels on a one-way road with a bus lane and pretty good traffic signals. It should not be as slow as it currently is, whether it is being used to circumvent subway problems or not.

 

Unless people would rather wait forever for a than transfer from a to a B44 SBS, even if they know that the latter commute can be faster and they want to save time or get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Slowness brings me back to this:

 

MTA accounts for this nonsense by creating schedules with inflated running times. This is strongly connected to "why do B/Os drive so slow nowadays?" and the six quotes I got from that thread.

 

=========================================================================

 

I removed a parenthetical note that I thought did not belong because it was probably an unnecessary repetition.

[BrooklynIRT]

Local officials you mean? I would assume it depends how high up public transportation is on their list of responsibilities.....

 

I do mean local officials, but they would have to talk to not-so-local officials to get certain things done with mass transit (especially the subways and railroads since they go all over the place and can have yards and line superintendents' offices located miles from the neighborhood represented by the local official in question).

 

For the your second sentence in the quote above, one thing I will say is that the broken windows theory comes to mind.

 

========================================================

 

Only edit was changing "For the second sentence, one thing..." to "For the your second sentence in the quote above, one thing..."

[qjtransitmaster]

I know what you mean, B35. Even though the amount of bus commuters in and around my city is still increasing heavily, in 2017 lots of subsidies and stuff will vanish and those pro-car guys in politics I don't see them putting extra money into it (they already put extra money in widening the highway and stimulating the development of automatic cars). So sad as is, mass transit will become moot at some point and thus will not be the future. Not for my city, not for NYC, not for the rest of the world.

 

Automated cars can be integrated to complement the transit networks and would be more efficient than a bus that runs every 2 hours in the boondocks and can integrate as feeders to van rtes to express buses or commuter rail/intercity railforcing the trains to run more frequently than hourly. They can act as feeders to bus routes on major corridors. They can become a part of transit rather than an enemy. See rise of the intercity bus.

Could also make use of existing bus service that moves faster than it currently does and thus makes more sense for people to use to get where they need to go in the event of a subway outage.

 

An example would be a Lex line outage and using an M101 SBS (with shorter travel times than those that it currently has) to get to the other parts of the Lex's service area within Manhattan.

 

On weekends it could be easier to get extra buses (not as much bus service as on weekdays, more buses in the depot).

 

They have gotten buses and operators to cover shuttle buses in the event of sudden subway outages before, though.

 

They have put those shuttle buses out there following unexpected outages on weekdays.

NO TO duplicate bus!!!

 

By "reworking", don't tell me you wanna try to localize express buses.....

partially by the so called weak zones however only a few lines would be able to pull it off without hurting quality.

 

I don't know about Syracuse's routes in-particular, but when you have an inadequate amt. of buses, you resort to a bunch of interlining, a bunch of variants on a route, sub-par headways, etc. etc... Variants of variants (lol) is when things are really bad; or a transit provider being highly frugal......

 

I wouldn't say it's because ppl. here prefer taking the train over the bus though... I would say it's more, people are (indirectly) forced to taking the train over the bus..... But yeah, in places w/ not much rail service (of any kind), you're gonna get a system like one you're describing of the way Syracuse's is......

 

This is where you get guys like VG8 defiantly pointing out the (need) for the express bus in this city.... 

This is where you get guys like QJT wanting to divert more city buses onto highways....

extend via rather than divert or creating a completely new route that does.

 

I've watched the back and forth over mass transit vs the private automobile and the argument is moot, done, finished, over. Mass transit advocates better look around and see where they are. America, Land of the Free, country of individualists. Freedom=personal auto in 90% of this country, even in cities with mass transit options. Mass transit means being locked in to a particular form of transportation subject to the operator's scheduling. Personally I see nothing wrong with advocating for mass transit while also owning a car. The auto owner in NYC has more options for transportation and that equates to personal freedom in it's most simplistic form. I think we'll see more personal transportation in the future as most of the US Congress is tired of subsidizing mass transit. The days of the Northeast-Midwest Rustbelt congressmen dictating policy, Democrat or Republican, has given way to the Southern and Sunbelt way and mass transit is not a priority to those people. Road subsidies and airport subsidies but not a dime for mass transit is the future AFAIC. Whether I agree with it or not that is the future. Stop dreaming and face reality. Carry on.

Don't road subsidies indirectly lower intercity bus fares due to bus companies not paying to use the roads?

[Vistausss]

@qj: See, there's the problem. You think that only people with jobs or people with other appointments live in a rural area. But there's also school kids (and I'm talking about kids at the age where they can go to school by themselves) or, depending on the part of the world, students with low income. Students with low income won't have a car and kids aren't allowed to drive a car, not even automated. So cutting buses in rural areas is not always benificial.

Also: rural doesn't mean frequencies of every 2 hours. Yes, I can name examples of rural areas with those crappy frequencies. But I can also name rurar areas with higher frequencies and those buses are well-used. Not as much as most city buses but decent enough to say: "let's keep it".

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I've watched the back and forth over mass transit vs the private automobile and the argument is moot, done, finished, over. Mass transit advocates better look around and see where they are. America, Land of the Free, country of individualists. Freedom=personal auto in 90% of this country, even in cities with mass transit options. Mass transit means being locked in to a particular form of transportation subject to the operator's scheduling. Personally I see nothing wrong with advocating for mass transit while also owning a car. The auto owner in NYC has more options for transportation and that equates to personal freedom in it's most simplistic form. I think we'll see more personal transportation in the future as most of the US Congress is tired of subsidizing mass transit. The days of the Northeast-Midwest Rustbelt congressmen dictating policy, Democrat or Republican, has given way to the Southern and Sunbelt way and mass transit is not a priority to those people. Road subsidies and airport subsidies but not a dime for mass transit is the future AFAIC. Whether I agree with it or not that is the future. Stop dreaming and face reality. Carry on.

I disagree - mostly. Yes, Congress - especially the House of Representatives - is full of folks who are stuck in the 1950s and think "mass transit is for losers and Commies" and that "real Americans driver their cars everywhere." But you know what, Congressmen have to run for office every two years and if their constituents are not happy with them, they don't have to keep re-electing them every other year. Of course many of them are backed by special-interest groups who have a vested interest in keeping things just they way they are because those groups stand to lose the most from an America with more mass transit and intercity passenger rail. But that's why we have the Internet. There's Facebook, Twitter, Meetup, various blogs, etc. You can use them to advocate for the change in mass transit policy you want to see. This is something that many of these politicians whose attitudes are stuck squarely in 1950s won't always see coming. We have to use these tools to our advantage. But it requires commitment, work, passion and understanding that significant change won't happen overnight (does it ever?).

 

And remember, nobody thought Seattle, Portland, Denver, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Houston or Dallas would ever have light rail 40 years ago. Today, they all do. No one ever though LA or Atlanta would have subways. But they do. How about commuter rail? Austin, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco/Oakland, Dallas/Fort Worth and Nashville all have them and soon Orlando will too. Tacoma, Seattle, Portland, and Salt Lake City recently built streetcar lines and Tucson and Atlanta are building them. Even the old Midwestern metros of the Twin Cities and St. Louis have light rail systems now. They're also planning to build streetcar lines, as are Cincinnati and Kansas City. Cincinnati's line, especially, will be quite the accomplishment, given all the political crap it had to deal with from the city's mayor, Ohio's governor, the local media and various Tea Party-affiliated groups. But Mayor John Cranley backed off on what was an "iron-clad" campaign promise to stop building the streetcar after various grass-roots groups like Cincinnatians for Progress and UrbanCincy spearheaded efforts to show the City's residents just how beneficial that streetcar will be for them.

 

Bottom line: Public policy CAN be changed. Nothing is ever written in stone.

[Vistausss]

Don't forget Minneapolis' light rail system that will soon open a new light rail route in conjunction to the existing one and the system is damn well used!

 

Come to think of it: doesn't the government have this petition website now that one can use and if there's enough votes they'll take the petition seriously? If change in the US Congress needs to happen one can use that petition thing to set up a petition for investment in public transport.

 

It's true that lots of politicans are still stuck in the 50s, even younger politicians. I see that happening over here too. Shame.

[Far Rock Depot]

@qj: See, there's the problem. You think that only people with jobs or people with other appointments live in a rural area. But there's also school kids (and I'm talking about kids at the age where they can go to school by themselves) or, depending on the part of the world, students with low income. Students with low income won't have a car and kids aren't allowed to drive a car, not even automated. So cutting buses in rural areas is not always benificial.

Also: rural doesn't mean frequencies of every 2 hours. Yes, I can name examples of rural areas with those crappy frequencies. But I can also name rurar areas with higher frequencies and those buses are well-used. Not as much as most city buses but decent enough to say: "let's keep it".

The thing is, outside of NYC, school kids are still not dependent on public transit. Here where I live(amsterdam ny), even though there's a small bus system(4 routes using cutaways), there's an abundance of school buses. So even. In rural areas, or really small cities like mine, which is surrounded by rural areas, public transit isn't a necessity. Only in major metropolises-especially nyc. Even in the nearby capital distric where CDTA runs, most of the rural routes got cut. Why? Most people around here have cars. The cost of living is lower, things are more spread out and its just how it is up here compared to downstate.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

[BrooklynIRT]

It's true that lots of politicans are still stuck in the 50s, even younger politicians.

This is why I have such extreme opinions against personal automobiles.

As long as car culture is consistently passed from one generation to the next, putting a stop to the problems I discussed in this thread and others will be about as difficult as Sarah Connor attempting to dismantle the first T-800 Terminator or the second T-800 Terminator attempting to dismantle the T-1000..

[Trainmaster5]

I disagree - mostly. Yes, Congress - especially the House of Representatives - is full of folks who are stuck in the 1950s and think "mass transit is for losers and Commies" and that "real Americans driver their cars everywhere." But you know what, Congressmen have to run for office every two years and if their constituents are not happy with them, they don't have to keep re-electing them every other year. Of course many of them are backed by special-interest groups who have a vested interest in keeping things just they way they are because those groups stand to lose the most from an America with more mass transit and intercity passenger rail. But that's why we have the Internet. There's Facebook, Twitter, Meetup, various blogs, etc. You can use them to advocate for the change in mass transit policy you want to see. This is something that many of these politicians whose attitudes are stuck squarely in 1950s won't always see coming. We have to use these tools to our advantage. But it requires commitment, work, passion and understanding that significant change won't happen overnight (does it ever?).

 

And remember, nobody thought Seattle, Portland, Denver, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Houston or Dallas would ever have light rail 40 years ago. Today, they all do. No one ever though LA or Atlanta would have subways. But they do. How about commuter rail? Austin, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco/Oakland, Dallas/Fort Worth and Nashville all have them and soon Orlando will too. Tacoma, Seattle, Portland, and Salt Lake City recently built streetcar lines and Tucson and Atlanta are building them. Even the old Midwestern metros of the Twin Cities and St. Louis have light rail systems now. They're also planning to build streetcar lines, as are Cincinnati and Kansas City. Cincinnati's line, especially, will be quite the accomplishment, given all the political crap it had to deal with from the city's mayor, Ohio's governor, the local media and various Tea Party-affiliated groups. But Mayor John Cranley backed off on what was an "iron-clad" campaign promise to stop building the streetcar after various grass-roots groups like Cincinnatians for Progress and UrbanCincy spearheaded efforts to show the City's residents just how beneficial that streetcar will be for them.

 

Bottom line: Public policy CAN be changed. Nothing is ever written in stone.

You have made good points about some of the newer systems and those already planned. Take a closer look and tell me how many were local initiatives using local funds with some federal funding. I'm saying that the days of large-scale federal funding for local projects is a thing of the past for the most part.. The days when the chairmen of the House committees that fund mass transit came from the northeast or midwest and could/would slip funding into appropriations bills is over. The new breed doesn't want to help fund Amtrak, much less the , Septa, or the like. Locally we have studies for a new Tappan Zee Bridge with much speculation about roadways and close to none about mass transit, rail, bus, or some other form of transport. Public policy can be changed, I agree. The problem is that right now the loudest voices come from NIMBYers, Tea Partiers, low(no) tax proponents, anti deficit spenders, and a conglomeration of groups who are linked under umbrella of "anti-tax and spend" who are against anything that costs more money. They don't believe in investment in mass transit especially if it doesn't immediately affect them. I've seen some of them in my travels around the country and in the media. We'll agree to transit initiatives if you cut public school or hospital funding. I'm sure that many forum posters are unaware that most places in the country don't have municipal hospitals like we do in NYC but have private medical institutions instead. Municipal hospitals are considered "wasteful" and duplicative and shouldn't be funded by the federal government as much as they were in the past. With that mentality, along with the anti-union rhetoric in certain quarters It's my personal opinion that most, if not all, mass transit improvements will be local in nature. Carry on.

[Vistausss]

You have made good points about some of the newer systems and those already planned. Take a closer look and tell me how many were local initiatives using local funds with some federal funding. I'm saying that the days of large-scale federal funding for local projects is a thing of the past for the most part.. The days when the chairmen of the House committees that fund mass transit came from the northeast or midwest and could/would slip funding into appropriations bills is over. The new breed doesn't want to help fund Amtrak, much less the , Septa, or the like. Locally we have studies for a new Tappan Zee Bridge with much speculation about roadways and close to none about mass transit, rail, bus, or some other form of transport. Public policy can be changed, I agree. The problem is that right now the loudest voices come from NIMBYers, Tea Partiers, low(no) tax proponents, anti deficit spenders, and a conglomeration of groups who are linked under umbrella of "anti-tax and spend" who are against anything that costs more money. They don't believe in investment in mass transit especially if it doesn't immediately affect them. I've seen some of them in my travels around the country and in the media. We'll agree to transit initiatives if you cut public school or hospital funding. I'm sure that many forum posters are unaware that most places in the country don't have municipal hospitals like we do in NYC but have private medical institutions instead. Municipal hospitals are considered "wasteful" and duplicative and shouldn't be funded by the federal government as much as they were in the past. With that mentality, along with the anti-union rhetoric in certain quarters It's my personal opinion that most, if not all, mass transit improvements will be local in nature. Carry on.

 

Well, regarding your point about the Tappan Zee Bridge: are you forgetting that the bridge is already served by mass transit? Rockland County's TZx (Tappan Zee Express) runs the bridge multiple times a day and it's not going away in the near future, AFAIK. In fact, they added a few runs back in Oct 2013 because of demand. If there was no demand they wouldn't add runs out of the blue, right?

 

Money = money and some of those systems, like the LRT in Minneapolis, are doing extremely well and are expanding like crazy. Even w/o money from the House it's a blast. In fact, Minneapolis' newest LRT line is almost done 6 months ahead of the planned opening! That can only mean they invested well and overlooked the whole thing damn well.

So money from above isn't always needed as long as localities have enough money and spend it wisely.

 

Sure, that can also become a problem, which I explained in my previous post to yours which you agreed with and I still stand by that point. But as long as there's local money then bada-bing, bada-boom.

 

The thing is, outside of NYC, school kids are still not dependent on public transit. Here where I live(amsterdam ny), even though there's a small bus system(4 routes using cutaways), there's an abundance of school buses. So even. In rural areas, or really small cities like mine, which is surrounded by rural areas, public transit isn't a necessity. Only in major metropolises-especially nyc. Even in the nearby capital distric where CDTA runs, most of the rural routes got cut. Why? Most people around here have cars. The cost of living is lower, things are more spread out and its just how it is up here compared to downstate.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

I was talking about rural areas in general, not only those surrounding NYC.