Denver light rail to open early
Thomas Smith
and behind schedule, here is something for you to chew on.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3262555
What the article says is that the light rail portion of the project will be
completed on budget and early, which will allow it to begin revenue service
early. This will reduce the burden on taxpayers as the revenue from
operations will be able to help offset construction costs.
--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.
RJ
> What the article says is that the light rail portion of the project will be
> completed on budget and early, which will allow it to begin revenue service
> early. This will reduce the burden on taxpayers as the revenue from
> operations will be able to help offset construction costs.
Well, maybe. But only if the fare collection is more than the
operational costs per passenger. If not, the losses will begin mounting
earlier than the plan.
Martin Edwards
How many readers are sending RJ a goat for Christmas?
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
meammrmustard
> RJ wrote:
>
>> Thomas Smith <thomas....@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What the article says is that the light rail portion of the project
>>> will be
>>> completed on budget and early, which will allow it to begin revenue
>>> service
>>> early. This will reduce the burden on taxpayers as the revenue from
>>> operations will be able to help offset construction costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, maybe. But only if the fare collection is more than the
>> operational costs per passenger. If not, the losses will begin mounting
>> earlier than the plan.
>
>
> How many readers are sending RJ a goat for Christmas?
>
Naw. Us "choo-choo lovers" send a lump of coal.
-meanmrmustard
Bill Blomgren
Denver is doing much better than Charlotte, which has gone from an original
$229 million for 13 miles to $430 million for under 10 miles. Headlines in
the paper have the Mayor saying "we may need to increase the original $229
million, followed by the CATS manager saying that the $339 million budget is
solid.. then the $390 million budget was solid.. then the $429 million budget
was solid..
They are now saying "We will open 4-6 months late because the stations came in
double what was thought to be the price, and to cut costs, we are having the
work slowed down.
Otherwise, it would be $590 million right now.
Jack May
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dmkmqi$nir$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> RJ wrote:
>> Thomas Smith <thomas....@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What the article says is that the light rail portion of the project will
>>>be
>>>completed on budget and early, which will allow it to begin revenue
>>>service
>>>early. This will reduce the burden on taxpayers as the revenue from
>>>operations will be able to help offset construction costs.
>>
>>
>> Well, maybe. But only if the fare collection is more than the
>> operational costs per passenger. If not, the losses will begin mounting
>> earlier than the plan.
>
> How many readers are sending RJ a goat for Christmas?
How many light rail systems pay all their expenses out of the fare box.
Isn't it zero which makes RJ totally correct and you totally wrong.
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrndoqv0t.htp...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Thomas Smith schrieb:
>
>
>> What the article says is that the light rail portion of the project will
>> be
>> completed on budget and early, which will allow it to begin revenue
>> service
>> early. This will reduce the burden on taxpayers as the revenue from
>> operations will be able to help offset construction costs.
>
>
> don't understand your math.
>
> Of course, if the light rail line is supposed to have certain beneficial
> effects, these are indeed expected earlier, which would be a good thing.
We have gone over this many time. Light rail in the US provides no benefits
that can not be provided better and cheaper by other means.
It is cheaper to provide a transportation subsidy to the poor than it is to
build light rail.
The old and feeble by law are provide with para-transit using and vans
because they cannot realistically use transit.
The high cost of transit drains money from transportation budgets which
increases congestion, which increases fuel consumption, which increase CO2
and pollution in the resultant stop and go transportation.
Martin Edwards
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>
> Jack May schrieb:
>
>
>> We have gone over this many time.
>
> But I do not see similar problems for light rail. Yes, in some
> situations, where Europeans would simply route the light rail train
> across the main network, a USA operation will have higher infrastructure
> costs. But in most situations, I do not see, why light rail should be
> more expensive, or less successful. Since light rail is the ideal tool
> for connecting suburbs, and the USA have plenty of these, I would
> normally expect to find more such systems in the USA than in Europe.
The main reason that light rail fails in the US is that it far slower than
cars to get most places. Since people place a high value on their time in
the US (and other places), people generally tell you in the US that they can
not afford to waste the time it takes to travel on transit. When you talk
to people about using transit, about the only reason they give for not using
transit is that transit is far too slow to use.
> Neither the USA nor Europe have enough poor people to fill a
> well-networked transit system. Therefore, nobody builds light rail for
> the poor.
In the US, it is mainly the poor that use transit. Middle class people
seldom if ever use transit because of it inherently slow speed in US suburbs
where most of the employment and resident exist. In fact in the US,
building transit for the poor is the main argument for transit.
>> The old and feeble by law are provide with para-transit using and vans
>> because they cannot realistically use transit.
>
> This has been attempted and tried in the Europe of the 1980s. It is
> simply too expensive - at least the Europeans are not rich enough, to
> subsidize a paratransit system, which provides an acceptable level of
> mobility within a civilized society.
It is expensive but transit is not even remotely a viable solution. Para
transit is serving people that often have great difficulty walking out of
their house without a lot of help by the para transit driver. In Silicon
Valley, para-transit is about 10% of the transit budget.
>
> I would assume, that in the Bay Area alone, we are talking about many
> tenthousand people, which you want to move around in specialized
> vehicles, one driver for a few people, several times per week or even
> several times per day, at absurd costs for the passenger kilometer.
It is somewhere around 5 million people in the SF Bay area that commute each
day. The cost of a car is not considered to be a major cost anywhere in
the US, especially in the high income Bay Area. The cost of operating a
car and parking in the US tends to be low compared to Europe.
>
> Plus:
> Demographic change will cause a major increase of ... not disabled, but
> less abled persons. We are talking about millions. At the moment, traffic
> systems are prepared for this change to come. For example, the Swiss
> parliament has given time until 2023, to make the whole Swiss railroad
> transit system level boarding.
Old people in the US look at giving up driving as a sign of loss of
independence. Giving up driving is an extremely emotional , degrading event
for the elderly in the US. We have people still driving past a 100 years
old.
Level boarding is part of the problem, but the main problem in the US is the
long distance walk (several miles typically) to get to a transit station.
That makes transit for the elderly and impaired a useless option.
> In fact, you aren't concerned about that, you are happy about it! The
> high costs of rail transit are your only argument. Let's assume, counties
> in the USA would build their systems at costs like
http://zierke.com/web-page/dissen-osnabrueck
> It would be a nightmare for you, because all your illusions about cost
> comparisons would implode. Plopp
American would be horrified by such shoddy, unsafe design. A week or so ago
we had a child killed on an unprotected track and the story was front page
news for a week and the story continues in the local news.
It cost us in California around a million dollars of construction to attract
one person out of a car to use the rail. That is because transit is far too
slow to meet the needs of commuters in the US. Cutting construction cost
would not eliminate the delays of making a lot of stops letting off and
picking up passengers. Time is a major attitude factor in most things we
do in the US. It is a major part of the culture and highly unlikely to
change any time soon.
Long total door to door commute time is the primary and about the only
reason that people refuse to use rail in the US.
People don't really think about capital cost in selecting their mode of
transportation.
Augggh. This conversation is getting far too long.
Peter Schleifer
wrote:
>Old people in the US look at giving up driving as a sign of loss of
>independence. Giving up driving is an extremely emotional , degrading event
>for the elderly in the US.
So, it's better to let them kill people?
>Level boarding is part of the problem, but the main problem in the US is the
>long distance walk (several miles typically) to get to a transit station.
>That makes transit for the elderly and impaired a useless option.
Do you know of anyone who walks several miles to get to a transit
station?
>American would be horrified by such shoddy, unsafe design. A week or so ago
>we had a child killed on an unprotected track and the story was front page
>news for a week and the story continues in the local news.
Last week a child here was killed wandering onto an unprotected road.
It got a small mention in the media the next day.
>Augggh. This conversation is getting far too long.
It won't bother me if you stop participating.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p7ednRP9YOo8QBLe...@comcast.com...
>
>
> The main reason that light rail fails in the US is that it far slower than
> cars to get most places. Since people place a high value on their time
in
> the US
People in the US have an unhealthy obsession with "saving time" - virtually
never to any good purpose.
Martin Edwards
And it is worth enlarging on Peter's point. Many of us read this group
to read about transit: we would be quite happy if there were no
anti-transit trolls. I do not troll in car groups: reciprocation would
be welocme.
Nobody
wrote:
>
>"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>news:slrndouj9v.84l...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>>
>> Jack May schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> We have gone over this many time.
>>
>
>> But I do not see similar problems for light rail. Yes, in some
>> situations, where Europeans would simply route the light rail train
>> across the main network, a USA operation will have higher infrastructure
>> costs. But in most situations, I do not see, why light rail should be
>> more expensive, or less successful. Since light rail is the ideal tool
>> for connecting suburbs, and the USA have plenty of these, I would
>> normally expect to find more such systems in the USA than in Europe.
>
>The main reason that light rail fails in the US is that it far slower than
>cars to get most places. Since people place a high value on their time in
>the US (and other places), people generally tell you in the US that they can
>not afford to waste the time it takes to travel on transit. When you talk
>to people about using transit, about the only reason they give for not using
>transit is that transit is far too slow to use.
How condescending! Tell that to the commuters in the NE Corridor!
>
>> Neither the USA nor Europe have enough poor people to fill a
>> well-networked transit system. Therefore, nobody builds light rail for
>> the poor.
>
>In the US, it is mainly the poor that use transit. Middle class people
>seldom if ever use transit because of it inherently slow speed in US suburbs
>where most of the employment and resident exist.
And where the development is to be kind is "diverse", and requires a
Car to access!
Jack May
"Peter Schleifer" <psch...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:1dg0p1dblgbsqi9jt...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:37:49 -0800, "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Old people in the US look at giving up driving as a sign of loss of
>>independence. Giving up driving is an extremely emotional , degrading
>>event
>>for the elderly in the US.
>
> So, it's better to let them kill people?
The 100 year old woman on TV that was driving was extremely alert and
unlikely to get in an accident and has no records of accidents. People
vary a lot with age. Your blanket statement is nonsense
>
>>Level boarding is part of the problem, but the main problem in the US is
>>the
>>long distance walk (several miles typically) to get to a transit station.
>>That makes transit for the elderly and impaired a useless option.
>
> Do you know of anyone who walks several miles to get to a transit
> station?
Of course not. What I was saying is that they typically would have walk
several miles to a station which they will never do. That makes transit an
extremely foolish approach for the elderly in the US
>
>
>>American would be horrified by such shoddy, unsafe design. A week or so
>>ago
>>we had a child killed on an unprotected track and the story was front page
>>news for a week and the story continues in the local news.
>
> Last week a child here was killed wandering onto an unprotected road.
> It got a small mention in the media the next day.
>
>>Augggh. This conversation is getting far too long.
>
> It won't bother me if you stop participating.
Maybe if you actually learned how to read and understand what is written
instead of trying to fabricate what you want to be written, it might be
worth your time.
Jack May
> Baxter wrote:
>
> And it is worth enlarging on Peter's point. Many of us read this group to
> read about transit: we would be quite happy if there were no anti-transit
> trolls. I do not troll in car groups: reciprocation would be welocme.
Sorry, the transit advocates have been lobbying transportation agencies
strongly to destroy society by implementing their perverted desires and view
of the worlds.
With the serious damage you have done to our world, we are not about to let
you crazies go on and remain silent.
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>
> As I assumed, you /want/ transit to be expensive.
>
> Okay, go ahead: What's shoddy or unsafe about it?
No that is not even remotely what I mean. In the US the public opinion
demands a safety level that does raise cost and that can not be ignored.
I repeatedly said the main problem is that transit is far too slow to
attract many riders. Apparently you don't want to acknowledge that fact
because it fundamental design problem of transit that make transit a
extremely dead end solution with no hope of a solution. It makes transit
something only a total fool could support.
Martin Edwards
Bill Blomgren
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>Then there is something utterly wrong. As soon as such system no longer
>shares the streets, but has its own ROW, light rail is faster than the
>car, in an urban environment.
In the case of Charlotte, the ROW is "mostly" separate, with almost 0 street
running. However, there are bunches of grade crossings, and better yet, 12 or
13 stations for a 9 mile ride. So chances are the 1/2 hour for 9 miles will
hold. An average of 18 miles per hour for a round trip.
Needless to say, that slow a ride is -not- going to attract a lot of riders.
The big problem I see is that the density along the line (say, within 1/2 mile
or so) is very low. So the only people they will get to ride this turkey will
have to use the park-and-rides that live at the first 3 stations.
Now the big problem: leaving your car in an unprotected park and ride: bad
news with car break ins and the like. The police here seem to be especially
unable to investigate that level of crime. They don't even show up. Reason:
they are unable to stop the shootings at local malls and the like. They say
"crime is down"... but they don't include the "little stuff" like car break
ins and the like.. They stopped even counting that. So the people that are
using the park and ride had best have a junker they use only to commute, where
they really don't care if the windows get broken or the car gets stolen....
Bill Blomgren
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>After that, you will add another 3 minutes (though 4 are better) of
>buffer time. This is for all the mishaps of real life, plus engineers
>have the undisciplined behaviour of simply needing a restroom sometimes.
>Some operations turn around faster, but if the time is there, you should
>always use this buffer to achieve better reliability of the service.
That brings up an interesting question: where will they "go"? No restrooms at
ANY of the stations. Uptown, you could have a protracted stop at the transit
center.. go down 2 flights of stairs to the bus level.. and find the employee
restroom for the Burger King that rents space... At the end of the line?
Nothing. It ends at 9th street. A simple platform is scheduled for that
location. No facilities.. and in fact, there are no facilities at any of the
other locations along the line. Busses tend to stop at gas stations, and use
the public restrooms there, but there aren't any along the light rail line..
at least that are less than a 10 minute walk away.
(Wonder if the wonderful planners thought of that...) - Meanwhile, the 30
minutes was a "best guess" for the actual transit time between the south end
and 9th street made by CATS. It may very well take longer than that. In the
middle of rush hour, that same 9 miles on the interstate takes about 15
minutes to 20 minutes if there are no accidents. It takes 25 minutes to drive
south boulevard during rush hour (I've done it due to jury duty) ... Or using
NC 49, about 30 minutes. So there will be no significant time savings. (And
if there is a grade crossing incident at one of the 16 or 20 grade crossings
that the line has, well.. All bets are off for on-time performance of the
LRVs..
At the ends, I expect 3-4 minutes, so a full turnaround on the train might
take 70-80 minutes. Especially if the guy running it has a small bladder...
Bill Blomgren
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>If it takes 70 - 80 minutes, they shouldn't have built it, in favour of a
>bus. Light rail makes sense, if there is either a capacity problem, or if
>it speeds up transit - preferably not just itself, but also other transit
>lines around it.
Well, the70-80 minutes is for a round trip from the south end terminus to the
north end terminus. The planning for this debacle has been interesting. So
far, it is not clear that anyone with light rail has experience been involved.
And with the price approaching a half million dollars, it is clear that there
is a lot of money going into someone's pocket.
Roughly $50,000,000 per mile (so far).. and the stations are going to arrive
months late. And the parking decks have not been contracted yet. The one at
the south end terminus is in a ditch, which means it has to be on pilings. I'm
not sure that the cost of that is in the current estimates or not. Probably
not. (Stations are coming in at 2 times what the city thought they would cost,
and since they are behind schedule, overtime expenses get dumped on top of the
rest of the price if they are done on time. So the city decided delaying the
project by 4 (or more) months was appropriate.
At least it will be faster than Pittsburgh's light rail... by a tiny amount..
Sancho Panza
"Bill Blomgren" <billbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nhvap1197hgm0vkh8...@4ax.com...
> Roughly $50,000,000 per mile (so far)
Sounds like Denver has plenty of bucks. Look what they spent on Denver
International Airport.
Could be another place to relocate New Orleans refugees.
Ned Carlson
> Sorry, the transit advocates have been lobbying transportation agencies
> strongly to destroy society by implementing their perverted desires and view
> of the worlds.
OK: Elaborate, please. 1. What's the evil plan? 2. What's the point of
the evil plan? Maybe the transit advocates are aliens who landed on those
UFO's Art Bell liked to talk about, and they want to clear the place out
so the advance force from Mars can land without opposition?
The US imports, like about what, 60% of the petroleum it uses?
That's not a situation that's good for the economy or the country.
Exactly how would cancelling public transit improve that?
Going by what I've seen on "Cops" on Fox, the US cities that rely on
public transit seem to be doing OK, while the ones that don't seem to be
overrun with meth addicts, prostitutes, and Jerry Springer Show
candidates (maybe Fox isn't the best source of information on the
state of US society?) Apparently folks in Charlotte, NC can't even use
park n' rides without their cars being busted into on a daily basis
(as opposed to, say, Elmwood Park,IL where the main threat seems to be
body and car parts being flung onto one's windshield). Geez, fella, I'll
take my chances and ride the train here in the big city, my main
worry is that some dumbass might dump his Starbucks cappuccino
in my lap. The CTA is a threat to society? Really? How?
> With the serious damage you have done to our world
Like what? C'mon, regale me with tales of how public transit has wrecked
places like Rio, Tokyo, London, New York, Paris, Berlin and Mexico City.
Sorry if it doesn't work too good in Fargo or wherever you're from.
Martin Edwards
He works in Silicon Valley, but my feeling is that he commutes in a
pickup from Bakersfield. He is apparently very successful in his day
job, which, in his own mind, absolves him from any accusations of being
a loony. This being cyberspace it is, of course, impossible to tell
whether he waddles and/or quacks.
greg byshenk
> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:36:45 -0800, Jack May wrote:
> >>Sorry, the transit advocates have been lobbying transportation agencies
> >>strongly to destroy society by implementing their perverted desires and view
> >>of the worlds.
[...]
> He works in Silicon Valley, but my feeling is that he commutes in a
> pickup from Bakersfield. He is apparently very successful in his day
> job, which, in his own mind, absolves him from any accusations of being
> a loony. This being cyberspace it is, of course, impossible to tell
> whether he waddles and/or quacks.
Most of the time it is, but the occasional bits like the above "destroy
society by implementing their perverted desires" would seem to suggest
that we are in monster raving loony territory.
--
greg byshenk - gbys...@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
Jack May
"greg byshenk" <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote in message
news:slrndpguhp....@byshenk.demon.nl...
As I have said many times, the cost of transit while providing negligible
added capacity, drains lots of money form the transportation budgets
(approaching 80% of all Bay Area transportation funds) that it lead to
massive traffic jams for the over 90% of the transportation which gets a
small fraction of the budget.
The result is that the congestion increases gas consumption which increases
CO2 in violation of at least California law. The stop and go congestion
radically increases pollution according to the Feds which leads to an
increased death rate especially among those in poor health. The stress from
congestion which increases heart attack rates.
It would seem that spending excessive amounts of money on transit would be
at manslaughter and possibly murder 2 because the transportation people are
well aware that they are increasing the death rate.
Are you saying that the increased congestion from excessive transit funding
does not do a lot of harm to society?
Are you saying it is not harmful to society to increase the death rate so
that trains can be run for mainly people that can't adjust to change in
society and often have fetish desires about trains.
Maybe you think this is not destructive to society because transportation
agencies have a "license to kill" so that trains can greatly degrade the
quality of life for most people.
This is not hard stuff to comprehend. It is just in the strong desire to
justify trans, the supporters refuse to even consider that there are major
problems from spending almost all transportation dollars on a transportation
modes that has almost no socially redeeming characteristics.
Jack May
"Ned Carlson" <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote in message
news:15wzb79qnpqio$.4hvy7tk0u08s$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:36:45 -0800, Jack May wrote:
>
>> Sorry, the transit advocates have been lobbying transportation agencies
>> strongly to destroy society by implementing their perverted desires and
>> view
>> of the worlds.
>
> OK: Elaborate, please. 1. What's the evil plan? 2. What's the point of
> the evil plan? Maybe the transit advocates are aliens who landed on those
> UFO's Art Bell liked to talk about, and they want to clear the place out
> so the advance force from Mars can land without opposition?
Ok so you are starting the lies already by discussing statement you made up
which I did not write.
>
> The US imports, like about what, 60% of the petroleum it uses?
> That's not a situation that's good for the economy or the country.
> Exactly how would cancelling public transit improve that?
Are you claiming that transit burns no petroleum? Since transit takes most
of the transportation dollars in the major metropolitan areas which leads to
increased congestion which leads to increased fuel consumption, canceling
transit would increase available funds to reduce congestion which would
reduce oil consumption.
>
> Going by what I've seen on "Cops" on Fox, the US cities that rely on
> public transit seem to be doing OK, while the ones that don't seem to be
> overrun with meth addicts, prostitutes, and Jerry Springer Show
> candidates (maybe Fox isn't the best source of information on the
> state of US society?) Apparently folks in Charlotte, NC can't even use
> park n' rides without their cars being busted into on a daily basis
> (as opposed to, say, Elmwood Park,IL where the main threat seems to be
> body and car parts being flung onto one's windshield). Geez, fella, I'll
> take my chances and ride the train here in the big city, my main
> worry is that some dumbass might dump his Starbucks cappuccino
> in my lap. The CTA is a threat to society? Really? How?
Pure sophomoric drivel with nothing but unproven nonsense.
>
>
>> With the serious damage you have done to our world
>
> Like what? C'mon, regale me with tales of how public transit has wrecked
> places like Rio, Tokyo, London, New York, Paris, Berlin and Mexico City.
> Sorry if it doesn't work too good in Fargo or wherever you're from.
Go read the uk.transport news groups some times. You will find a lot of
discussion about how transit cost are destroying the transportation
infrastructure and degrading society. You just listed city names with
absolutely nothing to prove they are having no problems with funding of
transit. Do you really think you are proving something?
Jack May
> Ned Carlson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:36:45 -0800, Jack May wrote:
> He works in Silicon Valley, but my feeling is that he commutes in a pickup
> from Bakersfield.
You are wrong. I live on the SF Bay Peninsula .
>He is apparently very successful in his day job, which, in his own mind,
>absolves him from any accusations of being a loony.
Just trying to show how the real world works to train loonies who want to do
the equivalent of bringing back 8 track tapes in an iPod world.
I am just a Silicon Valley engineer/project manager just like a lot of other
people in the Valley. I guess if you are such a loser in life that you are
reduced to using and supporting transit, then a normal job for the Silicon
Valley area might look like an unattainable dream.
By the standards of Silicon Valley I am not "very successful" because I
don't make millions of dollars per year. Maybe some day, but not now.
Ned Carlson
> He works in Silicon Valley, but my feeling is that he commutes in a
> pickup from Bakersfield.
No wonder Merle Haggard tunes pop up in my brain every time
I read his posts.
Ned Carlson
> Are you claiming that transit burns no petroleum? Since transit takes most
> of the transportation dollars in the major metropolitan areas
Huh?
> which leads to
> increased congestion which leads to increased fuel consumption,
Your conclusion. How does getting people out of cars and onto buses &
trains "increase congestion"? Does each rider get his own bus?
Today in Chicago we had 10 inches of snow. The folks who drove sat in
traffic jams for 2 to 4 hours. The trains ran on time, like usual, and
the people who rode trains weren't driving cars and making the situation
worse.
canceling
> transit would increase available funds to reduce congestion which would
> reduce oil consumption.
I've been to Toronto, where the citizens elected to keep and rehab their
old streetcar system and build an asskicking subway system, instead of
bulldozing neighborhoods to build freeways. Guess what powers the
mass transit & LRV's? WATER. Yes, WATER. That's why they call the
electricity company "Ontario Hydro". You can see huge threads of
hydro pylons feeding juice into Toronto.
A similar situation exists in Chicago (albeit minus the LRV's), the juice
comes from a minerals called "uranium" and "coal".
Some of the electricity for Mexico City mass transit comes from heat
generated from things called "volcanos".
Last time I checked, "coal" "water" "uranium" and "volcano" were native
American energy sources rather than imported from Libya or Saudi Arabia.
Mark Brader
> I've been to Toronto ... Guess what powers the mass transit & LRV's?
> WATER. Yes, WATER.
People even say "hydro" here to mean the electrical supply.
But don't confuse marketing with reality. Ontario Power Generation
(OPG), the major generating company, uses an almost equal compbination
of nuclear, fossil-fuel (mostly coal), and hydroelectric sources,
and that list is in decreasing order of importance. And power is
imported from nearby states, too.
> That's why they call the electricity company "Ontario Hydro".
Actually, that name is obsolete since the province broke up the
company and privatized parts of it. (OPG is one of the parts.)
But other electric companies do still use the word Hydro -- the
local distribution company in Toronto is the Toronto Hydro Electric
System, for example. It's a good marketing word.
This is not to say that the use of electrically powered transit is
not a good thing! Let's just not exaggerate how good a thing it is.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If gravity stops working, a power cut is
m...@vex.net | the least of your problems." -- David Bell
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Martin Edwards
Me too, though not "Today, I started loving you again".
Martin Edwards
Ned Carlson
> Ned Carlson writes:
>> I've been to Toronto ... Guess what powers the mass transit & LRV's?
>> WATER. Yes, WATER.
>
> People even say "hydro" here to mean the electrical supply.
Yes, I'm aware of that. This is a source of confusion to Americans,
as when Canadians ask "where's the hydro connection?", we think
they're looking for a water faucet.
You also call high-tension towers "hydro pylons". I may be wrong, but
isn't the hydro pylon the semi-official provincial tree of Ontario?
Like mosquitos are the semi-official state bird of Minnesota?
>
> But don't confuse marketing with reality. Ontario Power Generation
> (OPG), the major generating company, uses an almost equal compbination
> of nuclear, fossil-fuel (mostly coal), and hydroelectric sources,
> and that list is in decreasing order of importance. And power is
> imported from nearby states, too.
Still, Canada has a surplus of all those items, right? My point is
none of it is brought to Canada in large tankers from Libya and
Saudi Arabia. Neither are volcanoes that power thermoelectric
stations in Mexico and Iceland.
>
>> That's why they call the electricity company "Ontario Hydro".
>
> Actually, that name is obsolete since the province broke up the
> company and privatized parts of it. (OPG is one of the parts.)
> But other electric companies do still use the word Hydro -- the
> local distribution company in Toronto is the Toronto Hydro Electric
> System, for example. It's a good marketing word.
Thanks for filling me on the details.
> This is not to say that the use of electrically powered transit is
> not a good thing! Let's just not exaggerate how good a thing it is.
In "Jack May"'s case a bit of exaggeration is fair play and
just desserts, IMHO. He doesn't seem to have a problem with
generating "facts" out of his arse when it suits him.
Jack May
"Ned Carlson" <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote in message
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:29:42 -0800, Jack May wrote:
>
>> Are you claiming that transit burns no petroleum? Since transit takes
>> most
>> of the transportation dollars in the major metropolitan areas
>
> Huh?
>
>> which leads to
>> increased congestion which leads to increased fuel consumption,
>
>
> Your conclusion. How does getting people out of cars and onto buses &
> trains "increase congestion"? Does each rider get his own bus?
> Today in Chicago we had 10 inches of snow. The folks who drove sat in
> traffic jams for 2 to 4 hours. The trains ran on time, like usual, and
> the people who rode trains weren't driving cars and making the situation
> worse.
Well I told you in my message, but since you apparently are incapable of
understanding what you read, let me try one more time even though it will
probably do no good.
There is a limited amount of transportation dollars available. Money that
you spend on transit is not available to spend on roads to fix bottle necks
and to increase road capacity. That leads to increased congestion with
increased fuel consumption. This occurs when the economy is improving and
additional people are moving to the area because they have a new job in the
area.
If the congestion increases your trip time by 20%, the research has measured
about a 20% increase in fuel consumption by the cars in the congestion.
Transit taking most of the transportation dollars is not a theory . In
California we are living the reality where most of the transportation funds
have been spent on transit and we have the resulting increases in
congestion,.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gsidnUbXO7S7Nwbe...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Transit taking most of the transportation dollars is not a theory . In
> California we are living the reality where most of the transportation
funds
> have been spent on transit
Baloney. Any examination of DOT budgets will show that over 90% of
available money is being spent on roads.
>and we have the resulting increases in
> congestion,.
>
Your congestion would be far, far worse without transit.
Ned Carlson
>
> There is a limited amount of transportation dollars available. Money that
> you spend on transit is not available to spend on roads to fix bottle necks
> and to increase road capacity.
Money that's spent on roads isn't available for transit that might
encourage people not to clog freeways with gas-hog Cadillac Escalades
and H1 Hummers.
> Transit taking most of the transportation dollars is not a theory . In
> California
IOW, you live in alternate-reality land which actually has
a state budget (and deficit) that exceeds the federal budget of the
Republic of Mexico... a country which has, among other things, a
thriving, extensive, mostly privately owned and profitable
public transportation system, and a privately financed tollway system,
instead of the huge money drain of constantly trying to widen freeways and
subsidize transit to keep the roads from being jammed out the wazoo.
Which is the better fiscally conservative governmental model?
Jack May
"Ned Carlson" <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:41:10 -0800, Jack May wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There is a limited amount of transportation dollars available. Money
>> that
>> you spend on transit is not available to spend on roads to fix bottle
>> necks
>> and to increase road capacity.
>
> Money that's spent on roads isn't available for transit that might
> encourage people not to clog freeways with gas-hog Cadillac Escalades
> and H1 Hummers.
Nonsense. People are only going to use transit if it gets them door to door
as fast or faster than a car. Your little childish reversal word play is
unrelated to what it would take to make transit work. It is certainly not a
lack of money for transit since the majority of the transportation dollars
in the major cities is for transit that is failing badly.
> IOW, you live in alternate-reality land which actually has
> a state budget (and deficit) that exceeds the federal budget of the
> Republic of Mexico... a country which has, among other things, a
> thriving, extensive, mostly privately owned and profitable
> public transportation system, and a privately financed tollway system,
> instead of the huge money drain of constantly trying to widen freeways and
> subsidize transit to keep the roads from being jammed out the wazoo.
> Which is the better fiscally conservative governmental model?
The reason is that third world countries have low incomes where the time of
commuters is not valuable. The cost of time is low and the cost of a car is
very high for very poor third world commuters. That is the problem with
picking an example with the delusion that it proves something. You have
to think about the reasons, not just present an irrelevant example.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0tydnTTFE_T...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Nonsense. People are only going to use transit if it gets them door to
door
> as fast or faster than a car.
That may be YOUR only criteria, but other people have other criteria. The
fact is that a majority of people who use TriMet also have a car -- yet they
choose to ride TriMet --- and you'll hear tons of criticisms around here
about how slow TriMet (and especially MAX) is.
Nobody
wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:29:42 -0800, Jack May wrote:
>
>> Are you claiming that transit burns no petroleum? Since transit takes most
>> of the transportation dollars in the major metropolitan areas
>
>Huh?
>
>> which leads to
>> increased congestion which leads to increased fuel consumption,
>
>
>Your conclusion. How does getting people out of cars and onto buses &
>trains "increase congestion"? Does each rider get his own bus?
>Today in Chicago we had 10 inches of snow. The folks who drove sat in
>traffic jams for 2 to 4 hours. The trains ran on time, like usual, and
>the people who rode trains weren't driving cars and making the situation
>worse.
>
> canceling
>> transit would increase available funds to reduce congestion which would
>> reduce oil consumption.
>
>I've been to Toronto, where the citizens elected to keep and rehab their
>old streetcar system and build an asskicking subway system, instead of
>bulldozing neighborhoods to build freeways. Guess what powers the
>mass transit & LRV's? WATER. Yes, WATER. That's why they call the
>electricity company "Ontario Hydro". You can see huge threads of
>hydro pylons feeding juice into Toronto.
Ackshually, Ontario Hydro, per se, no longer exists.
The Provincial Crown authority was split up a few years back.
The "Ontario Power Generation" website lists nuclear power as "meeting
more than 40 per cent of Ontario's electricity needs", though if you
look at the OGP Power System Status page, the figure would seem to be
lower. Hydro capacity is the smallest component, albeit by a
relatively minor margin.
http://www.opg.com/ops/map.asp
Ned Carlson
>
> That may be YOUR only criteria, but other people have other criteria. The
> fact is that a majority of people who use TriMet also have a car -- yet they
> choose to ride TriMet --- and you'll hear tons of criticisms around here
> about how slow TriMet (and especially MAX) is.
I don't know about Portland, but in Chicago, a $20 weekly CTA pass is less
than the cost of *parking* if one works downtown. Even if it'd be faster
to drive, it's cheaper and easier to hop on the train.
About 99% of azll people on earth do not live in places like California
where a plethora of cash and land allows for an enormous
freeway system. Obviously, there's lightly populated places like
North Dakota and the Australian outback where population densities
won't support much public transit. (oddly enough, there's quite as few
trains in the Outback) Good luck trying to put the "Jack May" transit
model in places like Hong Kong, the Netherlands or the Bronx.
--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net Chicago,IL USA
12/15/2005 1:41:01 AM
Bill Blomgren
>I don't know about Portland, but in Chicago, a $20 weekly CTA pass is less
>than the cost of *parking* if one works downtown. Even if it'd be faster
>to drive, it's cheaper and easier to hop on the train.
How much of a subsidy per rider does that require at that price point?
Looks like the Charlotte $4 per day (times 5 days) will cost the same thing
for the light rail here. Unfortunately, that also correspond to a subsidy
from the tax payers of as much as $100 per week for that rider. The light
rail serves only about 5% of the population in the city. Is it right to tax
the other 95% so that 5% can get cheap rides to the city center? (Oh.. Let's
not forget that the city center is not where 90% of the jobs are..)
John Charles Wilson
Denver offered to take in NO refugees and would have taken good
care of them but few wanted to go because of the climate. Too bad, they
probably missed out on the chance of a lifetime (I used to live in
Denver and I know they really do help the poor there.)
John Charles Wilson
Public transit works perfectly well in Fargo, thank you. Yes the
service is limited but it's good considering the size of the city....
Martin Edwards
You build more roads, the bottlenecks move elsewhere, and you have the
sea on three sides. You build more roads........Any bets on how long it
takes till you have nothing but roads from the Golden Gate to Monterey?
Martin Edwards
often does not know much about North America outside New York and LA,
which we mostly see on tv and films. I was a little surprised when I
saw the movie "Fargo" that most of the action was in Minnesota and only
the ending in Fargo. Also, though I knew something about the patterns
of settlement, I had not realized that a slight Scandinavian accent
remains in the area.
Jack May
"Ned Carlson" <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote in message
Cost for deciding to use a car vs. transit has been found to be the dollar
cost plus the time cost. Time cost has been found to be half the pay rate
of the person while in the vehicle plus the full payrate for the time
waiting or walking outside the vehicle.
This apparently is true all over the world and the models would apply in
Hong Kong, the Netherlands or the Bronx. Income and the time to travel in a
car vs. transit is different in different transportation systems.
There are reasons why things happen in transportation. Making random
statements about different locations does nothing to explain why people make
choices between transit and cars in different locations. Understanding is
so much more satisfying than not understanding what is happening
And yes I don't use transit because I am not poor so I perceive my time as
valuable which means I will almost always select the mode of transportation
that will get me door to door in the least amount of time.
My usual choice is my motorcycle. I of course also have a car, but the
motorcycle is faster in congested commute traffic plus being legal in the
diamond lane.
Jack May
> Ned Carlson wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:29:20 -0800, Baxter wrote:
>>
> Or, for that matter, in the San Francisco peninsula, where he lives. You
> build more roads, the bottlenecks move elsewhere, and you have the sea on
> three sides.
We still have bottle necks because the budgets for roads have been radically
reduced because of spending nearly 80% of the transportation budget in the
SF Bay area on transit that only a few percent of the people use.
You still seem to be under the delusion that extra capacity can be created
only by building new roads. In the SF Bay area there are major business
roads that can be turned into freeway like roads by building overpasses and
underpasses ever mile or so to allow removal of all the stop lights.
That would be almost like doubling the number of freeway lanes without
building any new roads.
New types of electronics are increasingly being put into cars which will
increase road capacity without building any new roads. Even our brain dead
transportation planning agencies in the Bay Area are even starting to put
more emphasis on adding smart electronics to roads to increase capacity of
our existing roads.
>You build more roads........Any bets on how long it takes till you have
>nothing but roads from the Golden Gate to Monterey?
This of course is one of the most totally ignorant statement that transit
illiterates use all the time and it is not even remotely true.
Martin Edwards
>
>>You build more roads........Any bets on how long it takes till you have
>>nothing but roads from the Golden Gate to Monterey?
>
>
> This of course is one of the most totally ignorant statement that transit
> illiterates use all the time and it is not even remotely true.
>
>
Why is it that carheads feel free to slag off their interlocutors, then
demand apologies when the other side crack a few jokes? Ok, I'm sorry I
alleged that you lived in Bakersfield.
Martin Edwards
>
> My usual choice is my motorcycle. I of course also have a car, but the
> motorcycle is faster in congested commute traffic plus being legal in the
> diamond lane.
>
>
>
Jack May
> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>>You build more roads........Any bets on how long it takes till you have
>>>nothing but roads from the Golden Gate to Monterey?
>>
>>
>> This of course is one of the most totally ignorant statement that transit
>> illiterates use all the time and it is not even remotely true.
>>
>>
> It is a question, and I do not suggest that the answer is next week.
It is nonsense because our building of roads and infrastructure in
Californian had decreased from 20% of the state budget 30 years ago to 1%
now. We are not covering all the ground, we are way behind on keeping up
with growth in California. Exactly the opposite of what you said.
> Why is it that carheads feel free to slag off their interlocutors, then
> demand apologies when the other side crack a few jokes?
If you were joking, I apologize. It is far from obvious that you are joking
.
> Ok, I'm sorry I alleged that you lived in Bakersfield.
I don't care what you said, I just don't live in Bakersfield. I am a high
tech engineering manager. There is no work for guys like me in
Bakersfield. There is a lot of work for guys like me in Silicon Valley.
Like almost everyone, I live in the same area where I work.
Jack May
> Jack May wrote:
>>
>> My usual choice is my motorcycle. I of course also have a car, but the
>> motorcycle is faster in congested commute traffic plus being legal in the
>> diamond lane.
>>
>>
>>
> Get your motor runnin'..............Damn! There I go again.
Yes some days, the bike ride gives me the main push out of bed to get going.
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrndq50ir.ugo...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Jack May schrieb:
>
>
>> Nonsense. People are only going to use transit if it gets them door to
>> door
>> as fast or faster than a car.
>
>
>
> In fact, transit will have an acceptable modal share at door-to-door
> timings up to "car travel x 1.5".
When you say up to, that is a statistical statement. People do not make a
hard decision at the point where the total cost of transit vs. car are
equal. There will be statistical variations. The 1.5 factor then is
meaningless since it just a result of statistical variations between people
> The time used for travel, per day, is about the same, if compared to the
> USA or other first-world countries. On the whole planet, differences in
> time used for traveling, and differences in mobility are quite small.
Yes I know that and have discussed that several times. It is one of my four
primary laws of transportations.
>
> The higher speed of travel in the first world does not save any time, and
> does not increase mobility. Instead, it increases the distance of daily
> travel. The additional distance is used for living in a higher distance
> to places of activity, or for activities located in a higher distance.
The data shows that the hour per day of travel also includes shopping,
visiting, etc. A lot of people apparently use the extra speed to increase
the variety of their life. It is obvious though that increased speed
increases travel per day, but that seems to provide a more diversified life.
An example is tribal person that can not go hardly anywhere because of slow
travel times. When they interview tribal people without faster
transportation, they talk about how monotonous and boring life is to them.
> All in all, there is no factual basis for the assumption, that time is
> valued lower in the third world.
The factual basis is the formula for the cost of travel being proportional
to income. The consequence of that equation is obviously that poor people
put less value on their time than higher income people.
Martin Edwards
> "Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dnujr8$rqr$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>
>>>>You build more roads........Any bets on how long it takes till you have
>>>>nothing but roads from the Golden Gate to Monterey?
>>>
>>>
>>>This of course is one of the most totally ignorant statement that transit
>>>illiterates use all the time and it is not even remotely true.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It is a question, and I do not suggest that the answer is next week.
>
>
> It is nonsense because our building of roads and infrastructure in
> Californian had decreased from 20% of the state budget 30 years ago to 1%
> now. We are not covering all the ground, we are way behind on keeping up
> with growth in California. Exactly the opposite of what you said.
No matter what proportion of the state budget is being spent the special
conditions I noted apply to the Peninsula. In the end you'll have
nothing but roads and bridges, and you know what lives under bridges.
John Charles Wilson
Jack May wrote:
> "Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
> news:slrndq50ir.ugo...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
> >
> > Jack May schrieb:
> >
> >
> >> Nonsense. People are only going to use transit if it gets them door to
> >> door
> >> as fast or faster than a car.
> >
> >
> > Don't shout "nonsense" too loud without gaining some knowledge first.
> >
> > In fact, transit will have an acceptable modal share at door-to-door
> > timings up to "car travel x 1.5".
>
> When you say up to, that is a statistical statement. People do not make a
> hard decision at the point where the total cost of transit vs. car are
> equal. There will be statistical variations. The 1.5 factor then is
> meaningless since it just a result of statistical variations between people
>
The 1.5 figure is not made meaningless by the fact that there are
statistical variations between people. Your statement that people value
their in-vehicle time at half their hourly payrate and their waiting
time at their full hourly payrate is subject to the same statistical
variations. In addition that theory breaks down when talking about
people on welfare who do not work. Do you base hourly pay on a 168 hour
a week basis or a theorized 40-hour work week? Or zero since their
income is unrelated to what they do with their time? How about retired
people? Or teenagers who may have income but live with their parents
and therefore all their income is disposable? I am not trying to
discredit your theory, in fact I'm doing the opposite, by showing that
exceptions like these *don't* destroy the basic statistical average or
the facts derived thereof.
> > The time used for travel, per day, is about the same, if compared to the
> > USA or other first-world countries. On the whole planet, differences in
> > time used for traveling, and differences in mobility are quite small.
>
> Yes I know that and have discussed that several times. It is one of my four
> primary laws of transportations.
> >
> > The higher speed of travel in the first world does not save any time, and
> > does not increase mobility. Instead, it increases the distance of daily
> > travel. The additional distance is used for living in a higher distance
> > to places of activity, or for activities located in a higher distance.
>
> The data shows that the hour per day of travel also includes shopping,
> visiting, etc. A lot of people apparently use the extra speed to increase
> the variety of their life. It is obvious though that increased speed
> increases travel per day, but that seems to provide a more diversified life.
>
> An example is tribal person that can not go hardly anywhere because of slow
> travel times. When they interview tribal people without faster
> transportation, they talk about how monotonous and boring life is to them.
>
> > All in all, there is no factual basis for the assumption, that time is
> > valued lower in the third world.
>
> The factual basis is the formula for the cost of travel being proportional
> to income. The consequence of that equation is obviously that poor people
> put less value on their time than higher income people.
I know it probably works out the same, but I think it's more
accurate to say poor people put *more value on their money* than higher
income people. We all get 24 hours a day, 168 hours a week. A wasted
hour is just as much a waste to a poor person as a rich one. But a
person with less dollars values each and every one of them more than a
person with plenty of them. When spending more on transportation might
mean being homeless or starving, losing time on a commute pales in
comparison....
John Charles Wilson
In fact, the Fargo transit website is at http://www.matbus.com
and buses there run
6:15 am to 10:11 pm Mon.-Fri. and 7:15 am to 10:11 pm Sat. The city has
a population of about 90,000. Moorhead has about 30,000 and West Fargo
has about 10,000.
Jack May
"John Charles Wilson" <pers...@eunuchatanorgy.com> wrote in message
news:1134850082....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The 1.5 figure is not made meaningless by the fact that there are
> statistical variations between people. Your statement that people value
> their in-vehicle time at half their hourly payrate and their waiting
> time at their full hourly payrate is subject to the same statistical
> variations.
It is meaningless in the statistial sense that it is probably not
statistically significant.
>In addition that theory breaks down when talking about
> people on welfare who do not work. Do you base hourly pay on a 168 hour
> a week basis or a theorized 40-hour work week? Or zero since their
> income is unrelated to what they do with their time? How about retired
> people? Or teenagers who may have income but live with their parents
> and therefore all their income is disposable? I am not trying to
> discredit your theory, in fact I'm doing the opposite, by showing that
> exceptions like these *don't* destroy the basic statistical average or
> the facts derived thereof.
It is not my theory, but the result of good research by others. Your
examples assume that because people are not working that they have no income
to live on and that there is nothing else competing for their time.
Certainly the conditions you use complicate the meaning of what is meant by
the value of time for those people. I assume though that most people have
some gut level feel for how they value their time. Retired people often
talk about how busy their life is after retirement indicating they must
decide how much time they can spend on different activities. Young people
certainly have lots of demands on their time from school and other
activities.
Retired and young people would probably need a different measure of their
time than income as you indicate. I don't know what that measure would be
or if any research has been done on the subject.
> accurate to say poor people put *more value on their money* than higher
> income people. We all get 24 hours a day, 168 hours a week. A wasted
> hour is just as much a waste to a poor person as a rich one. But a
> person with less dollars values each and every one of them more than a
> person with plenty of them. When spending more on transportation might
> mean being homeless or starving, losing time on a commute pales in
> comparison....
I am just repeating what the research found on how people decide to use a
car vs. using transit. The research results seem to be clear that richer
people put a higher value on their time than poor people. A hour wasted is
not the same to everyone which is obvious when you live among upper middle
class income people like I do.
The decision is more along the lines of how much could I have accomplished
if I had not wasted that hour.
I tend to hire people to work on my house or car for example because my time
is too valuable to waste on car repairs and home maintenance. It is more
valuable to me to be learning more about a subject that would help me do
better at work or manage my stock market investments. BTW, for people that
have large demands on their time, rest and exercise time is very valuable
because it allows us to keep going at a fast pace.
Really rich people tend to spend lots of money to reduce the waste of time.
Steve Jobs for example commutes between Apple and Pixar with a helicopter.
A lot of rich people use private jets to save time. There is even
development going on to provide supersonic private jets to the very rich to
save time.
John Charles Wilson
Jack May wrote:
> "John Charles Wilson" <pers...@eunuchatanorgy.com> wrote in message
> news:1134850082....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The 1.5 figure is not made meaningless by the fact that there are
> > statistical variations between people. Your statement that people value
> > their in-vehicle time at half their hourly payrate and their waiting
> > time at their full hourly payrate is subject to the same statistical
> > variations.
>
> It is meaningless in the statistial sense that it is probably not
> statistically significant.
>
> >In addition that theory breaks down when talking about
> > people on welfare who do not work. Do you base hourly pay on a 168 hour
> > a week basis or a theorized 40-hour work week? Or zero since their
> > income is unrelated to what they do with their time? How about retired
> > people? Or teenagers who may have income but live with their parents
> > and therefore all their income is disposable? I am not trying to
> > discredit your theory, in fact I'm doing the opposite, by showing that
> > exceptions like these *don't* destroy the basic statistical average or
> > the facts derived thereof.
>
> It is not my theory, but the result of good research by others. Your
> examples assume that because people are not working that they have no income
> to live on and that there is nothing else competing for their time.
>
By "your theory", I meant that you were the one promoting it in
your post, not that you originated it. You are right that I should find
a better way to say what I mean. Any suggestions (seriously)? As to my
examples, I don't assume anything of the sort you've implied. I'm
merely showing that the income relationship to the value of time breaks
down in certain circumstances. I in fact agree with you and don't
understand why we are arguing....
> Certainly the conditions you use complicate the meaning of what is meant by
> the value of time for those people. I assume though that most people have
> some gut level feel for how they value their time. Retired people often
> talk about how busy their life is after retirement indicating they must
> decide how much time they can spend on different activities. Young people
> certainly have lots of demands on their time from school and other
> activities.
>
> Retired and young people would probably need a different measure of their
> time than income as you indicate. I don't know what that measure would be
> or if any research has been done on the subject.
That was the point I was trying to make.
OK, I concede that you are right on this point at the upper levels
of income. I still think that at least between zero income and whatever
the average is, time value is constant and money value goes down with
increase of supply. However, I can see why that wouldn't hold true
above a middle-class income level.
Jack May
> OK, I concede that you are right on this point at the upper levels
> of income. I still think that at least between zero income and whatever
> the average is, time value is constant and money value goes down with
> increase of supply. However, I can see why that wouldn't hold true
> above a middle-class income level.
But what we have is a simple equation that was developed using real data.
To counter the equation you would have to show that the curve fit of your
theory is better than the curve fit of the research that developed the cost
of time and dollars that apparently is good at predicting real behavior.
I have not tried to find the original paper and do an analysis because the
person reported the equation as being a good tool. The person using the
tool is apparently an expert on transportation modeling. His modeling in no
way presents anything that supports your theory. The model clearly says
that higher income people put the equivalent of a higher dollar figure on
their per unit time than poor put on their time.
My tendency is to believe the expert instead of your theory which is
essentially a guess with nothing supporting that theory. Maybe if I had
lots of free time I might explore the question more, but spare time is very
precious for me since I have so little.
John Charles Wilson
Actually I don't disagree with you or the expert. The value of
money going up and the value of time going down create the same
differences in ratio so the only difference between our theories is one
of semantics. You are right that Occam's Razor would favour the
expert's theory because it gives the same results in a simpler way. I
also understand that professional planners only care about results (in
this case, the time/money ratio) and not the reasons behind them
(whether the value of money goes down or the value of time goes up with
increased income). However, I'm not a professional transit planner or
other impersonal bureaucrat. I am a member of the transit-using public
so I see things from the human perspective. It's like you saying 9 is
3x3 and me saying it's 4+5. Or the fact that the same chemical can be
called methamphetamine or desoxyephedrine dpending on your perspective.
(My perspective is: don't use it.)
Andre Darmanin
exception of the way the Bush administration has handled the TEA21 over the
last couple years.
In Ontario it's a struggle. Although we have a great economy, expectations
are maybe a little too high. Some say new public transportation networkds
should go the way of PPPs. York Region Transit has done it with their Viva
network, their BRT network.
Speaking of BRTs, I was noticing how people are against LRTs. Viva is
looking to go that way in 10-15 years. From speaking with someone in the
transportation policy side, they believe dedicated ROWs or busways like that
in Ottawa are much faster and maybe more safer than LRTs.
Toronto is stuck in the heavy rail world with the potential expansion of the
Spadina line to York University and connection with VIVA in Vaughan. Also
debate on replacing a 20 yr old LRT line with either a BRT or expansion of
the subway to Scarborough, which is an underserved part of Toronto.
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrndp8cf9.utf...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Jack May schrieb:
>
>
> > The main reason that light rail fails in the US is that it far slower
than
> > cars to get most places.
>
> Then there is something utterly wrong. As soon as such system no longer
> shares the streets, but has its own ROW, light rail is faster than the
> car, in an urban environment.
> After that, the million dollar question is, wether it is as fast as the
> car from door to door, for enough citizens. This needs well-planned
> station locations, very good pedestrian access to these stations, and
> very fast interaction with buses.
>
> To avoid misunderstanding: If I write "very fast", I mean very fast. This
> here
> http://zierke.com/shasta_route/picpages/rickling-3-o.html
> qualifies.
>
> Of course, buses and rail have to share the same ticket, so that the user
> does not waste time for that.
>
>
>
> > Since people place a high value on their time in
> > the US (and other places), people generally tell you in the US that they
can
> > not afford to waste the time it takes to travel on transit. When you
talk
> > to people about using transit, about the only reason they give for not
using
> > transit is that transit is far too slow to use.
>
> This is common user behaviour, and has nothing to do with "USA or
> somewhere else". The function looks like this:
> http://zierke.com/shasta_route/pics/modal-split-funktion.png
>
> Public transport can shift the curve a little bit, with cleanliness of
> vehicles, reliability etc. pp. into this or that direction.
>
>
> > In the US, it is mainly the poor that use transit.
>
> In Germany, it is mainly the kids. For commuting to education, public
> transport accounts for more than 30% of the trips. Of course, we don't
> run separate school bus systems, with the exception of areas with bad
> transit.
>
> I assume that your "poor"s are a poorly chosen category. The common
> traffic planning term is "captive riders", which describes those without
> access to a car. It does not matter a lot, wether they can't ride for
> financial or other reasons.
>
> In simple bus-based transit systems, you'll normally count 95 - 98%
> captive riders. If rail transit is designed as fast backbone of the
> transit system, percentage of captive riders in light rail is usually
> 55-65%.
>
> The number of captive riders declines, which makes slow transit systems
> unsustainable. This is common knowledge since at least 20 years, and was
> the basis for change of concept, which happened around 1990. Light rail
> systems as fast backbones are an important element of that change.
>
>
> > It is somewhere around 5 million people in the SF Bay area that commute
each
> > day. The cost of a car is not considered to be a major cost anywhere
in
> > the US,
>
> Can you please use a less foggy statement than "considered"? What
> percentage of the household income is used for it? 10%?
>
>
> > The cost of operating a
> > car and parking in the US tends to be low compared to Europe.
>
> Numbers, please.
> Of course, your fuel is cheaper, but you need about 2.5 times of it.
> 2 times for the yearly mileage, which is mostly the price for the
> US-style suburb settlement structure, and the 0.5 as your gas guzzler
> tax.
>
>
> > Old people in the US look at giving up driving as a sign of loss of
> > independence. Giving up driving is an extremely emotional , degrading
event
> > for the elderly in the US.
>
> I would look at it the same way, if getting old in the USA. Without a
> usable public transport system, this view is completely right.
>
>
> > Level boarding is part of the problem, but the main problem in the US is
the
> > long distance walk (several miles typically) to get to a transit
station.
> > That makes transit for the elderly and impaired a useless option.
>
> If several miles is typical, it is a useless option not just for the
> elderly and impaired.
>
>
> > Long total door to door commute time is the primary and about the only
> > reason that people refuse to use rail in the US.
>
> Short total door to door time is the primary and about the only reason
> for using rail transit. The best exemple is still the Big Surprise in
> Munich, when hundredthousands switched from car to rail in the early 70s.
> Since those days, the elements of success can be considered common
> knowledge in traffic planning.
>
>
> > People don't really think about capital cost in selecting their mode of
> > transportation.
>
> At least in Germany, rail transit is also cheaper than the variable costs
> of a car, if you buy season tickets.
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
> --
>
> Tomorrow's news:
>
> George W. Bush appoints Mike Brown as Amtrak president.
Jack May
"Andre Darmanin" <andred...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0OIrf.240$l87....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> In Ontario it's a struggle. Although we have a great economy,
> expectations
> are maybe a little too high. Some say new public transportation networkds
> should go the way of PPPs. York Region Transit has done it with their
> Viva
> network, their BRT network.
I think the better description is that in most cities transit is the
equivalent of trying to bring back 8 track tapes in an iPod world.
Of course only Governments would be stupid enough to spend billions to try
to bring back something like an 8 track tape that people have little desire
to ever use.
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>
> 1) Please tell me about one busway on the planet, just one, which is as
> fast as the common examples for well-implemented LRT systems. (Rule of
> thumb: Their average speed is about as high as BART's.)
Sound like a cherry picking argument to me. Pick the exteme example and
claim every system can do as well
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PbidnTU-Yqpd7TLe...@comcast.com...
A better comparison would be elevators in a tall building. Of course
everybody would love to have their own, private elevator ...
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrndqvcn2.13k...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Andre Darmanin schrieb:
>
>
> > It's good to see that the US takes public transit seriously,
>
> Did I miss a rewrite of the regulations?
>
>
> > Speaking of BRTs, I was noticing how people are against LRTs. Viva is
> > looking to go that way in 10-15 years. From speaking with someone in
the
> > transportation policy side, they believe dedicated ROWs or busways like
that
> > in Ottawa are much faster and maybe more safer than LRTs.
>
> 1) Please tell me about one busway on the planet, just one, which is as
> fast as the common examples for well-implemented LRT systems. (Rule of
> thumb: Their average speed is about as high as BART's.)
>
> 2) Find data to support the "safety" claim. Common result for LRT systems
> is "10 times safer than car".
>
Further - nearly everyplace that has instituted BRT has done it with the
goal of eventually converting to LRT - or has actually already converted to
LRT. BRT fills a niche market - halfway between regular bus service and
LRT. Not worth the bother for most locations.
Krzysztof Zietara
>
> Lots of examples like this. We also have those type 143 locos in Germany,
> more than 600 of them, which we inherited from the GDR. Rather new locos
> in old technology (still DC drive and all that), reliable, but not
> really up to the task of modern rail transit. It will be necessary to
> find tasks for them for the next 20 years nonetheless.
DC? I wouldn't be surprised if they'll eventually find a home here, now
that the certifying requirements are relaxed enough to allow more
sensible way of getting used locos from abroad than reimporting already
certified types from all around the world.
> While it is the advantage of rail transit, that the equipment lives 30 or
> 40 years, it's also a serious disadvantage, if wrong decisions have been
> made.
*cough* Lugansk M62 a.k.a. Taigatrommel *cough*
Tarhimdugurth
--
----[Krzysztof Ziętara]----------------[JID: tarhim at hell dot pl]------
George Orwell was an optimist.
Krzysztof Zietara
>
> Krzysztof Zietara schrieb:
>
>
>> DC?
>
> DC traction motors.
Yes, I know, the question mark was pretty much rethorical. It wasn't
clear from context, sorry.
> If rail transit is loco hauled, this needs at least high power and very
> good slip control. While the 5000 hp in a 90 ton GDR box aren't great,
> the power is still acceptable, but the 1970s traction technology does not
> provide the controllability for modern transit.
Hey, 1970s is *advanced*. Bulk of locos here is built with late 1950s
technology...
Tarhimdugurth
--
----[Krzysztof Ziętara]--------------------------------------------------
LILO follows an outdated, broken concept and should once and for all
be layed to rest, preferably with a stake through it's heart.
-- Dave Cinege, linux-kernel mailing list
Clark Morris
<andred...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Speaking of BRTs, I was noticing how people are against LRTs. Viva is
>looking to go that way in 10-15 years. From speaking with someone in the
>transportation policy side, they believe dedicated ROWs or busways like that
>in Ottawa are much faster and maybe more safer than LRTs.
The opposition to LRT will probably extend to BRT. So far as safety
is concerned, if the right of way isn't completely exclusive, people
tend to crash their cars into both Light Rail Vehicles and Buses. The
South Miami Busway on the side of US 1 is a joke because the buses
have to stop for almost every crossroad (5 - 16 blocks apart) and seem
to move slower than the cars on US 1. The Busways are unsignaled and
depend on line of sight, even at stations where the road widens to
allow express buses to pass locals. Most of the exclusive right of
way busways (Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Miami, etc. are two lane roads so
they are vulnerable to head on collisions in slippery conditions. I
live in Nova Scotia where there is a major lobby group to make one of
the two line limited access roads a 4 lane divided highway. Most
exclusive right of way LRT lines are signaled and some may even have
automatic train stop.
>
>Toronto is stuck in the heavy rail world with the potential expansion of the
>Spadina line to York University and connection with VIVA in Vaughan. Also
>debate on replacing a 20 yr old LRT line with either a BRT or expansion of
>the subway to Scarborough, which is an underserved part of Toronto.
>
The Scarborough line is an automated line which in one sense combined
the lower capacity of LRT with the rigidity of a standard subway. TTC
wanted standard LRT or subway but was overruled by the province.
Clearances on some curves and at stations make any solution
interesting.
Jon Bell
Clark Morris <cfm...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>The opposition to LRT will probably extend to BRT. So far as safety
>is concerned, if the right of way isn't completely exclusive, people
>tend to crash their cars into both Light Rail Vehicles and Buses.
Just a couple of days ago, while waiting for a connecting flight at
O'Hare, I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about the new busway in
LA's San Fernando Valley, that connects to the Red Line. There have been
many collisions between motorists and buses at intersections along the
busway's private right of way. There are traffic signals, but they can't
stop motorists who ignore red lights.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Krzysztof Zietara
>
>> Hey, 1970s is *advanced*. Bulk of locos here is built with late 1950s
>> technology...
>
Not anymore, it seems. A little hard to tell right now, but I think that
lowest point of the curve was reached somewhere in 2003 or 2004. Freight
rail tonne-kilometers and modal share is definitively on the rise now,
and passenger-rail has at least lower rate of escaping passengers.
Indeed, when you compare today's passenger service with that of 2000 it
is better in all areas but most important one, that is number of
connections...
Tarhimdugurth
--
----[Krzysztof Ziętara]----------------[0.52336448598131 sjRRW]----------
...and on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.
Sancho Panza
"Jon Bell" <jtb...@presby.edu> wrote in message
news:dp3jgd$eed$1...@jtbell.presby.edu...
> In article <6ib5r11il4hmabi0m...@4ax.com>,
> Clark Morris <cfm...@istar.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The opposition to LRT will probably extend to BRT. So far as safety
> >is concerned, if the right of way isn't completely exclusive, people
> >tend to crash their cars into both Light Rail Vehicles and Buses.
>
> Just a couple of days ago, while waiting for a connecting flight at
> O'Hare, I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about the new busway in
> LA's San Fernando Valley, that connects to the Red Line. There have been
> many collisions between motorists and buses at intersections along the
> busway's private right of way. There are traffic signals, but they can't
> stop motorists who ignore red lights.
Not to mention the fact that it parallels the commuter rail just three
blocks away.
Aidan Stanger
> Andre Darmanin schrieb:
>
>
> > It's good to see that the US takes public transit seriously,
>
> Did I miss a rewrite of the regulations?
>
>
> > Speaking of BRTs, I was noticing how people are against LRTs. Viva is
> > looking to go that way in 10-15 years. From speaking with someone in the
> > transportation policy side, they believe dedicated ROWs or busways like that
> > in Ottawa are much faster and maybe more safer than LRTs.
>
> 1) Please tell me about one busway on the planet, just one, which is as
> fast as the common examples for well-implemented LRT systems. (Rule of
> thumb: Their average speed is about as high as BART's.)
>
How about the Adelaide O-bahn? Despite the disadvantage of having to
share the roads with normal traffic between the end of the tracks and
the City, the long sections of 100km/h running should be enough to make
it fit those criteria.
> 2) Find data to support the "safety" claim. Common result for LRT systems
> is "10 times safer than car".
>
And is that "safety" claim per kilometre or per minute? ISTR buses do
very well on the latter...
--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk
Greg Sutherland
> Aidan Stanger schrieb:
>
>
>
>>How about the Adelaide O-bahn? Despite the disadvantage of having to
>>share the roads with normal traffic between the end of the tracks and
>>the City, the long sections of 100km/h running should be enough to make
>>it fit those criteria.
>
>
There are no stops on the O-bahn track itself.
Greg
Aidan Stanger
> Aidan Stanger schrieb:
>
>
> > How about the Adelaide O-bahn? Despite the disadvantage of having to
> > share the roads with normal traffic between the end of the tracks and
> > the City, the long sections of 100km/h running should be enough to make
> > it fit those criteria.
>
> Distance, time, number of stops?
>
14km of track with 2 intermedieate stops (Klemzig and Paradise) plus one
on the outer end (Tea Tree Plaza).
Buses run on street in the City, and the 14km long track starts about 3km
from there. All buses continue on street from either Paradise or TTP.
City to Tea Tree Plaza takes about 20 minutes (depending on time of day
and which City stop you go from). Klemzig to Tea Tree Plaza (about 10km)
takes 9 minutes.
Aidan Stanger
> Aidan Stanger schrieb:
>
>
> > 14km of track with 2 intermedieate stops (Klemzig and Paradise) plus one
> > on the outer end (Tea Tree Plaza).
> >
> > Buses run on street in the City, and the 14km long track starts about 3km
> > from there. All buses continue on street from either Paradise or TTP.
> >
> > City to Tea Tree Plaza takes about 20 minutes (depending on time of day
> > and which City stop you go from). Klemzig to Tea Tree Plaza (about 10km)
> > takes 9 minutes.
>
>
> Originating with street running in the city, then moving over to a fast
> bus lane with almost no stops. Hmmh...
Almost, but it's not a lane, it's a specially built concrete track
(except at the stations where the buses go onto paving bricks, enabling
them to overtake). The O-bahn buses do also use bus lanes, on some of
the roads between the City and the tracks, and in the outer suburbs.
http://www.railpage.org.au/tram/obahn.html
http://community.webshots.com/photo/339397977/339397977uqUbje
http://community.webshots.com/photo/263806584/263806584jpFZqo
There's loads of info about it - just google "O-bahn"
Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_O-Bahn is out of date -
there are no current plans to extend it.
> I can't offer exactly the same, but at least "originating with street
> running in the city, moving over to fast track with frequent stops". Plus
> there are additional trams, which only stop at the most important points.
[URLs snipped]
How frequently do they run?
Greg Sutherland
> Aidan Stanger schrieb:
>
>
>
>>http://community.webshots.com/photo/339397977/339397977uqUbje
>>http://community.webshots.com/photo/263806584/263806584jpFZqo
>>
>>There's loads of info about it - just google "O-bahn"
>>Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_O-Bahn is out of date -
>>there are no current plans to extend it.
>
>
>
> major part went out of operation, for too costly problems, in 1995. The
> system in Mannheim was closed last year.
>
> I was at university, when the Essen "Spurbus" system was established.
> Back then, our explanation for its creation was the political influence
> of Daimler-Benz. This explanation doesn't work very well for Australia,
> though.
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
The Adelaide Obahn was also a political decision. The incumbent Labor
government (democratic??) was planning a light rail system. The
opposition Liberals (conservative??) went to the election with an anti
light rail policy. They won, not because of their transport policy, but
because the previous government had reached its use-by date.
That's how Adelaide got the Obahn. Don't hold your breath waiting for
any extensions to be built.
Greg
Aidan Stanger
> Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> > Aidan Stanger schrieb:
> >
> >
> >
> >>http://www.railpage.org.au/tram/obahn.html
> >>http://community.webshots.com/photo/339397977/339397977uqUbje
> >>http://community.webshots.com/photo/263806584/263806584jpFZqo
> >>
> >>There's loads of info about it - just google "O-bahn"
> >>Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_O-Bahn is out of date -
> >>there are no current plans to extend it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, we've had similar 1980s systems in Essen and Mannheim. In Essen, a
> > major part went out of operation, for too costly problems, in 1995. The
> > system in Mannheim was closed last year.
> >
I thought it was the last part of the Essen system that closed last
year. I was told the Adelaide O-bahn was the only one remaining in the
world - which also proved to be wrong, as some of the UK guided busways
are also O-bahns.
> > I was at university, when the Essen "Spurbus" system was established.
> > Back then, our explanation for its creation was the political influence
> > of Daimler-Benz. This explanation doesn't work very well for Australia,
> > though.
> >
> >
> The Adelaide Obahn was also a political decision. The incumbent Labor
> government (democratic??) was planning a light rail system. The
> opposition Liberals (conservative??) went to the election with an anti
> light rail policy. They won, not because of their transport policy, but
> because the previous government had reached its use-by date.
>
> That's how Adelaide got the Obahn. Don't hold your breath waiting for
> any extensions to be built.
>
But the interesting thing is they actually got it right! By having long
stretches of fast running, they actually got the buses to link the City
with large tracts of sprawl far better than any light rail system could.
It's not perfect of course - it would be much better if the tracks went
right to the City, and not signalling the track was a mistake (one that
will be rectified eventually, though they're not in any great hurry to
do so). But it's still a lot more successful that the British systems
which are slow, have too many stops, and have stops on the track
(preventing the buses from overtaking).
Greg Sutherland
Please explain!
Greg
John Mara
>
> But the interesting thing is they actually got it right! By having long
> stretches of fast running, they actually got the buses to link the City
> with large tracts of sprawl far better than any light rail system could.
> It's not perfect of course - it would be much better if the tracks went
> right to the City, and not signalling the track was a mistake (one that
> will be rectified eventually, though they're not in any great hurry to
> do so). But it's still a lot more successful that the British systems
> which are slow, have too many stops, and have stops on the track
> (preventing the buses from overtaking).
>
Is there any advantage over an ordinary busway? I could see an
advantage if there were tunnels or elevated sections which could be much
narrower with guided buses. But, from the pictures, it looks like there
would have been plenty of room to build a two lane road with shoulders.
There doesn't seem to be a speed advantage. Regular buses can go 100
Km/h on a regular road.
John Mara
Aidan Stanger
> Aidan Stanger schrieb:
>
>
> > But the interesting thing is they actually got it right! By having long
> > stretches of fast running, they actually got the buses to link the City
> > with large tracts of sprawl far better than any light rail system could.
>
> Pardon - they did it at more than 5 times the cost, in comparison to the
> AVG system around Karlsruhe, and Karlsruhe has these trams to the West, to
> the East, to the North, to the South ... For the cost of this one busway,
> they could build a whole network to suburbia.
>
Karlsruhe had the benefit of being able to use existing lines. Adelaide
didn't - it had to build from scratch over some quite difficult ground
including several river bridges.
> And since the locals were clever in the 60s, they still have their old
> inner-city tram network, which is now properly improved with preemption.
> This means: In rush hour, the trams still run on time.
>
Yes, in the 60s Adelaide was planning to build freeways everywhere.
Fortunately there was enough public opposition to prevent that from
happenning. We're only now reextending our tram line through the City.
>
> > But it's still a lot more successful that the British systems
> > which are slow, have too many stops, and have stops on the track
> > (preventing the buses from overtaking).
>
> Without doubt, it is more successful than the systems over here, but I'm
> not sure that it is more valuable. The main value of the attempt in Essen
> has been, that no busways have been built thereafter in Germany, while
> successful systems like that of the AVG are copied by other operators.
>
> In these years, Kassel gets its "Regiotram" network, which is mostly a copy
> of the Karlsruhe system. There is no other possiblity to create such
> network with limited money.
O-bahns are a specialist mode, and I'm not surprised that most places
are going for light rail instead - I'd favour light rail if there were
already rail infrastructure in place or if the development was high
density (or even expected to be high density in the near future) or
linear. Light rail has great advantages in many situations, and I look
forward to seeing more of it here in Adelaide, but an O-bahn was the
best choice to serve the NorthEast suburbs.