Posted on 12/20/2001 8:42:55 AM PST by Publius
The Interstate II proposal looks like something that would want to alleviate the problem not off commuting, but of short hop travels. The problem is getting these stations into the downtowns of major metro areas. A simple subway in SF to the Transbay Terminal would double the budget of any project like this due to the cost of real estate. I'm sure it would have similar effects in other metro areas. The grade separations would also create problems as city centers are already broken up by the city, and as we learned when we built the interstate highways, the people who were displaced because of construction were the people who literally had no place to go.
For something like this be effective, it needs to be done in a few prime corridors to prove it can be successful. For instance a highspeed line connecting Vegas and LA. Once people see it can work, people will use it. Building a nationwide system that is unproven in American terms would truly be a boondoogle.
I realize I'll never persuade you, but I believe the balance of our history shows that public spending can--on occasion--spur innovation and growth.
No one is suggesting shutting down the trains. But if you are getting less than 9 riders per bus and some busses are running EMPTY all day, where is the demand for MORE public transportation? Answer... THERE ISNT ANY!
You don't know anything about Raleigh, but I do, and I will tell you without hesitation, any train system here is going to be a boondoggle.
One of their proposals is to also ad a train to go from Raleigh to Wilmington (the beach). Going to cost MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars, going to take an hour LONGER than by car and, using their own numbers, average 13 riders a day! 13! Boy, where do i hand over my money for that great investment.
The situation here is not good for rail of any kind. There are NO large buildings, NO large condos, NO large appartments, NO density, NO localized anything or centrally located anything. And they dont even want it to go to the airport!
Lets use my neighbor as an example. He lives in Apex NC. He works for Cisco in RTP. Probably 20 miles door to door. Ok, nearest planned train station is 10 miles from our house in the WRONG direction. So, he drives 10 miles to the station. Leaves his car and gets on the train. Train goes approx 30 miles and drops him off at Cisco. Now is where the fun starts. Ciscos campus is over 10,000 acres! 10,000! Now, once he gets off the train how does he get to his office? does the city provide transportation to his office? Or does Cisco provide it, increasing the cost of business and reducing an already decimated Cisco workforce in the area?
Or how about IBM with over 20,000 acres!
You might ask, well, those are extreme cases. But they arent. Especially since the whole purpose of the rail system being planned is to get people into RTP where Cisco and IBM are. Along with 100's of other companies. And each one is like their own little city. Its not like in NYC where you walk out of your home and 2 blocks to the train, take the train and get off and have 2 blocks to work. Not like that around here. It is a boondoggle and they are going to rob us blind.
Its going to be like The Simpsons "monorail" episode.
I forgot to comment on this part. There is no BIG city to get people from the burbs into. While Raleigh is the "big city" compared to the suburbs, most poeple who live in the suburbs do not work in raleigh, and I would venture to say that most people who live in raleigh dont even work in raleigh. This place is no good for rail but the lefty enviro wackos in the area want it and they are in power so it seems they are gonna rob us blind. While we will be able to say "we told you so" they will never admit their failure.
All right, 'fess up! How much rail stock do you own, Thurston?
I live in a "bedroom community" about 30 miles from Indianapolis. Of the 40,000 or so people who live here, it's estimated that about 10% of them work in Indianapolis and probably most of them drive to work alone or with one other person.
So do we need light rail? No, we don't need it, but what makes more sense -- 3000 automobiles or, say, 50 train cars? Anyone who drives that route on a daily basis -- including my wife -- would tell you in the most graphic terms imaginable just how badly some alternative is needed.
Think of 3 concentric circles of highway funding.
The first concentric circle is the gas tax. Here in Washington, the 18th Amendment to the state constitution requires that it be spent on roads. In 1967, the state supreme court added ferries to the mix because state ferries carry numbered state highways over large bodies of water, like Puget Sound. (It's like a moving bridge.) But that's it. Not a penny for bike paths, the state rail program, port improvements or transit support. It's 100% for highways and ferries.
The second concentric circle consists of other car-related taxes, like the hated Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET). These can be used for anything in the Washington State Department of Transportation's budget, including the forbidden items I mentioned above. But about 95% goes for highways.
The third concentric circle is the general fund, which in Washington consists of sales taxes, business & occupation taxes, and the state cut of property taxes. This may be used for anything anywhere in the state's overall budget, but about 90% of the transportation component goes to highways.
When the voters cut the hated MVET down to a flat $30 per vehicle, the second concentric circle contracted. To continue building highways -- we're 20 years behind schedule -- we either need to increase the first (gas tax) or third (general fund) concentric circles. Realizing that the "road gang" was going to attempt a grab of the general fund, the teacher's union successfully passed an initiative via the voters that permits them to insert a vacuum hose of a fixed diameter into the general fund for perpetuity. So now we're fighting over the first concentric circle.
In some states and at the federal level, the first concentric circle is not highways-only, but more generally related to transportation needs. But the funding scheme is pretty much the same everywhere.
Telecommuting could save dozens of hours wasted in commuting, while saving wear and tear on the transportation infrastructure. It's time the boss be persuaded (perhaps financially, with considerable tax breaks) to see things in a new light.
Not my electricity, nor the raw corn syrup in my pepsi, nor the steak in my bicycle, nor the coal used to process it, nor everything else hauled by rail. Only most final products get to stores by truck but if most of the steps in the process were on rail, your point becomes kind of meaningless doesn't it.
Bad enough that you and them would be willing to pay FULL FARE to cover its expenses and not be supported by the tax payers?
How would you get from your home to the train station? How would you get from the train station to your office and back?
If so, the project is DOOMED.
But these stations have been in the major city downtowns for over a century. The CalTrain terminal (formerly SP) at 4th & Townsend is an example. So is the Oakland depot at Jack London Square.
It was the Federal Agricultural Highway Act, signed in 1925 by President Coolidge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.