3 ms·

Let's say that 500,000 cars (100k/car, pricing in the cost for storage and maintnance). The most Expensive subway line in the world cost 15 billion and serves s

by rtpg 11y ago

Let's say that 500,000 cars (100k/car, pricing in the cost for storage and maintnance). The most Expensive subway line in the world cost 15 billion and serves something like 800k people. So you could also use that money to build two subway lines and save for maintenance. You could probably build 4 light rail lines (since you're not digging tunnels but instead buying up land). Plus rail incentivises denser living, meaning that the more rail lines you build, the shorter you need to make them. Self driving cars let you share the cars so kind of solves the parking problem (but keeping track of people doing nasty stuff), but is really just a bunch of micro-buses. If you can get the political will for rail, it's a pretty effective way of moving people around.

barney54 11y ago
Rail isn't very efficient in the United States--except for maybe Manhattan (even then MTA loses money). Seattle should look at what's happening in other cities. For example, according to the LA Times, "The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the region's largest carrier, lost more than 10% of its boardings from 2006 to 2015, a decline that appears to be accelerating. Despite a $9-billion investment in new light rail and subway lines, Metro now has fewer boardings than it did three decades ago, when buses were the county's only transit option." http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ridership-slump-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ridership-slum... Phoenix spent $1.4 billion on light rail and transit growth slowed (even though population growth did not). http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/01/phoenix-light-rail-continued-fail.html http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/01/phoenix-light-... The point is that rail is not on-demand. It is not flexible. It is not serve people individually. Rail does a wonderful job of taking larges numbers of people from dense living areas to dense working areas. The future is not light rail. The future is much closer to the individualized, on-demand, flexible nature of Uber rather than the rigid, expensive, inflexible nature of rail.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  We just added two stops to our light rail line. It still doesn't sync up with nearby buses, and school is on break (one of the stops is for the university). Instantly, the line became overcrowded and we'll be lengthening trains next week. In Seattle people ride trains if they're there. This is an observable fact.
- csydas 11y ago
  This is debatable - Light Rail isn't always the answer, that is absolutely true, but in many places, it can alleviate traffic congestion, and in conjunction with other ride share services, can help immensely in all forms of traffic. Seattle has a major congestion issue and I5 is a mess all through Seattle, and you can feel the impact even in Tacoma during heavy traffic. A well placed light-rail can be extremely effective, for example the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis. It's not a panacea for infrastructure issues (I5 really is just trashed in most places around Seattle) but again, in conjunction with ride shares, it likely will serve a good number of riders.
- username223 11y ago
  LA holds no lessons, since it has some of the most dysfunctional public transit of any major city. Want to go from Venice to West LA? The blue buses run fairly frequently, although you'll never be able to predict their schedule, since they have to fight LA traffic. Want to go from Venice to downtown, Hollywood, or the SFV? Sorry, no single bus line serves all those areas, so you need to ride one line as far as you can, then walk a bit to pick up another. Sadly, I agree that the future does look like sitting still in a sea of on-demand four-wheeled robots on the 405.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Losing money is fine (you don't make money off of your car right?). The important thing (at least on the economics) is looking at whether it costs more for everyone to own a car, or for everyone to pay for trains, or the right mix (with other transit options).

by rtpg 11y ago

barney54 11y ago

Rail isn't very efficient in the United States--except for maybe Manhattan (even then MTA loses money). Seattle should look at what's happening in other cities. For example, according to the LA Times, "The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the region's largest carrier, lost more than 10% of its boardings from 2006 to 2015, a decline that appears to be accelerating. Despite a $9-billion investment in new light rail and subway lines, Metro now has fewer boardings than it did three decades ago, when buses were the county's only transit option." http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ridership-slump-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ridership-slum... Phoenix spent $1.4 billion on light rail and transit growth slowed (even though population growth did not). http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/01/phoenix-light-rail-continued-fail.html http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/01/phoenix-light-... The point is that rail is not on-demand. It is not flexible. It is not serve people individually. Rail does a wonderful job of taking larges numbers of people from dense living areas to dense working areas. The future is not light rail. The future is much closer to the individualized, on-demand, flexible nature of Uber rather than the rigid, expensive, inflexible nature of rail.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago
We just added two stops to our light rail line. It still doesn't sync up with nearby buses, and school is on break (one of the stops is for the university). Instantly, the line became overcrowded and we'll be lengthening trains next week. In Seattle people ride trains if they're there. This is an observable fact.
csydas 11y ago
This is debatable - Light Rail isn't always the answer, that is absolutely true, but in many places, it can alleviate traffic congestion, and in conjunction with other ride share services, can help immensely in all forms of traffic. Seattle has a major congestion issue and I5 is a mess all through Seattle, and you can feel the impact even in Tacoma during heavy traffic. A well placed light-rail can be extremely effective, for example the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis. It's not a panacea for infrastructure issues (I5 really is just trashed in most places around Seattle) but again, in conjunction with ride shares, it likely will serve a good number of riders.
username223 11y ago
LA holds no lessons, since it has some of the most dysfunctional public transit of any major city. Want to go from Venice to West LA? The blue buses run fairly frequently, although you'll never be able to predict their schedule, since they have to fight LA traffic. Want to go from Venice to downtown, Hollywood, or the SFV? Sorry, no single bus line serves all those areas, so you need to ride one line as far as you can, then walk a bit to pick up another. Sadly, I agree that the future does look like sitting still in a sea of on-demand four-wheeled robots on the 405.
rtpg 11y ago
Losing money is fine (you don't make money off of your car right?). The important thing (at least on the economics) is looking at whether it costs more for everyone to own a car, or for everyone to pay for trains, or the right mix (with other transit options).