4 ms·

Amen to that, the sooner people realize some above and below ground trains can solve a number of issues and create much more prosperity, the better.

bluGill 6y ago
It would help if the people who realized that also realized that cost is one reason we can't have more. There is no reason that stations have to be large instead of utilitarian (10x the price). There is no reason trains need any operators, much less then 3 often required by law and union contract. There is no reason it takes 24 people to run a TBM (12 is the number in other countries). There is no reason why trains can't run more often. There is no reason "turf wars" mean that two different divisions of the same agency fight each other for limited budget instead of working together for the city. The above is but a short list of things to attack if you in favor of trains. Note that the above cuts at a lot of things that Democrats - who claim to be in favor of trains hold dear. You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective)
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Why hello, fellow reader of https://transitcosts.com https://transitcosts.com > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) And where is train hush money being handed out in the last four years? Pretty sure that's out of the frying pan into the fire.
- darksaints 6y ago
  > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) This is perfectly exemplified by UTA Trax, which had a humble start in slightly blue SLC, but has expanded outward at an incredibly rapid pace, with approval votes coming from some of the reddest counties in the nation. Building efficiently and cost effectively is quite possibly the best vote-switcher on transit that we could make.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    I don't want to diminish that, from a brief skim of wikipedia this looks like a typical American light rail with vast suburban extensions, "park and ride" stations rather than dense development around station. This sort of transit just allows for further sub-urbanization and car culture when the highways fill up. It doesn't promote cross-sector density (just larger central business districts), and it doesn't reduce the externalities of the American way of living. To be fair, this is by no means a mistake exclusive to red states. The WMATA in DC, and LIRR and Metro North in NYC all commit the same sin. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Salt_Lake_City_2013-06-08.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Salt_Lak... Guess the mountains hem it in one some sides; that gives me some hope. Maybe someday it will look more like https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/659/32455034626_dc15a3023b_o.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/659/32455034626_dc15a3023b_o.j...
    - darksaints 6y ago
      You're not wrong, but underfunded transit agencies taking on highly entrenched land use laws in order to build slightly more optimally kinda falls into the category of boiling the ocean. It's not something they control, let alone have any sort of influence over. But what they can control, they did, and for a red state, they have a pretty comprehensive and rapidly growing rail system that is quite enviable compared to much bluer cities like San Jose or Minneapolis. It should also be noted that Calgary faced similar challenges to SLC, and they optimized for it in similar ways: optimizing for total system length and highest frequencies per dollar spent, and often developing suburban park and ride stations. And over the last 40 years, Calgary has become more dense as a result. It has become one of the highest ridership per mile systems in north america, better than any in the US, besting even a 125 year old line with significant subterranean sections right through the dense core of Boston.

bluGill 6y ago

It would help if the people who realized that also realized that cost is one reason we can't have more. There is no reason that stations have to be large instead of utilitarian (10x the price). There is no reason trains need any operators, much less then 3 often required by law and union contract. There is no reason it takes 24 people to run a TBM (12 is the number in other countries). There is no reason why trains can't run more often. There is no reason "turf wars" mean that two different divisions of the same agency fight each other for limited budget instead of working together for the city. The above is but a short list of things to attack if you in favor of trains. Note that the above cuts at a lot of things that Democrats - who claim to be in favor of trains hold dear. You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective)

Ericson2314 6y ago
Why hello, fellow reader of https://transitcosts.com https://transitcosts.com > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) And where is train hush money being handed out in the last four years? Pretty sure that's out of the frying pan into the fire.
darksaints 6y ago
> You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) This is perfectly exemplified by UTA Trax, which had a humble start in slightly blue SLC, but has expanded outward at an incredibly rapid pace, with approval votes coming from some of the reddest counties in the nation. Building efficiently and cost effectively is quite possibly the best vote-switcher on transit that we could make.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I don't want to diminish that, from a brief skim of wikipedia this looks like a typical American light rail with vast suburban extensions, "park and ride" stations rather than dense development around station. This sort of transit just allows for further sub-urbanization and car culture when the highways fill up. It doesn't promote cross-sector density (just larger central business districts), and it doesn't reduce the externalities of the American way of living. To be fair, this is by no means a mistake exclusive to red states. The WMATA in DC, and LIRR and Metro North in NYC all commit the same sin. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Salt_Lake_City_2013-06-08.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Salt_Lak... Guess the mountains hem it in one some sides; that gives me some hope. Maybe someday it will look more like https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/659/32455034626_dc15a3023b_o.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/659/32455034626_dc15a3023b_o.j...
  - darksaints 6y ago
    You're not wrong, but underfunded transit agencies taking on highly entrenched land use laws in order to build slightly more optimally kinda falls into the category of boiling the ocean. It's not something they control, let alone have any sort of influence over. But what they can control, they did, and for a red state, they have a pretty comprehensive and rapidly growing rail system that is quite enviable compared to much bluer cities like San Jose or Minneapolis. It should also be noted that Calgary faced similar challenges to SLC, and they optimized for it in similar ways: optimizing for total system length and highest frequencies per dollar spent, and often developing suburban park and ride stations. And over the last 40 years, Calgary has become more dense as a result. It has become one of the highest ridership per mile systems in north america, better than any in the US, besting even a 125 year old line with significant subterranean sections right through the dense core of Boston.