3 ms·

As I said, "If there's a growing need for light-rail, chances are" buses being the better solution. I'm not arguing against light-rail in general. But most of t

As I said, "If there's a growing need for light-rail, chances are" buses being the better solution. I'm not arguing against light-rail in general. But most of the times light-rail is considered as solution in political debates, buses would do a better job. Cheaper prices allow for even more transportation capacities than light-rail. Light-rail is a good option when bus-capacities can't be increased anymore. "The problem with buses for transport is they use the same infrastructure as cars" IMHO this is to be considered as advantage over light-rail. There is no additional infrastructure to be built or maintained.

_delirium 15y ago
In theory this could be solved politically, but when I'm looking for housing options, I tend to ignore bus and look only at rail, because it's the only thing I can be reasonably sure will still be there in a few years. Buses get rerouted all the time, so I can't assume that my convenient directly-on-the-line-to-work bus route will still exist in 5 years, but I can fairly safely assume that BART will still be on the same route in 5 years, because the cost of moving rails and building stations makes it much more stable (light rail isn't as expensive to reroute as BART, but still too expensive to do normally). From what I've read, developers think similarly: they're willing to invest capital in housing developments near rail-transit lines, but not on the basis of bus lines, because they need to be able to assume that the transit situation will be stable for long enough to pay off their investment. In other words, the flexibility of buses is precisely the problem, because it means residents/developers/employers can't rely on them in making plans.
- woodpanel 15y ago
  "Buses get rerouted all the time" living in Hamburg, Gemrany most of my life, I have had seen bus lines rerouted maybe 2-3 times in my life. Changing public transit access that often as in your city argubaly adds uncertainty to development projects. but i'd tackle this problem from another angle. I think a lot more urban public transportation could be achieved by tackling your mentioned correlation: Property owners benefit by far the most from public transport infrastructure errected nearby their property (at least if underground or not noisy etc.). Even if the owner's property taxes rise, the tax increase usually lacks behind the actual property value increase by some years up to a decade. So if I want to solve it politically I'd: 1) get rid of that lacking-behind in property valuation. Then 2) maybe add the expectalbe increased property-tax income to my calculation when planning a new subway line 3) consider talking to owners. if a subway line is to be errected, I'd propose to owners that I'am willing to errect stations nearby their property if they participate in the costs.
  - mturmon 15y ago
    I see your argument, and in some places, this might work. I believe that in most places in the US, your suggestion that nearby property owners might support nearby transit to the extent of partially paying for it would be a non-starter. Usually, nearby (say, within 200m of the route) property owners oppose new bus/train routes tooth and claw. One of the most famous examples of anti-transit sentiment from property owners is the congressional bill that Henry Waxman (a generally liberal Democrat) got passed, prohibiting a subway extension from downtown Los Angeles toward the ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Subway_Extension_(Los_Angeles_Metro)#Opposition_and_halt_of_Wilshire_branch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Subway_Extension_(Los_...). About 25 years later, this law was lifted, but a lot of the sentiment remains.
    - woodpanel 15y ago
      wow... this NIMBY mentality is a complete different issue. my idea isn't really thought through and may be naive. But i think the anti-transit sentiment is very much comparable to anti-gerntification sentiments and a somewhat blurred definition of public space, real property and the like.
      - mturmon 15y ago
        Thanks for your perspective. It's interesting to connect anti-gentrification to NIMBYism. I have come to believe that most anti-gentrification sentiment, at least where I live in LA, is misplaced. It's a young city and to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic. There are laws (many mistaken, IMHO) to prevent property taxes from rising more than about 2% per year, so nobody will be forced from their home. Renters may have to move, although there are rent protections on many properties also. Anyway, anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops. People who moved to my neighborhood in 2000 think the 2010'ers are gentrifiers. People who moved here in 1990 think it's the 2000'ers. People who moved here in 1970 think it's anyone after 1980. Most resentment and name-calling about "gentrification" is among the young, however. By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing. At least where I live.
onemoreact 15y ago
There are lot's of ways to implement both system, but when it comes to significantly dealing with congestion busses simply don't work. Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic.[42] That said, buses are cheaper than new roads so most city's adopt them at some point. The real issues IMO is most city's are going to be around in 100 years and need to think in those terms. When you look at New York and other major city's you see how development and public transport are closely linked and light rail continues to gain value even in competition with cars and buses.

_delirium 15y ago

In theory this could be solved politically, but when I'm looking for housing options, I tend to ignore bus and look only at rail, because it's the only thing I can be reasonably sure will still be there in a few years. Buses get rerouted all the time, so I can't assume that my convenient directly-on-the-line-to-work bus route will still exist in 5 years, but I can fairly safely assume that BART will still be on the same route in 5 years, because the cost of moving rails and building stations makes it much more stable (light rail isn't as expensive to reroute as BART, but still too expensive to do normally). From what I've read, developers think similarly: they're willing to invest capital in housing developments near rail-transit lines, but not on the basis of bus lines, because they need to be able to assume that the transit situation will be stable for long enough to pay off their investment. In other words, the flexibility of buses is precisely the problem, because it means residents/developers/employers can't rely on them in making plans.

woodpanel 15y ago
"Buses get rerouted all the time" living in Hamburg, Gemrany most of my life, I have had seen bus lines rerouted maybe 2-3 times in my life. Changing public transit access that often as in your city argubaly adds uncertainty to development projects. but i'd tackle this problem from another angle. I think a lot more urban public transportation could be achieved by tackling your mentioned correlation: Property owners benefit by far the most from public transport infrastructure errected nearby their property (at least if underground or not noisy etc.). Even if the owner's property taxes rise, the tax increase usually lacks behind the actual property value increase by some years up to a decade. So if I want to solve it politically I'd: 1) get rid of that lacking-behind in property valuation. Then 2) maybe add the expectalbe increased property-tax income to my calculation when planning a new subway line 3) consider talking to owners. if a subway line is to be errected, I'd propose to owners that I'am willing to errect stations nearby their property if they participate in the costs.
- mturmon 15y ago
  I see your argument, and in some places, this might work. I believe that in most places in the US, your suggestion that nearby property owners might support nearby transit to the extent of partially paying for it would be a non-starter. Usually, nearby (say, within 200m of the route) property owners oppose new bus/train routes tooth and claw. One of the most famous examples of anti-transit sentiment from property owners is the congressional bill that Henry Waxman (a generally liberal Democrat) got passed, prohibiting a subway extension from downtown Los Angeles toward the ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Subway_Extension_(Los_Angeles_Metro)#Opposition_and_halt_of_Wilshire_branch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Subway_Extension_(Los_...). About 25 years later, this law was lifted, but a lot of the sentiment remains.
  - woodpanel 15y ago
    wow... this NIMBY mentality is a complete different issue. my idea isn't really thought through and may be naive. But i think the anti-transit sentiment is very much comparable to anti-gerntification sentiments and a somewhat blurred definition of public space, real property and the like.
    - mturmon 15y ago
      Thanks for your perspective. It's interesting to connect anti-gentrification to NIMBYism. I have come to believe that most anti-gentrification sentiment, at least where I live in LA, is misplaced. It's a young city and to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic. There are laws (many mistaken, IMHO) to prevent property taxes from rising more than about 2% per year, so nobody will be forced from their home. Renters may have to move, although there are rent protections on many properties also. Anyway, anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops. People who moved to my neighborhood in 2000 think the 2010'ers are gentrifiers. People who moved here in 1990 think it's the 2000'ers. People who moved here in 1970 think it's anyone after 1980. Most resentment and name-calling about "gentrification" is among the young, however. By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing. At least where I live.

onemoreact 15y ago

There are lot's of ways to implement both system, but when it comes to significantly dealing with congestion busses simply don't work. Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic.[42] That said, buses are cheaper than new roads so most city's adopt them at some point. The real issues IMO is most city's are going to be around in 100 years and need to think in those terms. When you look at New York and other major city's you see how development and public transport are closely linked and light rail continues to gain value even in competition with cars and buses.