6 ms·

Imagine if instead Miami built MetroRail extensions to the beach and everywhere else it should go, increased TriRail frequency and express services, built a rea

by bedobi 2y ago

Imagine if instead Miami built MetroRail extensions to the beach and everywhere else it should go, increased TriRail frequency and express services, built a real network of fully segregated greenways etc etc. It would turn transport nightmare into transport heaven. We don't need more cars on the streets of Miami or the I95...

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Well that would cost Miami taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and this costs Miami taxpayers nothing. It would also take decades. This will be happening next year. Build all the transit you want. You need something for the next 30 years while you're doing that.
- bedobi 2y ago
  no it would save miami and the state and the federal government billions trirail frequency increases can be done overnight a greenway network can also be built quickly and cheaply metrorail extension would cost more but still less than it costs to build and maintain roads but they are too busy spending billions building even more car infra which will only make traffic and congestion even worse
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    > no it would save miami and the state and the federal government billions Have you ever looked at the local budget of a US transit authority? They typically lose $2+ per passenger trip, and get bailed out by the federal government. Mass transit is not going to save Miami any money for decades until ridership approaches Hong Kong levels. Unless you count passing on expenses to the Federal government as savings, and even then, it's still decades out.
    - kemotep 2y ago
      With car usage on most roads free of charge at use and maintenance also footed largely by the Federal Government, it probably comes out cheaper long term to invest in rail. And every car off the toad makes driving more pleasant for everyone who stays.
    - bedobi 2y ago
      lol the idea isn't to make money off transit, it's to save money on roads roads cost more than transit - a LOT more, and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer traffic also destroys productivity, public health, life expectancy etc etc so costs money in many more ways than motorists not paying for them
      - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
        > and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point? We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight and force everyone to ride them? By the way, I'm a fan of mass transit, and live somewhere in the US - specifically - where that's a viable option. It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US, and even if those areas start doing everything right to be mass transit viable (no indication of that), it still takes decades. Rome wasn't built in a day.
        bedobi 2y ago
        > So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point? that this is wildly incorrect. roads cost more than transit. a lot more. and road users are wildly more subsidized than transit users. > We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight yes > and force everyone to ride them? you won't have to when the choice is between sitting hours in traffic vs a fraction of the time on efficient transit and greenways. people are not stupid. > It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US this is Miami, not middle of nowhere Iowa > Rome wasn't built in a day so it's correct of Miami to continue to "invest" in even more roads to nowhere, like yet another new highway bridge across the bay? that will take decades to complete and cost billions, and cause MORE traffic? like no lol just build the effing transit and greenways and traffic will go down and the government and people alike will save billions instead (and their time, and lives)
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > trirail frequency increases can be done overnight Increasing the frequency can't necessarily be done overnight, unless they actually have the spare rolling stock just sitting around along with all the workers needed to operate and maintain the increased usage and the spare budget to cover the increased operations costs. Otherwise, they need to find the money to procure the rolling stock, actually place the order, wait for the rolling stock to be built/delivered, hire the people to operate and maintain it, etc.
    - bedobi 2y ago
      yeah, all of which can be done overnight
      - vel0city 2y ago
        You can get expansions in funding approved, solicit bids from multiple firms to make the trains, analyze and approve the bid, get a factory to make potentially several to dozens more trains, ship them across the country (or potentially internationally), hire and train a lot of workers, in less than 24 hours?
        bedobi 2y ago
        you're just being obtuse in the realm of infrastructure investment, all of that is overnight vs eg the yet another additional bridge to nowhere they're currently building that is taking decades and costing billions but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic
        vel0city 2y ago
        > but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic You're being quite rude here about this for no reason and projecting an identity on me that's not warranted. I'm generally pro public transit, but I'm also a realist and not suggesting it takes practically zero time to procure additional rolling stock and hire a lot more people. A lot of people think having a higher level of service is just run the trains/busses more, but chances are they're already running all the stuff they currently have the capacity to own and operate. It's not like most transit orgs have double the current capacity just sitting idle and nobody thought to run them. It took them three years after finding the funding and getting all the approvals and signing the contracts to add rolling stock last time. So probably more like four or five years at least to add some additional trains. And that was replacing existing trains, not expanding the fleet, so its not like they had to considerably expand their existing workforce. I imagine most people would consider four or five years not "overnight". The bus service near me is usually every 20 minutes. That's terrible. I'd absolutely love it to cut that in half. It also means it would cost significantly more to operate. Getting everyone to agree to pay that (a massive task at the start), getting all the proposals put together, soliciting bids, signing the contracts, getting the new busses, hiring the new drivers, and actually increasing the service isn't something that is going to happen in 2025. Probably also not 2026.
- NickC25 2y ago
  >Well that would cost Miami taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and this costs Miami taxpayers nothing. It would also take decades. Ironically enough, the county approved and passed a tax back in 2000 to expand the MetroMover. Not a single inch of rail has been built since. Wonder where all the tax revenue went?
sumeno 2y ago
But then a rich person might have to share a ride with a poor person and we can't have that
- bluGill 2y ago
  That doesn't follow. Nobody has said we will force the rich out of their limos. Some of the rich will chose to use transit though. There is a group of rich people who got that way by being cheap and that group will use transit if possible just because it is cheaper. They don't care about sharing rides with poor people at all. There is a group of people who appear rich - they live in mansions, drive limos. They are also in dept up to their eyes and one wrong move will put them out on the streets.
whimsicalism 2y ago
point to point transport is nice. trains are ridiculously expensive nowadays. US governments largely can't do large infra projects anymore
- bedobi 2y ago
  they can, they just malinvest in roads that only increase traffic and make things worse and cost even more instead of transit which saves money
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > that only increase traffic Increase traffic of people successfully getting from point a to point b, that is what induced demand is. > instead of transit which saves money Oh yeah, I'm sure saving on that California HSR project that has been in design since 2008.

by bedobi 2y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

Well that would cost Miami taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and this costs Miami taxpayers nothing. It would also take decades. This will be happening next year. Build all the transit you want. You need something for the next 30 years while you're doing that.

bedobi 2y ago
no it would save miami and the state and the federal government billions trirail frequency increases can be done overnight a greenway network can also be built quickly and cheaply metrorail extension would cost more but still less than it costs to build and maintain roads but they are too busy spending billions building even more car infra which will only make traffic and congestion even worse
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  > no it would save miami and the state and the federal government billions Have you ever looked at the local budget of a US transit authority? They typically lose $2+ per passenger trip, and get bailed out by the federal government. Mass transit is not going to save Miami any money for decades until ridership approaches Hong Kong levels. Unless you count passing on expenses to the Federal government as savings, and even then, it's still decades out.
  - kemotep 2y ago
    With car usage on most roads free of charge at use and maintenance also footed largely by the Federal Government, it probably comes out cheaper long term to invest in rail. And every car off the toad makes driving more pleasant for everyone who stays.
  - bedobi 2y ago
    lol the idea isn't to make money off transit, it's to save money on roads roads cost more than transit - a LOT more, and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer traffic also destroys productivity, public health, life expectancy etc etc so costs money in many more ways than motorists not paying for them
    - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      > and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point? We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight and force everyone to ride them? By the way, I'm a fan of mass transit, and live somewhere in the US - specifically - where that's a viable option. It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US, and even if those areas start doing everything right to be mass transit viable (no indication of that), it still takes decades. Rome wasn't built in a day.
      - bedobi 2y ago
        > So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point? that this is wildly incorrect. roads cost more than transit. a lot more. and road users are wildly more subsidized than transit users. > We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight yes > and force everyone to ride them? you won't have to when the choice is between sitting hours in traffic vs a fraction of the time on efficient transit and greenways. people are not stupid. > It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US this is Miami, not middle of nowhere Iowa > Rome wasn't built in a day so it's correct of Miami to continue to "invest" in even more roads to nowhere, like yet another new highway bridge across the bay? that will take decades to complete and cost billions, and cause MORE traffic? like no lol just build the effing transit and greenways and traffic will go down and the government and people alike will save billions instead (and their time, and lives)
- vel0city 2y ago
  > trirail frequency increases can be done overnight Increasing the frequency can't necessarily be done overnight, unless they actually have the spare rolling stock just sitting around along with all the workers needed to operate and maintain the increased usage and the spare budget to cover the increased operations costs. Otherwise, they need to find the money to procure the rolling stock, actually place the order, wait for the rolling stock to be built/delivered, hire the people to operate and maintain it, etc.
  - bedobi 2y ago
    yeah, all of which can be done overnight
    - vel0city 2y ago
      You can get expansions in funding approved, solicit bids from multiple firms to make the trains, analyze and approve the bid, get a factory to make potentially several to dozens more trains, ship them across the country (or potentially internationally), hire and train a lot of workers, in less than 24 hours?
      - bedobi 2y ago
        you're just being obtuse in the realm of infrastructure investment, all of that is overnight vs eg the yet another additional bridge to nowhere they're currently building that is taking decades and costing billions but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic
        vel0city 2y ago
        > but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic You're being quite rude here about this for no reason and projecting an identity on me that's not warranted. I'm generally pro public transit, but I'm also a realist and not suggesting it takes practically zero time to procure additional rolling stock and hire a lot more people. A lot of people think having a higher level of service is just run the trains/busses more, but chances are they're already running all the stuff they currently have the capacity to own and operate. It's not like most transit orgs have double the current capacity just sitting idle and nobody thought to run them. It took them three years after finding the funding and getting all the approvals and signing the contracts to add rolling stock last time. So probably more like four or five years at least to add some additional trains. And that was replacing existing trains, not expanding the fleet, so its not like they had to considerably expand their existing workforce. I imagine most people would consider four or five years not "overnight". The bus service near me is usually every 20 minutes. That's terrible. I'd absolutely love it to cut that in half. It also means it would cost significantly more to operate. Getting everyone to agree to pay that (a massive task at the start), getting all the proposals put together, soliciting bids, signing the contracts, getting the new busses, hiring the new drivers, and actually increasing the service isn't something that is going to happen in 2025. Probably also not 2026.
NickC25 2y ago
>Well that would cost Miami taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and this costs Miami taxpayers nothing. It would also take decades. Ironically enough, the county approved and passed a tax back in 2000 to expand the MetroMover. Not a single inch of rail has been built since. Wonder where all the tax revenue went?

sumeno 2y ago

But then a rich person might have to share a ride with a poor person and we can't have that

bluGill 2y ago
That doesn't follow. Nobody has said we will force the rich out of their limos. Some of the rich will chose to use transit though. There is a group of rich people who got that way by being cheap and that group will use transit if possible just because it is cheaper. They don't care about sharing rides with poor people at all. There is a group of people who appear rich - they live in mansions, drive limos. They are also in dept up to their eyes and one wrong move will put them out on the streets.

whimsicalism 2y ago

point to point transport is nice. trains are ridiculously expensive nowadays. US governments largely can't do large infra projects anymore

bedobi 2y ago
they can, they just malinvest in roads that only increase traffic and make things worse and cost even more instead of transit which saves money
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  > that only increase traffic Increase traffic of people successfully getting from point a to point b, that is what induced demand is. > instead of transit which saves money Oh yeah, I'm sure saving on that California HSR project that has been in design since 2008.