Living Car Free - Public Transport Creates 25% more jobs than building roads

http://worldcarfree.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/public-transport-can-compensate-job-losses-in-the-car-industry/
http://www.uitp.org/advocacy/pdf/empowers_the_economy.pdf

From the Article:

>>>Every direct job in public transport is linked to four jobs in other sectors of the economy. Public transport creates 25% more jobs than
the same investment in building roads or highways. <<<<

This is interesting considering how many millions have lost their jobs in auto and non-auto related industries. Unfortunately, most of the money for transit
projects were allocated only for capital infrastructure and not operational costs! Since cities today cannot afford to pay for drivers salaries and
maintenance costs, what's the chance of them building a metro!

I don't know how they (UITP) achieved their figures but I suspect that public transport empowers the local economy while highways do just the opposite. I’ve noticed that each stop along the tram/trolley line becomes a min-shopping mall employing dozens of people. The same often happens along bus stops.

The whole idea is similar to the current paradigm of building roads that lead to the creating of new towns and shopping centers but it's not dependant on costly motor transport.

Yes, but a car-centric economy keeps lots of Americans employed in places like Iraq.

Yes, but a car-centric economy keeps lots of Americans employed in places like Iraq.

lolz. It also keeps making our country poorer by exporting our capital to import foreign oil.

Yes, but a car-centric economy keeps lots of Americans employed in places like Iraq.

The above statement is a sad comment but true.

This is interesting considering how many millions have lost their jobs in auto and non-auto related industries. Unfortunately, most of the money for transit
projects were allocated only for capital infrastructure and not operational costs! Since cities today cannot afford to pay for drivers salaries and
maintenance costs, what's the chance of them building a metro!


I suspect the reason why transit projects are not allocated for operational costs is that the federal governments sees on-going expenses as a black hole.

There's a lot of talk about the population density needed to make a transit system cost effective. This makes sense and just tells you that you can't just lay rails out to sprawling suburbs and make things pay for themselves.

I've read that a population of 50 people per acre really starts to work out in terms of public transport.

Population density for US cities: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density) Unfortunately this list is by square miles, so you need to divide by 640 to get the density by acre. By my calculation that would leave
New York - 87
Metropolitain Chicago 23
Los Angeles 35
Portland OR 17
Dallas 17

At some point, transit is just not efficient I suspect. I don't know if the number of 50 is correct and I can't find the reference.

What some of these cities need to do in addition to implementing better transit options is to embark on a scheme to increase population density. There have been a few cities that have tried this. Ottawa, capital of Canada, is planning a number of measures to do just this. Their studies indicate that increased density not only helps transit, it makes all city infrastructure a lot more effective - everything from water and sewer to asphalt and schools.

Denser development close to the city means less suburban sprawl; the land that would be/has been eaten up by sprawl can be preserved for/returned to agricultural use, thus reducing the cost of food locally (less of the cost would be eaten up by transport) and increasing the food security (less opportunity for disasters to disrupt the food supply chain.)

As a corollary to this thread, read up on Minsky Economics (http://www.google.com/search?q=minsky+economics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). From what I gather in my reading is that he predicted the current mess would happen, and how to get out of it. He considers it a cycle. Unfortunately those in charge seem to be play the "business as usual" game. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. There are a lot of way to increase density, infill is one, but is quite often strongly resisted. Getting rid of mega stores with their acres of parking lots, making Walmart STOP building new stores and leaving the empty shells for cities to deal with. The last time I checked WM had over 700 acres of empty stores sitting around, that did not include parking lots and adjacent stores. In the US we have an overabundance of retail space. The US average is 20sf of retail space for every man woman and child. In the EU it is 2.5sf per person! Strip malls and parking lots need to be reduced to help improve density. Smaller and more numerous stores are going to be necessary if we are going to make it work. Back to the old neighborhood plans from prior to WW2.

Aaron:)

you can't spell subsidy without B-U-S

http://intransitionmag.blogspot.com/

The US average is 20sf of retail space for every man woman and child. In the EU it is 2.5sf per person! Strip malls and parking lots need to be reduced to help improve density. Smaller and more numerous stores are going to be necessary if we are going to make it work. Back to the old neighborhood plans from prior to WW2.

Aaron:)

Interesting statistic. I'll bet with the rise of Internet shopping and now that the retail bubble seems to be un-bubbling, this figure is likely to go down over the next few years.

Interesting statistic. I'll bet with the rise of Internet shopping and now that the retail bubble seems to be un-bubbling, this figure is likely to go down over the next few years.

I was kind of wondering about that. I don't know, the typical walmart shopper in our area probably doesn't do too much internet shopping. I suspect they will continue on their business plan until it is no longer economically feasible for them. Currently they are dependent on handouts and subsidies from local government. Some estimate it to exceed 1.5 billion dollars.:eek:

Aaron:)

As a corollary to this thread, read up on Minsky Economics (http://www.google.com/search?q=minsky+economics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). From what I gather in my reading is that he predicted the current mess would happen, and how to get out of it.
Aaron:)

Good article:

Minsky didn't really tell us how to get out of it since creating a prosperous economy is much harder to create. However, the current economic condition was created by Washinton (ie Bush) in their attempt to jump start home spending since the economy was being dragged down from the war.

Today, the attitude iin DC is totally different and we are headed for slow growth times ahead. The days when Wall Street can speculate hundreds of billions are over and new regulations will see this is the case. When you think about it, the last two economic booms were created by Wall Street (Dot.com & Real Estate). What's going to bring back the happy days? More highways to no-where?

you can't spell subsidy without B-U-S

http://intransitionmag.blogspot.com/

Another good article.

It's sad that public transportation is the first thing cities and states cut when the economy tanks.

We need to find a way to make public transportation a profitable enterprise in the long run. That was the case in 1909 and it can be done again. The fare box today is way to low and we need to get out of the 5 cent for five miles. We still force transit companies to honor the $1.35 per five mile fare ( 5 cents in 1900) which didn't work back then or today.

Another good article.

It's sad that public transportation is the first thing cities and states cut when the economy tanks.

We need to find a way to make public transportation a profitable enterprise in the long run. That was the case in 1909 and it can be done again. The fare box today is way to low and we need to get out of the 5 cent for five miles. We still force transit companies to honor the $1.35 per five mile fare ( 5 cents in 1900) which didn't work back then or today.

I don't think public transit should be a profit center, it should be a public service. A county near me shut down it's recycling program because they were loosing money (possibly due to low volume, possibly due to mismanagement). NC has mandated and put in place penalties for throwing recyclable things like plastic bottles and aluminum cans into the garbage stream, but failed to provide any assistance to the local entities for dealing with it. I live in a semi-rural area, closest recycling center in my county is over 25 miles away, so I use the one in the next county over which is only about 7-8 miles away.

Aaron:)

I don't think public transit should be a profit center, it should be a public service.

+1 Why do we insist upon public transit being profitable while we happily pay billions in taxes to keep the highway system going?

Why do we insist upon public transit being profitable while we happily pay billions in taxes to keep the highway system going?
One of the "justifications" for why we should all subsidize the road system is that it is used for more than just individuals getting around. Roads are also our major product shipping method, are used by emergency vehicles, and other uses that just can't go by public transport. Perhaps a fair point. BUT, when they make the claim that public transit should be break even they never add in the societal cost savings of taking people off the road. If you back out the cost savings from decreased road maintanance, construction, congestion, reduced pollution, health care savings, productive value of space that would otherwise go to parking or road expansion, etc, etc. public transit is already "profitable" almost anywhere. Now add in that public transit employs more people than road systems which means you have more money cycled back in payroll taxes, sales taxes, lower unemployment costs, etc. etc.

Public transit as well as bicycle/pedestrian improvements are also an effective investment in improving the existing road system. Transit gets more effecient as you add users. Roads get less efficient as you add users. Investing $$ in improving non-car transit and you improve the car transit for free as well by shifting users over. The reverse is not true.

I suspect the reason why transit projects are not allocated for operational costs is that the federal governments sees on-going expenses as a black hole.

There's a lot of talk about the population density needed to make a transit system cost effective. This makes sense and just tells you that you can't just lay rails out to sprawling suburbs and make things pay for themselves.

I've read that a population of 50 people per acre really starts to work out in terms of public transport.

Population density for US cities: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density) Unfortunately this list is by square miles, so you need to divide by 640 to get the density by acre. By my calculation that would leave
New York - 87
Metropolitain Chicago 23
Los Angeles 35
Portland OR 17
Dallas 17

At some point, transit is just not efficient I suspect. I don't know if the number of 50 is correct and I can't find the reference.

What some of these cities need to do in addition to implementing better transit options is to embark on a scheme to increase population density. There have been a few cities that have tried this. Ottawa, capital of Canada, is planning a number of measures to do just this. Their studies indicate that increased density not only helps transit, it makes all city infrastructure a lot more effective - everything from water and sewer to asphalt and schools.

The best way to increase density might be to improve public transit. People often choose to live, work, and shop near good permanent transit whenever it's available. Put the light rail or subway into low-density areas where you want infill. Then wait for the deelopment to happen.

The best way to increase density might be to improve public transit. People often choose to live, work, and shop near good permanent transit whenever it's available. Put the light rail or subway into low-density areas where you want infill. Then wait for the deelopment to happen.

I have seen figures done by the square mile also.

It is a serious build it and they will come, but it is hard to convince politicians that it works, when their car driving constituents are all clamoring for relief from traffic and congestion.:innocent: Interesting enough Phoenix is a poster child for what can be done with light rail. There is an article in the current (Jan 2010) issue. It is not available on line but I can paraphrase it when I get home next week.

Aaron:)

Being that the source is a Wordpress blog simply scratch your head and realize theat ten monkeys writing Shakespeare isn't so far-fetched when you know he could be several people or a woman. Anybody can create an internet site with 2 cent code and an editor and then they have the audacity to think everybody will believe it.

Celebrating 15 years online in 2010, which doesn't make me a fossil at all compared to those I know who were using bulletin boards and UUCP/NNTP/Usenet in the early 1980s. I still have that beat as I started on a TRS-80 in 1979.

The best way to increase density might be to improve public transit. People often choose to live, work, and shop near good permanent transit whenever it's available. Put the light rail or subway into low-density areas where you want infill. Then wait for the deelopment to happen.

Like a lot of good solutions, there needs to be several approaches undertaken. Public transport is great, but would probably fail in a lot of communities unless other steps were undertaken.

Another thing that needs to be added to the mix is a strong educational element, particularly for those in city governments. As municipal budgets tighten, increasing density is a cheap way to ensure that all citizens get good quality services. The true cost of urban sprawl (particularly on road maintenance, water and sewer services and the like) shouldn't be that difficult to sell.

Over time, city council folks everywhere are going to have to pay heed to this drumbeat.

Moe Biehl and you have a lot in common : P. Wow! Don't hate me if I PM you a lot asking for Sim City 3000 tips! You remind me of Moe Biehl : D. I could never get the highways to work : (.

The best way to increase density might be to improve public transit. People often choose to live, work, and shop near good permanent transit whenever it's available. Put the light rail or subway into low-density areas where you want infill. Then wait for the deelopment to happen.
Any planner or official who seriously suggests that scarce funding be used for building super expensive light rail/subway lines to low density areas in the hope that development might happen sometime in the future would be immediately fired for incompetence.

Any planner or official who seriously suggests that scarce funding be used for building super expensive light rail/subway lines to low density areas in the hope that development might happen sometime in the future would be immediately fired for incompetence.

What's your solution?

What's your solution?
First, you need to decide on the problem to be solved. The problem that subways to nowhere will solve escapes me. If the problem is how to spend gross amounts of money with no other benefit than construction jobs during construction, Roody's white elephant solution is viable.

Any planner or official who seriously suggests that scarce funding be used for building super expensive light rail/subway lines to low density areas in the hope that development might happen sometime in the future would be immediately fired for incompetence.

indeed, they would be summarily dismissed without warning.

indeed, they would be summarily dismissed without warning.
For good reason.

Any planner or official who seriously suggests that scarce funding be used for building super expensive light rail/subway lines to low density areas in the hope that development might happen sometime in the future would be immediately fired for incompetence.

First, you need to decide on the problem to be solved. The problem that subways to nowhere will solve escapes me. If the problem is how to spend gross amounts of money with no other benefit than construction jobs during construction, Roody's white elephant solution is viable.

Actually, I was thinking of buses, which require a lower initial investment. (Your leap to subways is another example of projection.)

However, I'm glad that you mentioned subways and especially light rail or trolleys. Historically, many subway and trolley lines were built to "nowhere" and development quickly followed. If you look at population growth patterns in the early 20th century, you see that people followed the trolley lines to start the then new suburbs. Far from being white elephants, these trolley lines fostered sustainable growth and created communities that are still highly desirable places to live.


[@ ILTB]What's your solution?
The forum is still holding its collective breath. ;)

indeed, they would be summarily dismissed without warning.

In many cases, the local level politicians of the early 20th Century bought land along the route of the trolley lines they wanted to build. They knew that this undeveloped land would be worth a lot as soon as the tracks were laid, and they made a killing in the real estate market. Rather than being fired for incompetence, as you and ILTB believe, they should have been fired for profiting from insider information.

The important lesson, IMO, is that the development of new public transit is not a white elephant. It is an investment in the future, and an investment that usually pays for itself thousands of times over. Not only does it create jobs immediately, as the OP mentioned, it also spurs commercial and residential growths that sustain a community for many decades.

Actually, I was thinking of buses, which require a lower initial investment. (Your leap to subways is another example of projection.)
Too much spiced egg nog, Roody? You may have been thinking about buses, you wrote about subways:

Put the light rail or subway into low-density areas where you want infill. Then wait for the deelopment to happen.
Presumably your dreamy buses will run on the roads that will also be built to service Nowheresville.

Too much spiced egg nog, Roody? You may have been thinking about buses, you wrote about subways:

Presumably your dreamy buses will run on the roads that will also be built to service Nowheresville.
Nevertheless, the rest of the post you're responding to (but only partially quoted) referred to trolleys and subways.

As usual, you attack a small detail in somebody else's post, but utterly fail to advance the discussion or even divulge your own opinion--if you have one. I'm tired of quibbling with you over your own projections and objections. What is your belief about public transit as a stimulus to job creation and economic growth? If you have no opinion, and you despise those who offer an opinion of their own, why do you bother to even open the thread? :(

The important lesson, IMO, is that the development of new public transit is not a white elephant. It is an investment in the future, and an investment that usually pays for itself thousands of times over. Not only does it create jobs immediately, as the OP mentioned, it also spurs commercial and residential growths that sustain a community for many decades.

BTW how many of those trolley lines or Interurban lines that you are so fond of still servicing the suburbs? Or have been built for the last 70 years to an undeveloped area? Which trolley line has been a profitable investment in the last 60 years for the organization that built it?

Nevertheless, the rest of the post you're responding to (but only partially quoted) referred to trolleys and subways.

As usual, you attack a small detail in somebody else's post, but utterly fail to advance the discussion or even divulge your own opinion--if you have one. I'm tired of quibbling with you over your own projections and objections. What is your belief about public transit as a stimulus to job creation and economic growth? If you have no opinion, and you despise those who offer an opinion of their own, why do you bother to even open the thread? :(
My opinion is that your (and others') pie in the sky, over the top, dreamy preposterous proposals of remaking society into your own version of a past utopia, reduces your credibility on transportation issues, as well as brings into question your grasp on reality beyond your own narrow provincial visions.

In many cases, the local level politicians of the early 20th Century bought land along the route of the trolley lines they wanted to build. They knew that this undeveloped land would be worth a lot as soon as the tracks were laid, and they made a killing in the real estate market. Rather than being fired for incompetence, as you and ILTB believe, they should have been fired for profiting from insider information.

The important lesson, IMO, is that the development of new public transit is not a white elephant. It is an investment in the future, and an investment that usually pays for itself thousands of times over. Not only does it create jobs immediately, as the OP mentioned, it also spurs commercial and residential growths that sustain a community for many decades.

While that's true, there wasn't the competetion from other alternatives there are today. Highways, Amtrak, airlines, and even the internet is a competition for that.

My opinion is that your (and others') pie in the sky, over the top, dreamy preposterous proposals of remaking society into your own version of a past utopia, reduces your credibility on transportation issues, as well as brings into question your grasp on reality beyond your own narrow provincial visions.

You refuse to put forward any proposals of your own, yet you scoff at the ideas of others. What does that say about your own credibility?

You refuse to put forward any proposals of your own, yet you scoff at the ideas of others. What does that say about your own credibility?
It is irrelevant. Dreamy, simple minded "solutions" to complex problems are just that, regardless of whether or not I am able to come up with a simple minded counter proposal.

It is irrelevant. Dreamy, simple minded "solutions" to complex problems are just that, regardless of whether or not I am able to come up with a simple minded counter proposal.

Probably the longest term stayed as a troll here on the forums. I just wish we had the democratic power to elect our trolls, cause this dictatorship is getting mighty old.

While my general sentiments along transportation lean closer to Roody's opinion than to ILTB non-existant opinion, there are many solutions that these buses solve and profit from. (see Bogota's Transmillenio) Those that helped recreate their transportation system were indeed dreamers. They also built a multi-use path to nowhere, quite literally, that is now booming with traffic. And as for "dreamy solutions", dreaming is what it often takes to think outside the existing framework and ignore the naysayers that are convinced you will fail.

Should I ever be stuck in a life boat (which I think metaphorically speaking, we are) I would much prefer to be sitting next to someone who thinks like Roody.

BTW how many of those trolley lines or Interurban lines that you are so fond of still servicing the suburbs? Or have been built for the last 70 years to an undeveloped area? Which trolley line has been a profitable investment in the last 60 years for the organization that built it?
The role for new trolleys has certainly changed since 100 years ago. Then, their purpose was to open up new areas for development, providing room for escpe from the overcrowded cities. In the 21st century, almost the opposite function exists for trolleys. We now need them to help rein in the sprawl made possible by the automobile and expressways. So no, they have not been built out to unpopulated areas, nor should they be. Today they are used to encourage higher density development in the cities and close suburbs. However, most (maybe all) of the new trolley lines have been successful in raising property values near them. This indicates that people like living by the trolley lines. It also suggests that infill type development is likely to occur in the near future, as higher land values call for denser development.


My opinion is that your (and others') pie in the sky, over the top, dreamy preposterous proposals of remaking society into your own version of a past utopia, reduces your credibility on transportation issues, as well as brings into question your grasp on reality beyond your own narrow provincial visions.
My view is not provincial. Quite the opposite. Your head is stuck in the past. You can only envision us doing things the same way we have always done them. Without dreams--followed by new plans and actions--we are soon in big trouble!

Also, these are not dreamy proposals that we're talking about. They are descriptions of actual things that are already taking place. Trolleys are NOW being built in cities all over the world. Other cities are using developments in bus systems (like BRT) to make bus systems work like trolleys. You need to wake up and smell the sausage.

TToday they are used to encourage higher density development in the cities and close suburbs. However, most (maybe all) of the new trolley lines have been successful in raising property values near them. This indicates that people like living by the trolley lines. It also suggests that infill type development is likely to occur in the near future, as higher land values call for denser development.
Perhaps you can provide references for how many and which US cities have experienced this alleged recent trolley success story. It might be interesting if the reference includes the expense of new rail infrastructure and rail equipment as well as extent of taxpayer subsidies to build and run this system in order to achieve the alleged raised property values for a limited area.

Though some of your fellow dreamy Group Thinkers might be interested in stories from Bogota or similar dissimilar areas please try to point to references that might be relevant to the reality found in the U.S.

Perhaps you can provide references for how many and which US cities have experienced this alleged recent trolley success story. It might be interesting if the reference includes the expense of new rail infrastructure and rail equipment as well as extent of taxpayer subsidies to build and run this system in order to achieve the alleged raised property values for a limited area.

Though some of your fellow dreamy Group Thinkers might be interested in stories from Bogota or similar dissimilar areas please try to point to references that might be relevant to the reality found in the U.S.

Almost every light rail system in the US in the last fews years has been a success by some criteria. Here are quite a few:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm
http://www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm

And while we're at it...perhaps you could provide similar documentation of cities where trolleys or subways were an economic failure? And I will accept stories from anywhere in the world because:


Americans don't have a monopoly on good ideas in transit
The problems addressed by public transit are global as well as local
This is an international forum, with members from all over the world. Bogota may not seem real to you there in Bumfluk, IA but it really does exist. :rolleyes:

Almost every light rail system in the US in the last fews years has been a success by some criteria. Here are quite a few:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm
http://www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm

And while we're at it...perhaps you could provide similar documentation of cities where trolleys or subways were an economic failure? And I will accept stories from anywhere in the world because:



Americans don't have a monopoly on good ideas in transit
The problems addressed by public transit are global as well as local
This is an international forum, with members from all over the world. Bogota may not seem real to you there in Bumfluk, IA but it really does exist. :rolleyes:


Make up your mind, are you talking about trolleys/light rail, buses or subways? Or does it depend upon which you were dreaming about last? There is quite a difference in investment, ya know, though proposed new routes to nowhere will all probably have the same result.
I glanced through your references and the only "successes" I saw were those describing how much money obtained from govt. sources was going to be spent on light rail projects somewhere with no indication of improved property values, improved lifestyles or significant "infill" in formerly undeveloped areas.

Your dreams may indicate the transportation situation in Bogota and the other international places you read about on the Internet are similar to the U.S. and it may convince your fellow Group Thinking Dreamers, you only fool yourselfand reduce whatever credibility you may have had.

Make up your mind, are you talking about trolleys/light rail, buses or subways? Or does it depend upon which you were dreaming about last? There is quite a difference in investment, ya know, though proposed new routes to nowhere will all probably have the same result.
I glanced through your references and the only "successes" I saw were those describing how much money obtained from govt. sources was going to be spent on light rail projects somewhere with no indication of improved property values, improved lifestyles or significant "infill" in formerly undeveloped areas.

Your dreams may indicate the transportation situation in Bogota and the other international places you read about on the Internet are similar to the U.S. and it may convince your fellow Group Thinking Dreamers, you only fool yourselfand reduce whatever credibility you may have had.
Look again--several of the articles on that website claim economic development in city regions after light rail is put in. Civic leaders and business people almost all agree that good public transit is essential to the economic vitality of any city. I happen to like buses for their lower infrastructure costs and versatility, but light rail and subways are cool too.

What do you like? I have read posts you wrote that highly praised public transit--especially rail--in Europe and Philadelphia (but evidently not Bogota?), so I know your just disagreeing to be disagreeable. Do you think the Germans built their rail system for free? Do you think they were stupid to invest in it? Do you really think that it's stupid for Americans to invest in public transit that will increase their prosperity and quality of life>

Rather than being fired for incompetence, as you and ILTB believe, they should have been fired for profiting from insider information.

Yes they should except I'd replace "fired" with "arrested". They are building a light rail system here on O'ahu and I guarantee that the politicians and all the people that are contributing to their re-election campaigns are in land partnerships around where the stations are to be built. I'm not saying the project is a good or a bad idea ... I'm saying the only reason it is actually being built is to line the pockets of the politicians and the people who bribe, I mean contribute to, the politicians.

I actually don't think it is a good idea ... 5+ Billion, maximum capacity 6,000 trips per hours, which, they are claiming will be an extra 30,000 people taking public transportation. Wrong ... most of those 30,000 will be people who already use the bus system which is averaging 260,000 trips a day at the moment. For $5,000,000,000 they could add a lot more capacity to the existing bus system than 30,000 trips a day but that wouldn't drive the property values up where the politicians own land ...

I am all for mass transit, regardless of the form. Buses have the advantage of being more flexible and less expensive to implement than light rail. But in that flexibility you have the problem of the controlling entity deciding to stop bus service to a given area for whatever reason and you get left out in the cold with no mass transit for that area, been there had it happen. At least with light rail and possibly subways they almost have to keep them going to justify the infrastructure investment. They may alter the schedule, but it seems less likely to be completely shut down. Buses also have the same issues with traffic that the personal automobile does...traffic.

Aaron:)

Do you really think that it's stupid for Americans to invest in public transit that will increase their prosperity and quality of life>
There is a difference between investing in public transit that will increase their prosperity and quality of life, and light rail/subway projects to nowhere in the dreamy hope that something good will result besides temporary construction employment. Apparently you don't get it in your confusion between bus service vice $$$ intensive new infrastructure rail projects.

Yes they should except I'd replace "fired" with "arrested". They are building a light rail system here on O'ahu and I guarantee that the politicians and all the people that are contributing to their re-election campaigns are in land partnerships around where the stations are to be built. I'm not saying the project is a good or a bad idea ... I'm saying the only reason it is actually being built is to line the pockets of the politicians and the people who bribe, I mean contribute to, the politicians.

I actually don't think it is a good idea ... 5+ Billion, maximum capacity 6,000 trips per hours, which, they are claiming will be an extra 30,000 people taking public transportation. Wrong ... most of those 30,000 will be people who already use the bus system which is averaging 260,000 trips a day at the moment. For $5,000,000,000 they could add a lot more capacity to the existing bus system than 30,000 trips a day but that wouldn't drive the property values up where the politicians own land ...

But IAW Roodyeconomics, driving the property values up is a good thing regardless of who benefits by land speculation; and besides, something good may happen later in those station areas justifying any amount of money spent as long as it is sold as an "investment in public transit."

But IAW Roodyeconomics, driving the property values up is a good thing regardless of who benefits by land speculation; and besides, something good may happen later in those station areas justifying any amount of money spent as long as it is sold as an "investment in public transit."

Do you also oppose building new roads and highways and maintaining the existing ones because corrupt politicians will have invested in nearby real estate and are bound to profit?

There is a difference between investing in public transit that will increase their prosperity and quality of life, and light rail/subway projects to nowhere in the dreamy hope that something good will result besides temporary construction employment. Apparently you don't get it in your confusion between bus service vice $$$ intensive new infrastructure rail projects.

I'm missing how we've gone from a general discussion of public transit to light rail/subway projects and how everything now is a project to nowhere based on dreamy hopes. ILTB, is it because that is the only line that even mildly supports an angry man's tirade?

Bus systems cost 5 percent that of a light rail. I think bus systems are great, but what you might find if you actually looked at the example I gave of Bogota is that middle/upper class folks didn't want to ride the bus because the perception was that it was for poor people. They upgraded their buses, made them feel/look fancier, and guess what? They came.

Now you could stick with that bus line forever, and reap the benefit of that five percent cost OR you could use those bus lines to get a good idea of who needs to travel where and in what numbers. When you reach a critical mass it may be time to look at light rails etc..

I wish I could put my finger on why you stay here and constantly do this. Bogota's transit/bike/ped system isn't perfect, nor is it identical to our all situations in the US but there are many positives that can be taken away and added to a systems that efficiently and effectively moves people to and fro while boosting the economy a bit.

I'm missing how we've gone from a general discussion of public transit to light rail/subway projects and how everything now is a project to nowhere based on dreamy hopes. ILTB, is it because that is the only line that even mildly supports an angry man's tirade?...
I wish I could put my finger on why you stay here and constantly do this. Bogota's transit/bike/ped system isn't perfect, nor is it identical to our all situations in the US but there are many positives that can be taken away and added to a systems that efficiently and effectively moves people to and fro while boosting the economy a bit.

Perhaps you missed this post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?604479-Public-Transport-Creates-25-more-jobs-than-building-roads&p=10086814&viewfull=1#post10086814
where Roody, the New Age Group Think Maestro brought up the subject of the alleged economic benefits of new subway and light rail projects and wishful thinking that possible land speculation must be indicative of long term economic benefits for the general public that will surely result due to "infill" and subsequent improvements in living standards.

You can point your finger at yourself with your ad hominem arguments and your smarmy posts that opinions and observation posted on this list not IAW Approved New Age Group Thought must be the work of a troll or some other low life.

Do you also oppose building new roads and highways and maintaining the existing ones because corrupt politicians will have invested in nearby real estate and are bound to profit?
I'm not the one who is posting that he is shocked, shocked to learn that speculators, corrupt and otherwise take advantage of inside info and connections. I questioned the wide-eyed, lite rail/subway new construction schemes as proposed by Roody because they make no economic or political sense in the current or foreseeable U.S. Apparently wishful thinking is a substitute for a grasp on fiscal reality in the New Age Dream World.

I'm not the one who is posting that he is shocked, shocked to learn that speculators, corrupt and otherwise take advantage of inside info and connections. I questioned the wide-eyed, lite rail/subway new construction schemes as proposed by Roody because they make no economic or political sense in the current or foreseeable U.S. Apparently wishful thinking is a substitute for a grasp on fiscal reality in the New Age Dream World.
I think (and wrote) that a trolley line might encourage infill development if it's built through a low density area. I said that property values often rise along trolley lines, and what I said about corrupt politicians was meant to reinforce that premise. I never said anything positive about building transit as a make-work project to stimulate temporary construction employment.

If having decent public transit in more cities is a dream, I believe it is an important and obtainable dream. I also believe that well conceived public transit is a boon to a region's economy as well as a contributor to the convenience and well being of many individuals.

If you think otherwise, I'd love to hear your opinions, as I know you have more expertise than I do. But I really don't want any more of your personal attacks on me and others who write here in good faith.

BTW, what is IAW?

Perhaps you missed this post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?604479-Public-Transport-Creates-25-more-jobs-than-building-roads&p=10086814&viewfull=1#post10086814
where Roody, the New Age Group Think Maestro brought up the subject of the alleged economic benefits of new subway and light rail projects and wishful thinking that possible land speculation must be indicative of long term economic benefits for the general public that will surely result due to "infill" and subsequent improvements in living standards.

You can point your finger at yourself with your ad hominem arguments and your smarmy posts that opinions and observation posted on this list not IAW Approved New Age Group Thought must be the work of a troll or some other low life.

ILTB, you are a hoot! Take a deep breath man, there is life outside of this board.