Dahon.Steve

https://worldcarfree.wordpress.com/20...-car-industry/
https://www.uitp.org/advocacy/pdf/emp...he_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.

Ekdog

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

Tabor

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

Dahon.Steve

The above statement is a sad comment but true.

gerv 

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: 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.

Elkhound

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.)

wahoonc

As a corollary to this thread, read up on Minsky Economics. 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

AsanaCycles

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

https://intransitionmag.blogspot.com/

gerv 

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.

wahoonc

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.

Aaron

Dahon.Steve

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?

Dahon.Steve

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.

wahoonc

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

Ekdog

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

DLM

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.

Roody

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.

wahoonc

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. 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

Rollfast

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.

gerv 

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.

Snowman219

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 : (.

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

Ekdog

What's your solution?

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

ModoVincere

indeed, they would be summarily dismissed without warning.

I-Like-To-Bike

For good reason.