Passenger Trains > A published rebuttal to the silly NYC Subway Replacement article

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/you-cant-fix-mass-transit-by-destroying-it/562574/?utm_source=nl__link1_061218&silverid=MzIwODgxNDE3ODQyS0&utm_source=citylab-daily&silverid=MzIwODgxNDE3ODQyS0

I read Walker's Human Transit blog from time to time. You can tell he puts a lot of thought in to his propsosals and has plenty of experience with public transit. Even if I don't always agree with his points, he puts together coherent arguments instead of just shouting which seems to go as reasonable thought/debate on tv these days - which is why I don't watch it.

I do think there are different transit options depending on a variety of factors. But I always get annoyed with those who complain about subsidies for public transit. If you walk on a sidewalk or trial, ride a bike or scooter, or drive a car, then you are using a form of "public transit" most of the time. The sidewalk, trail, or road is built and maintained with public funds by a public entity. And there are times they carry very few passengers (late a night for example) but we don't complain about the low usage. We expect the road to always be there and be open. Which is why we pay taxes so the roads are plowed if necessary and repaired/replaced after catastrophes. There are a few exceptions to "public transit" such as private toll roads, but that's a small percentage. Everyone uses "public transit" at some point in their journey from point A to B, even if it's not a bus that "never has anyone on it".

The question is always "what's the best option for this community given a budget of X"? Defining best - well that's what a good debate is for!

Nathan

Thanks for the link.

The author, Jarrett Walker, views this topic from the sociology angle. Boring Co. (and implicity, Hyperlook) is a "market" solution to help the privileged. I'm confident there are TO members who love this idea. No need to come out, because it's obvious based on how some people post here, trolling or not.

Hopefully, Elon Musk and other tech "disruptors" will succeed in their venture to further widen the economic divide. Eventually, the obvious inequality will lead to civil unrest. (True Disruption, haha)

Not a bad thing, when the bicycle lobby resorts to civil unrest (and bullying) to get the FREE bike trails at taxpayers' expense. Much worse than public transit (or even Amtrak) where at least trains recover some of the costs. Maybe the rest of us will be mad enough to get our "free" trains by bullying.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not a bad thing, when the bicycle lobby resorts to
> civil unrest (and bullying) to get the FREE bike
> trails at taxpayers' expense. Much worse than
> public transit (or even Amtrak) where at least
> trains recover some of the costs. Maybe the rest
> of us will be mad enough to get our "free" trains
> by bullying.

I would be interested to know why you view the creation of the Great Allegheny Passage or Route of the Hiawatha trails as the result of bicyclist lobby "bullying." Railfanning opportunities have been enhanced by the former and both are major accomplishments in preserving some of America's railroad heritage which would otherwise be lost.

As for trails being "free," many bicyclists also drive, so they pay taxes. Additionally a large portion of the road network is not financed by user taxes. It's ridiculous to single out trails as being "free" when so much of America's transportation network is not financed from user fees.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for trails being "free," many bicyclists also
> drive, so they pay taxes. Additionally a large
> portion of the road network is not financed by
> user taxes. It's ridiculous to single out trails
> as being "free" when so much of America's
> transportation network is not financed from user
> fees.

I know we've had disagreements specifically regarding bike trails in the past, but my opinion is based on what I've seen here on the West Coast, not based on the examples you've given which are much further East.

One infamous bicycle rider out in the PNW was an outspoken streetcar opponent, who thankfully has kept quiet in recent years. No ideological opposition to the political/real estate development lobbies, the real culprit, but singling out rail-based transportation.

You're welcome to take offense to my "singling out" the bike riders, but hopefully, you've thought about how hopeless our society is becoming in terms of our rail transportation. It didn't seem too long ago, that NYC subway system was quietly moving people effectively without problems.

FYI, I have nothing personal against bicyclists or bike trails, but it's funny how the "ideological opposition" to trains never bring up the financial angle of other transportation modes as implied by atsf121's post above.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I know we've had disagreements specifically
> regarding bike trails in the past, but my opinion
> is based on what I've seen here on the West Coast,
> not based on the examples you've given which are
> much further East.

The Route of the Hiawatha Trail is in Idaho, not in the East.
>

>
> You're welcome to take offense to my "singling
> out" the bike riders, but hopefully, you've
> thought about how hopeless our society is becoming
> in terms of our rail transportation.

Yes, I'v thought about that a lot. Your example notwithstanding, in general, bicyclists are not the cause of passenger rail transportation problems. On the contrary, I see bicycle transportation as a connection to local transit and intercity passenger rail.

It didn't
> seem too long ago, that NYC subway system was
> quietly moving people effectively without
> problems.

Not sure to what period you're referring. New York City's subway has faced challenges throughout much of its history.
>
> FYI, I have nothing personal against bicyclists or
> bike trails, but it's funny how the "ideological
> opposition" to trains never bring up the financial
> angle of other transportation modes as implied by
> atsf121's post above.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/18 21:11 by RuleG.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I'v thought about that a lot. Your example
> notwithstanding, in general, bicyclists are not
> the cause of passenger rail transportation
> problems. On the contrary, I see bicycle
> transportation as a connection to local transit
> and intercity passenger rail.

That depends on how the connection is made. Not too many cities around the world with successful transit network allow bicycles onboard the train. Bicycle parking lots are effective ways to encourage transit ridership. Allowing them to bring them onboard? That's more of a luxury, and not the best use of space onboard the trains. But as I said, I'm not against bicycles per se.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I'v thought about that a lot. Your
> example
> > notwithstanding, in general, bicyclists are not
> > the cause of passenger rail transportation
> > problems. On the contrary, I see bicycle
> > transportation as a connection to local transit
> > and intercity passenger rail.
>
> That depends on how the connection is made. Not
> too many cities around the world with successful
> transit network allow bicycles onboard the train.
> Bicycle parking lots are effective ways to
> encourage transit ridership. Allowing them to
> bring them onboard? That's more of a luxury, and
> not the best use of space onboard the trains. But
> as I said, I'm not against bicycles per se.

A "band-aid" is a good way to look at it ...