Railroad Forums 

  • They hate us. They really REALLY hate us.

  • General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
It is currently Tue Apr 30, 2024 3:14 pm

They hate us. They really REALLY hate us.

General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

 Reply

They hate us. They really REALLY hate us.

 #410451  by Otto Vondrak
 
Group forms to fight light rail
Jun 7, 2007
By Seattle Times staff

As the campaign season approaches on a transportation ballot measure, an advocacy group called the Washington Traffic Institute has formed to oppose Sound Transit's plans to expand light rail.

The group is led by Bill Eager, an engineer; Bruce Nurse, vice president of Bellevue mall developer Kemper Freeman's organization; and Kathryn Serkes, a public-affairs consultant. At its Web site, http://www.truthabouttraffic.org, the group argues that rail won't solve congestion.'
Seattle Times

 #410614  by cpontani
 
What a classic propaganda web site. Am I the only one to notice that the Washington Traffic Institute clearly has a picture of an MBTA bus??? Why don't people think??? :(

 #410618  by CHIP72
 
Hmm, what transportation improvement DOES solve congestion in a large metropolitan area nowadays?

 #410628  by Finch
 
Without having browsed that site in detail (in fact it appears to still be under construction), I must say I am pretty baffled by the whole premise of the thing. If I've learned one thing about traffic, it's that it never seems to go away no matter how many times you rebuild a highway. IMO we need to minimize the number of cars on the road as much as possible, in order to reduce environmental damage and commuter headaches alike. I think rail is obviously one of the only effective ways to do this...though I guess carpooling and buses could help.

 #410732  by djlong
 
With all due respect, I *have* seen one highway project that HAS reduced congestion - but to be fair, it was planned properly and overbuilt for "the present" and built for "the future" - that was the expansion of the Everett Turnpike in the Nashua NH area. There are NO MORE traffic jams and there haven't been since this project was completed years ago.

That being said, I'm still firmly in favor of spending the money to get commuter rail up here (extending the MBTA's Boston-Lowell line up to Nashua, then Manchester and, hopefully Concord).

Personally, I think it's a desire among people to have a "magic bullet" - a single point of solution for whatever problem it is that's ailing them. The idea of an integrated system of transportation options, each one complementing the others, is more than most people want to think about these days (or so it seems)

 #410741  by octr202
 
Finch wrote:Without having browsed that site in detail (in fact it appears to still be under construction), I must say I am pretty baffled by the whole premise of the thing. If I've learned one thing about traffic, it's that it never seems to go away no matter how many times you rebuild a highway. IMO we need to minimize the number of cars on the road as much as possible, in order to reduce environmental damage and commuter headaches alike. I think rail is obviously one of the only effective ways to do this...though I guess carpooling and buses could help.
To an extent they are right about one thing -- building transit doesn't often get rid of congestion. Plenty of cities with major transit systems are congested, and in fact, if the congestion wasn't there, a lot of those transit riders would drive.

What it does, though, is it gives people an alternative to continue moving about despite the congestion. I happen to live in a fairly congested area, and commute to/through a very congested area. Through a combination of a bus that skirts some of the worst of it, a bus only access tunnel, and a subway ride, I can typically (even with a change of vehicle) equal or beat the time it would take me to drive to/from work. The congestion is still there, I just don't have to worry about it every day.

 #411050  by Finch
 
I guess the real question here is what, exactly, does this group suggest the state does if rail service is out of the question? Yes, I suppose certain road projects could help matters, but I see few (if any) solutions to congestion that would be as durable, clean, and valuable as expanded rail service. I can't find any specifics on their site. They are clearly anti-rail, but what would they support? Just roadway modifications or something else entirely?

 #411200  by Vincent
 
Some background info...

In November, voters in the Puget Sound region will be voting on a roads and transit package called the "Regional Transportation Improvement District" (RTID) that would provide about $14 billion for road construction and $23 billion for Sound Transit to finance light rail, heavy rail, buses and BRT. The RTID is an effort to coordinate planning and funding of roads and transit within one organization, rather than having roads and transit interests fight each other for tax dollars. It sounds like a good idea, but opposition to the RTID is coming from both transit advocates and roads advocates. The "Truth about Traffic" group is a familiar cast of real estate and mall developers that have fought every proposal to build mass transit in the Puget Sound region. They believe that the best way to mitigate traffic congestion is to build more and larger highways.

 #455221  by Vincent
 
Well it's getting close to election time and the "stuff" is starting to fly! It seems that the anti-rail columnists and editorial writers at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer are having a childish contest to see who can hate light rail the most. On October 4, the paper's main business columnist, Bill Virgin, referred to the light rail proposition as an
8-foot-tall steaming pile of elephant dung
Then yesterday, on the editorial page, another writer gave us this to consider
I disagree in one respect with P-I columnist Bill Virgin's characterization of it as an "8-foot-tall steaming pile of elephant dung." I believe the pile to be at least 10 feet high
So much for informed intelligent debate. We'll see how high the pile gets before November 4.

 #455359  by RussNelson
 
CHIP72 wrote:Hmm, what transportation improvement DOES solve congestion in a large metropolitan area nowadays?
Congestion charges. If you keep building free roads, people will use them up to their limit. I believe the young folks say "DUH!"

 #455854  by Finch
 
RussNelson wrote:
CHIP72 wrote:Hmm, what transportation improvement DOES solve congestion in a large metropolitan area nowadays?
Congestion charges. If you keep building free roads, people will use them up to their limit. I believe the young folks say "DUH!"
Hah, well said! And we could use the proceeds to fund mass transit projects! :-D But seriously, I really do think that's a good solution. I'm sure it would rub some people the wrong way, but I'd support it.

 #455877  by RussNelson
 
It doesn't really matter what you do with the proceeds. What matters is that transit becomes more affordable. No less expensive, but more affordable.

 #456066  by Finch
 
Well, yeah. I guess if you specifically allocated the money to transit projects, people might squawk about their money being taken for projects they didn't support or approve of (they would rather just drive). But if the relative cost of transit compared to driving is reduced, they may gravitate towards transit anyways.

 #456084  by RussNelson
 
Yes, exactly. Space on the roads is limited. When it's not a scarce commodity, when supply exceeds demand at all prices, economics has nothing to say about it. It's only when there isn't enough space (to drive at the max speed the road was designed for) that you have to allocate space. Almost always everywhere in the US, the allocation is to reduce space between vehicles. This reduces the maximum speed so that nobody can drive at speed.

This allocation is a form of first-come first-served queuing. Economists all agree that this does not allocate value efficiently. Some people would get greater value out of the space if it wasn't filled with other people's cars. It's more efficient to put a price on that journey at that time. Then, people decide if it's worth the price, and only the people who get enough value will pay it.

Exactly what happens to the money is nearly completely immaterial. What matters is that the price for creating congestion is higher than the queuing price (aka spending time in traffic caused by this congestion). The queuing price ends up being a deadweight loss to everyone on the road.

The pleasant effect for those of us who favor train travel is that the trip now costs money .... just like taking the train. With a congestion charge, trains have a fighting chance.

All railfans should support congestion charges because of their salutary effect on train travel.
 Reply
 Return to “General Discussion - Passenger Rail: High Speed and Heavy and Light Rail Systems”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -