[sustran] comments on profitability, subsidies, and more

[Eric Bruun]

Wendell, sorry for overstating my case:

Okay, perhaps "obsession" is too strong of a word.  What I was
trying to characterize about your viewpoint, at least as I interpret 
it, is that the primary test of whether an investment should be made 
is whether the private sector can make a profit.  I get this impression
because you seem to be most worried about the fact that the 
public ends up making a capital investment in rail and does not recoup 
it through the farebox, whereas bus investments could be self-supporting.
Please correct me if this perception is wrong, because it is this to which
I am reacting.

I stand by my analysis of the Seattle rail investment plan.
As Tom Matoff, the director of the development of this plan, said, 
the I-5 freeway that cuts through the city only carries 5 percent of 
all trips in the region. Does this make it an unimportant road? This 
rail line would have added desperately needed capacity in a couple of 
very congested corridor, a fact which is hidden with total percentage of
travel statistics.

Moreover, the contribution it would have made is much more than
the small percentage of motorized trips it will contribute to the region.
If done correctly, that is, linked with land redevelopment, it will create
parts of the region where there are more walking and bicycling trips
as well as shorter trips.  It also creates aethetically more pleasing
cities and a choice of lifestyle.  It is these effects which are not
properly modeled or credited in most financial analyses.  It is a fact
that cities that are built around rail networks have a higher mode
split of pedestrians, and often bicycles, and lower energy consumption.
            
In fairness, I have to say that many of these potential benefits 
have not been seen in the US, because of the common failure to link 
rail project with land use.  The Orange Line of Washington DC's
Metrorail is a good example. There are only park and ride lots
along the outer part of the line --- there is very little pedestrian
oriented development.  What's worse, the terminal of this line has
swollen in demand because of the all the sprawl development even
farther out that it has helped make more attractive. 

I guess what I am trying to argue is to fix the bad parts of what
we have done with rail investments, but not throw out the whole
concept for the entire US.

Eric