[sustran] Re: Denver data

[Wendell Cox]

With respect to new rail systems, it can generally be posited that the
subsidy of trips that are all or part on rail will be more highly subsidized
than those on buses, due to the very high capital subsidy for rail. US
transit agencies treat capital as manna from on high --- something free that
does not have to be accounted for.

Whatever one can do with feeder buses to rail can also be done with feeder
buses to trunk line buses. One of the more intractible  problems in the US
has been the bias of transport planners in comparing modes.

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: <BruunB at aol.com>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2001 13:14
Subject: [sustran] Re: Denver data


>
> To supplement what Wendell said, virtually all transit properties in the
US
> need large amounts of subsidy. In general, the more car-oriented the
service
> area, the lower the percentage of operating cost that can be recovered.
>
> The question is not how much subsidy a particular line requires, but how
much
> the network or each passenger requires.
>
> Assuming a static service area, a system reoriented around a rail trunk
can
> lower the subsidy required or increase the service for the same budget.
The
> idea is to use a hub-spoke system in entirely the same fashion as airlines
or
> package expeditors. It  improves service for the majority through more
> frequent service and deteriorates it for a minority by removing some
> straight-through services.
>
> Assuming a dynamic service area (continually sprawling), adding a rail
trunk
> might be the only way to get reasonable frequency of service in outlying
> areas. Connecting buses serve as both feeder/distributors and local
service.
> Without the trunk, buses must go much farther, perhaps all the way to a
> Central Business District, which amounts to an inefficient way to use an
> operating budget.
>
> Eric