[sustran] Re: transit bus efficiency
Walter Hook
whook at itdp.org
Fri Oct 21 22:33:47 JST 2005
Lee,
I can't let the comment about cutting transit workers wages stand.
Having not worked on the US for many years, at this Urban Age
conference, I was struck by the fact that New York City felt it could do
absolutely nothing about improving transit without spending $10 billion.
Each item on their 'to do' list cost at least $10 billion. Rail link to
the airport,$10 billion. Linking the Grand Central and Penn Stations
$10 billion. 2nd Avenue Subway, $10 billion just to think about it.
The Mayor is ready to give away $600 million of MTA money for a useless
Jets stadium, and you are ready to go after transit workers wages? Come
on. The fundamental problem is the US has been rich enough to buy its
way out of its own political cowardice. Getting anything positive done
at all politically in our field is a major challenge.
Congestion Charging? Are you crazy? Brooklyn and Queens would never go
for it, (even though folks living in these neighborhoods are inhaling
toxic fumes every morning from backed up traffic), Remove 50 parking
spaces to widen sidewalks in Times Square with ped volumes at over 6000
per hour? Impossible. Remove a couple hundred parking spaces to off
site locations to create a physically separated bike lane down Broadway,
unthinkable! Pedestrianize a short stretch of broadway that has no
traffic function? Madness. Bus Rapid Transit? Does it cost $10
billion? Then maybe we can think about it.
Local advocates' key allies in these efforts? The business improvement
districts (want better ped spaces), the Big Business Community (wants
congestion pricing) and the Unions, yes the unions (know well that
congestion charging, public space and BRT make great sense for them).
The arch enemy? A mayor too distracted by pie in the sky Olympic bid and
City Department of Transportation Engineers and their army of
subcontractors. If you want to cut wages, why not abolish the city
department of Transportation. It is completely useless as far as I can
see.
I've worked for the Amalgamated Transit Workers Union. Not all the
unions are forward thinking, but some of them are great. ATU played a
critical role in winning express bus lanes on the Verazzano Bridge and
Staten Island Expressway and getting luxury express buses for Staten
Island to Manhattan, both of which attracted lots of passengers back to
buses and got the project leader a promotion inside the ATU. The ATU
and the TWU have been strong proponents of BRT here in New York, and
have quoted a lot of our materials. They helped a lot on winning free
transfers. WE have regulated minibuses in New York in the outer
boroughs. When the minibuses were regulated, the Unions became more
tolerant of them. (free transfers and regulation together brought their
numbers down significantly, and now they provide service in low
frequency areas and shave the peak, so relations with the unions are
better now).
The US groups engaged in the daily political struggle for sustainable
transport policies frequently make common cause with the Transit Unions
and sometimes the machinists unions as well to suggest some win-win
solutions that will improve the situation for working people and also
improve environmental conditions. Sometimes the unions cause problems,
but certainly in a political effort for US transport reform I would not
start by picking on low wage workers.
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Bruun
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:27 PM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport;
sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: transit bus efficiency
Lee
Of course I agree that something is wrong.
I don't disagree with your statement about the folly of not controlling
sprawl. And you are certainly preaching to the choir about smaller
buses, about congestion pricing, and about bus priority. Most transit
planners I know would agree with you.
But again, I think your definition of "urban" is not fair. Buses are
certainly not running empty where I live.
And building expensive transit in built-up areas should not be evaluated
only using energy efficiency per passenger as the criterion. It is about
space efficiency. It enables dense development and the use of
non-motorized modes It is physically impossible to have a dense city if
everyone commutes using a car.
I think that reactionary and corrupted US politics are really insidious
and are what prevent progress, not ignorant transit planners. There is
simply no way that we can have transit only in the places where it is
most efficient. The suburban politicians dominate. They want service for
their constituents too, and they want less crowding than the city folk
have to endure. They will not fund a system that is only for the city. I
note that most new rail systems have been built primarily for the
benefit of suburbanites, with any stops in city neighborhoods between
the suburbs and downtown as incidental.
Furthermore, if we stop serving suburbs and exurbs, then the working
poor can't get jobs because there is
a huge job-housing mismatch, as you know. They get hurt if we get rid of
inefficient operations. Transit is a social service. We are stuck with
some inefficiency. I point out that everything else about public works
in the US is inefficient too. Utilities, roads and school buses also
cost more than they should, too, thanks to sprawl.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper <SCHIPPER at wri.org>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 5:39 PM
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org, NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: transit bus efficiency
I have a different view. I think the compariosn shows the folly of the
US subsidizing transit but NOt trying to control sprawl, having cheap
fuel and vehicles and parking (as someone noted previously, etc etc.
Simply making transit cheap is perhaps (but not certainly) necessary for
a good transport system, but it is by no means sufficient. Since 1970
the energy and Co2 intensity of urban bus travel has risen, while that
of car and air travel fell. Thnis also means greater local emissions,
enen if the empty buses run on clean diesel or CNG, per passenger mile.
Something is wrong.
I would argue i a somewhat radical perspective we should stop sending
buses to the exurbs to subsidize that commuting to work. We should
lower public transport employee wages so we can afford smaller mini
buses whe the load clearly is not there.
Years ago Clifford Winston of Brookings, hardly a transit basher, wrote
a great paper on this folly, advocating congestion pricing as well as
transit. In other words, if you don't penalize car use, you can never
make buses or even all but the largest rail systems in old cities make
sense.
Does it make sense to spend $100million/mil for heavy rail and subways
that carry fewer than 5000 people /hour at peak? Does it make sense for
transit authorities to buy $500 000 buses when they haven't got the
!#@$$! to organize the buses into BRT and other efficient corridors.
Will Metro Washington DC authorities give in to the 2 or 2 BILLION
dollars a metro to the Dulles airport from one of the more outlying
stations will cost?
The issue is not what transit bashers say, its how to make transit work
for all of us. In the US it is not working......except in a few
fortunate places with lots of $$ or lots of people.
PS In Stockholm and gothenburg today I noticed the buses are relativey
filled. Even on a rural bus yesterday i SE Sweden, and then on a minor
rural rail line, there were people everywhere. Of course it is relevant
that gasoline costs $6/gallon, and large AND small swedish towns are
relatively compact. If we are not going to move that way, collective
transport in the US won't get very far, so to speak.
>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 10/20/2005 5:19:04 PM >>>
Lee
Using average data for the US is almost meaningless. It is a gross
overgeneralization. In fact, lots of "city buses" are quite crowded.
Many genuine city systems are, in fact, overcrowded due to insufficient
investment for decades. Try living in Philadelphia where there has been
no system expansion for decades, and no plans for the next 10 years,
either. I often have to stand in a crush load on the streetcar at 9pm in
the evening.
The services that bring the average down are buses that are being spread
ever thinner, not just in
the suburbs, but out to the exurbs. Also, the centers of small towns
have been largely dissolved in the US, so their transit systems are also
being spread ever farther as well. It is exacerbated by typical policies
of prioritizing peak hour-peak direction service on the few viable
routes left, so that large buses are bought for those trips and then
used the remainder of the day even when demand is low.
By using averages, it gives ammunition to the transit bashers who try to
argue that transit is less efficient than
cars. Transit is fine when you don't wreck your cities through endless
sprawl.
Eric Bruun
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper <SCHIPPER at wri.org>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 4:49 PM
To: caitr04 at csiro.au, Sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org, UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK,
pharnett at levi.com, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org,
Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk, NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com,
WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: [CarFreeCafe] RE: Get the right FUNDING STREAM in
place for public transit.Dal lasRapid Area Tra
its very true in the US, fo rthe last 15 years. Tha'ts why I said US
below. it is NOT true in any other country, even though cars are roughly
25-33% less fuel intensive, because city buses are simply not empty
elsewhere.
Thanks to somone who can upload this..
Washington, we have a problem.
>>> pharnett at levi.com 10/20/2005 11:59:57 AM >>>
Lee,
Are you sure about what you say? Maybe true in the US but certainly not
in most European cities. In any case I have absolutely no doubt that
public transport and soft forms of transport are the future.
In fact it is very obvious that the issue is that it is far too easy and
cheap for car owners to drive into our cities. Motorists (commuting)
should be taxed when entering our urban areas, eg congestion charging in
London. This has two benefits it reduces the congestion and resulting
pollution but it also provides funds that could be ploughed back into
public transport. Car parking is also another major issue in town public
parking should be greatly reduced and out of town increased. Private
parking should be taxed - again the proceeds used for investment in the
future. Road capacity leading into cities must be curbed even
restricted. Efficiency of public transport should be paramount in any
responsible governements policy.
-----Original Message-----
From: CarFreeCafe at yahoogroups.com [mailto:CarFreeCafe at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Lee Schipper
Sent: 18 October 2005 15:02
To: scurader at comcast.net; caitr04 at csiro.au; et3 at et3.com;
Sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org; UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK;
sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org;
CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG; Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk;
info at worldcarfree.net; jpclark at wtn.net; CarFreeCafe at yahoogroups.com;
Envlist at yahoogroups.com; itwmc-uk at yahoogroups.com;
NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com;
WorldTransport-Focus at yahoogroups.com
Cc: LandCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CarFreeCafe] RE: Get the right FUNDING STREAM in place for
public transit.Dal lasRapid Area Transit -DART - teac
In ordinary times the AVERAGE US city bus, AVERAGED OVER ITS ENTIRE DAY,
uses more fuel/passenger-km than a car, because the AVERAGE city bus oer
the day is mostly empty. Hopefully the present buses are running fuller.
But how full?
>>> Wetzel Dave <Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk> 10/18/2005 8:11:16 AM >>>
From: Richard Biddle
Subject: Get the right FUNDING STREAM in place for public transit.
Dallas Rapid Area Transit -DART - teaches us a lesson. It's not a sales
tax!
Today there was an interesting article in Dallas Morning News.
Ridership on DART (Dallas Rapid Area Transit) up by 10-15% on various
routes in the Dallas area in Sept, due to high gas prices.
So what is Dallas doing?
You think they are increasing the number of buses and routes, right?
Wrong! The Dallas DART system is running low on money.
Their fuel budgets are being over extended. The fares cover only 20% of
the
operating costs.
Their costs for fuel to run the buses is up 50% this year.
Most of their revenues come from sales tax receipts. Sales tax receipts
are down in Sept.
So the city, in its great need for financial responsibility, is CUTTING
BACK the number of buses
and routes to save money.
Of course, financially, you can see why.
But just when folks are being urged to 'ride mass transit' and help
conserve, the City of Dallas
is cutting back on services - so it can stay solvent.
Once you start going downhill on energy, and prices rise, strange things
happen.
SO when gas/diesel is really expensive, can they afford to run any mass
transit? Or any school buses???
Taxing land values which are greatly enhanced by good public transit is
a much better idea.
See TAKEN FOR A RIDE by DON RILEY - the Jubilee Line Extension in the
London Underground cost £3bn but raised land values around the stations
by £13bn!
http://www.schalkenbach.org/store.php?crn=83
<http://www.schalkenbach.org/store.php?crn=83&rn=316&action=show_detail>
&rn=316&action=show_detail
http://www.schalkenbach.org/images/products/316_large_image.jpg
<http://www.schalkenbach.org/images/products/316_large_image.jpg> ]
--
Richard L. Biddle, Director
Henry George School of Social Science
Henry George Birthplace Museum
413 South 10th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Web: <http://www.geocities.com/henrygeorgeschool>
http://www.geocities.com/henrygeorgeschool
Email: HGSPhila at gmail.com <mailto:HGSPhila at gmail.com>
(215) 922-4278 office / voice
(215) 407-9555 cell / voice
SKYPE: biddlepa
************************************************************************
***********
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any
liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email
and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended
recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that
any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is
strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify
postmaster at tfl.gov.uk.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
the presence of computer viruses.
************************************************************************
***********
Organize a Car/Free Day: The nose of the camel.
World Car/Free Days at http://worldcarfreeday.com
To leave list: CarFreeCafe-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
To post messages: CarFreeCafe at yahoogroups.com
Also check out New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home
page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Kv0qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Organize a Car/Free Day: The nose of the camel.
World Car/Free Days at http://worldcarfreeday.com
To leave list: CarFreeCafe-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
To post messages: CarFreeCafe at yahoogroups.com
Also check out New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFreeCafe/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CarFreeCafe-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list