BIKE: Commuter Rail (was The Most Heinous Menace...)

[Phil Hallmark]

I reluctantly agree that the destination stop downtown could be a 
stinker. Nothing would be worse than building this system then having it 
flop. So, why isn't the obvious solution being pursued? That is, why not 
spend the money required to put the stops in location(s) that make 
sense???? I can't imagine that it would add that much cost relative to 
the entire cost of the system.

I also want to make a comment on Lane's most recent post. I also 
attended a Cap Metro workshop back in 2000. I sat there with a group of 
other non-expert citizens "deciding" where Light Rail stops should go 
and what they should look like and what the parking capacity should be 
etc etc. And I was wondering: why in the world do they have a bunch of 
yahoos such as myself "deciding" technical aspects of this system? 
Public input is important, but not for wonkish issues like that.

Regards,
Phil Hallmark


Mike Dahmus wrote:

> Well, I think this uses up my 2 posts for the day. So if anybody else 
> wants to hear from me, they get to wait until tomorrow morning. Yay.
>
> Phil Hallmark wrote:
>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I see your point about how maddening it is that the commuter-rail 
>> proposal serves the far-out 'burbs that do not financially support 
>> Cap Metro. I also agree that limited run-frequency out to the 'burbs 
>> will not be a great catalyst for Transit-Oriented Development. 
>> However, I want to make a couple of points on this topic:
>>
>> Even if every single rider on the commuter train is from a 
>> non-Cap-Metro service area, it actually DOES serve and benefit the 
>> entire region in terms of less congestion and pollution.
>
>
> Agreed, unless most of these train riders are already taking the 
> 183-corridor express buses. The differentiator will be: is this 
> commuter rail better enough to pull away people who currently drive? 
> I'll explain why not in detail over my lunch hour today on the 
> commuter rail fact sheet (will be linked from this page: 
> http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/trans/cm/) but in short: the problem is 
> that the commuter rail line will be dropping off east of the 
> convention center in a part of downtown where nobody works.
>
> This necessitates shuttle buses to bring people even to 6th & 
> Congress, much less to the capitol, UT, and medical complexes.
>
> Experience elsewhere (South Florida being the worst recent example) 
> shows that as soon as you require a mode transfer at the destination 
> end, you lose nearly 100% of your choice commuters. IE: the car driver 
> is going to decide it's not worth the trouble, since the 10 minutes 
> they saved by riding the rail got eaten up by a 20-minute 
> uncomfortable jerky bus trip.
>
>>
>> I think this is an opportunity for us to be magnanimous in the face 
>> of suburban meanness/stinginess on the Cap Metro issue. I think once 
>> the folks living way out there get a taste of express train service, 
>> they might be willing to support Cap Metro in the future.
>>
>> A limited-stop commuter rail solution may not be the most-preferred 
>> way to start, but I would wager (even in the face of your noted 
>> perfect prediction record!) that once rail is introduced to the 
>> region, it will crystallize broad-based support for more.
>
>
> If the commuter rail dropped off at 6th & Congress, or near UT, or 
> near the Capitol, I would agree with you, because that service would 
> have a good chance of attracting a significant number of new transit 
> customers instead of just pulling people off existing buses.
>
>>
>> This seems to me to be a fairly quick, cheap way to introduce rail to 
>> the region. Not perfect, but perhaps quite sellable in November.
>
>
> This plan is cheap in capital costs. It will kill us in operating 
> costs (because it will fail to attract significant ridership away from 
> the automobile), and will then require that a tax increase be passed 
> for further transit investment, since it will eat up Cap Metro's 
> current bankroll.
>
> - MD
>