BIKE: Re: Rail Issues

[Patrick Goetz]

Nawdry wrote:
> 
> Well, since Patrick's latest rant specifically targets me (I guess I 
> give him nightmares or something), I suppose I'll have to take a small 
> piece of the small piece of time available to me between jobs to 
> respond.  Comments below...
> 

Everyone standing in the way of implementing an Austin urban core Metro 
(and hence true alternative to the private motor vehicle) gives me 
nightmares.  Peak oil, increasing instability in the world oil markets, 
and our largely inelastic consumption of oil not to mention 
unsustainable land use and environmental destruction are serious issues; 
the longer we wait to do something about it, the deeper the shit will be 
that we have to wade through later.

Everyone has several jobs or works long hours, Lyndon.  That's how we 
manage to stay competitive in a world market where not everyone is 
spending 27% of their net income on private automobiles, as we do.  The 
average American works a full 2 weeks more every year than in 1972, and 
the average American male works 60 hours per week.  This is yet another 
reason to get a Metro, as it will allow some people to choose to not own 
an automobile, allowing for either more expendable income or more 
leisure time.  Meanwhile, suck it up like everyone else.  If you want to 
help do something about it, I'll see if you can join the Austin Monorail 
Project board.


> 
> What I think Houston's Road Warriors and "Anything But Light Rail" 
> crusaders hope to achieve is to steer "fixed-guideway" transit 
> development into the most expensive and ineffective path possible - 
> particularly to get anything not on rubber tires up off the urban 
> surface and out of the way of their beloved roadway systems.  Rail rapid 
> transit is not by definition "ineffective", but it is certainly barely 
> accessible, or inaccessible, to the limited resources available to most 
> American cities, and inappropriate for the task of interconnecting this 
> nation's typically sprawling urban-suburban areas.
> 


Lyndon precisely illustrates what the problem is:  the assumption made 
by politicians, transit agencies, and mass transit consultants like 
himself that there is a public unwillingness to spend the kind of money 
that it's going to take to provide an effective transportation 
alternative to the private automobile.  The reason these people think 
this is that generally the only option they give people for 
consideration are crappy LRT systems or commuter rail trains to nowhere. 
  The problem with this is most people have been to Chicago, New York, 
Tokyo, or Europe and they have seen what kind of transportation system 
works there, and it ain't LRT.  They think about the prospects of a 198 
ton behemoth lumbering down the middle of the road road at a brisk 14.5 
mph, noisily blaring horns at every intersection while squishing 
everything in its path and they say thanks, but no thanks.  I challenge 
Lyndon to name EVEN ONE instance where citizen's voted against the 
deployment of a subway or monorail system.

As Lyndon well knows, Houston was slated to get a monorail system in 
1990 with what I understand was considerable public support 
(http://users3.ev1.net/~forbus/monorail/HoustonMonorail.html) only to 
see the project killed by a politician (not public opposition).  When 
surveyed, Los Angeles voters favored monorail to LRT by a factor of 5-1, 
after which transit consultants were brought in to explain that monorail 
was a big no-no and what they really wanted and needed was LRT. And 
monorail initiatives were passed by Seattle voters 3 times, every single 
time it appeared on a ballot.  Proposition I-83, the monorail recall in 
Seattle, is not going to lose on Nov 2, it's going to get thrashed, and 
if you don't believe me, let's bet the proverbial Dahmus steak dinner.

Especially today, many people understand and appreciate the need for an 
effective mass transit system, and a majority of those who don't can be 
convinced when the argument for such a system is made effectively.  They 
just don't support LRT, for good reason:  LRT is stupid technology.

This should become a mantra, particularly for Austin:  YOU NEVER GET 
MORE THAN WHAT YOU PAY FOR.  A good Metro system for Austin is going to 
cost 2-4 billion dollars.  Who cares?  The estimated costs for new 
roadway construction in the Austin metropolitan area is 14 billion 
dollars.  SH 130 is going to end up costing almost 2 billion dollars and 
is anticipated to have 17,000 cars per day by 2025.  The proposed 1.6 
billion dollar Austin north0-south monorail will easily be transporting 
40,000 people a day by 2025 due to TOD, while helping to prevent urban 
sprawl AND create a more walkable, bikeable community at the same time. 
  Which of these really costs too much and does to little?  Roger Baker 
just told us that roadway maintenance alone in the Austin area is going 
to cost 8 billion dollars, an amount not included in the 14 billion 
cited earlier.  By comparison, a 4 billion dollar Metro that covers it's 
own maintenance and operating costs while moving a lot of people around 
is an absolute bargain.

Finally, Lyndon opines that the only reason some Houstonites don't want 
LRT is they don't want anything getting in the way of their beloved cars 
and roadway systems.  Lyndon, you're thinking about this exactly 
backwards!!!  Your Metro is your major people mover:  you don't want 
cars, trucks, pedestrians, bicycles, dogs, or motorcycles getting in 
*its* way.  You want your main transportation system to be able to 
function as quickly and as safely as possible for everyone's benefit. 
This is why these systems ARE FULLY GRADE SEPARATED.  For god's sake, 
man, are you ever going to get it through your head?  This is how 
everyone else does it.  THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE.  If cars start to go 
away, then let's reclaim those roadways for pedestrians, bicyclists, 
street vendors, and pick-up soccer games, NOT 198 ton, lumbering, road 
soccer player squishing, energy inefficient, monstrosities!