I'm a Taxpayer too!
Submitted by AlanB on Mon, 09/26/2011 at 4:42 pm.
And unlike you, I want lower taxes! Which is why I support light rail, since the numbers from the National Transit Database show that it costs us taxpayers less money to move people on light rail than it does on a bus.
Beyond that, I run a small network/computer consulting company that specializes in working with other small companies that employ less than 100 workers. Well below the radar of HRT or any other company doing anything that makes money off of light rail.
Once again, the numbers don't lie, taxpayers save money with light rail! I just listed several cities that are saving taxpayer money by using light rail in their transportation mix.
Why do you want to pay more in taxes by keeping light rail out?
_____________
Submitted by AlanB on Mon, 09/26/2011 at 5:21 pm.
Beyond that, I run a small network/computer consulting company that specializes in working with other small companies that employ less than 100 workers. Well below the radar of HRT or any other company doing anything that makes money off of light rail.
Once again, the numbers don't lie, taxpayers save money with light rail! I just listed several cities that are saving taxpayer money by using light rail in their transportation mix.
Why do you want to pay more in taxes by keeping light rail out?
_____________
Submitted by AlanB on Mon, 09/26/2011 at 5:21 pm.
We won't be replacing buses with those cheaper vans anytime soon. We're looking for ways to move more people with less money. Van's aren't the answer for that.
HRT in the first quarter moved 51,600 rides each weekday, which works out to 26,800 people. We'd need 1,720 vans at a total cost of $51 million. And then again, we'd need to find the people to drive them and the people to ride them. Neither of which is ever going to happen. Most people need far greater flexibility than what van pooling can provide.
Remember, the key word is pooling! You pre-arrange a group of people. That is not a replacement for the more standard public transit where people know that the bus or train is coming by point X at Y time.
______
HRT in the first quarter moved 51,600 rides each weekday, which works out to 26,800 people. We'd need 1,720 vans at a total cost of $51 million. And then again, we'd need to find the people to drive them and the people to ride them. Neither of which is ever going to happen. Most people need far greater flexibility than what van pooling can provide.
Remember, the key word is pooling! You pre-arrange a group of people. That is not a replacement for the more standard public transit where people know that the bus or train is coming by point X at Y time.
______
Again, NO, I was comparing light rail to buses.
Submitted by AlanB on Sun, 09/25/2011 at 10:41 pm.
Buses are the only marginally viable choice to use as an alternative to light rail. It takes 3 buses to move what 1 light rail car can move.
A van doesn't even come close to that. It would take 6 vans to move what one bus can and 14 vans to move what one light rail car can. Couple 3 LRT cars together and you'd need 42 vans to get the job done.
And do you even realize how van pooling works? The only reason that the cost is so low is because the drivers are volunteers. Which comes right back to my earlier points of why it doesn't work for the masses.
Besides, this isn't about vans costing less. This is about you trying to distract everyone from the fact that light rail is the cheaper form of mass transportation; something that a van is not.
______________
A van doesn't even come close to that. It would take 6 vans to move what one bus can and 14 vans to move what one light rail car can. Couple 3 LRT cars together and you'd need 42 vans to get the job done.
And do you even realize how van pooling works? The only reason that the cost is so low is because the drivers are volunteers. Which comes right back to my earlier points of why it doesn't work for the masses.
Besides, this isn't about vans costing less. This is about you trying to distract everyone from the fact that light rail is the cheaper form of mass transportation; something that a van is not.
______________
No, I have lots of facts
Submitted by AlanB on Mon, 09/26/2011 at 1:47 pm.
No, I have lots of facts from the National Transit Database and those facts prove that you are totaly wrong in your conclusions & beliefs about light rail. If you had any facts with which to counter, then you would have posted them. Instead you're busy running around posting accusations and searching for ways to divert attention from the fact that light rail saves the taxpayer's money.
Cities around the world are saving money each day by running a mixed transportation system that includes both rail & buses, and even in some cases vans. Here's just a few examples:
Phoenix $3.7M
Salt Lake $39.6M
Houston $33.1M
St. Louis $15.2M
Denver $28.7M
Portland $39.1M
Minneapolis $9.2M
________
Cities around the world are saving money each day by running a mixed transportation system that includes both rail & buses, and even in some cases vans. Here's just a few examples:
Phoenix $3.7M
Salt Lake $39.6M
Houston $33.1M
St. Louis $15.2M
Denver $28.7M
Portland $39.1M
Minneapolis $9.2M
________
I'm not ignoring it.
Submitted by AlanB on Sun, 09/25/2011 at 7:17 pm.
We were comparing buses to light rail. A van is neither.
Besides, while you're correct that they're only 10 cents per mile, they're also not practical as real mass transportation. Van pooling serves a niche market.
You've got to find 10 people who all live near one another, who all work near each other, all work the same schedule, and whom can find another way home if there is an emergency situation that needs to be dealt with. There simply aren't that many people around who can play that game.
Besides, light rail in this country moved 464.4 million rides in 2009. That would require 30.96 million vans, assuming 15 people per van. At $35K per van, that would cost over $1 Trillion to buy. Simply not practical!
______________
Besides, while you're correct that they're only 10 cents per mile, they're also not practical as real mass transportation. Van pooling serves a niche market.
You've got to find 10 people who all live near one another, who all work near each other, all work the same schedule, and whom can find another way home if there is an emergency situation that needs to be dealt with. There simply aren't that many people around who can play that game.
Besides, light rail in this country moved 464.4 million rides in 2009. That would require 30.96 million vans, assuming 15 people per van. At $35K per van, that would cost over $1 Trillion to buy. Simply not practical!
______________
You keep talking about those studies, but I never see them.
Submitted by AlanB on Fri, 09/23/2011 at 5:57 pm.
And they can't be wrong as I've already posted elsewhere, light rail according to the US Department of Enery is more energy efficient than the bus, car, or SUV.
As for alleviating traffic, the Texas Transportation Institute disagrees with your conclusions. For example they found that out in Salt Lake City where they moved 13.4 million rides on LRT and 20.7 million rides by bus in 2009, that eliminating all public transit would add 3 million hours in delays to the delays that drivers encounter and cost drivers $73 Million more in gas and lost time.
Yes, it may not be eliminating traffic, but I sure wouldn't want to drive in a Salt Lake City without light rail.
As for alleviating traffic, the Texas Transportation Institute disagrees with your conclusions. For example they found that out in Salt Lake City where they moved 13.4 million rides on LRT and 20.7 million rides by bus in 2009, that eliminating all public transit would add 3 million hours in delays to the delays that drivers encounter and cost drivers $73 Million more in gas and lost time.
Yes, it may not be eliminating traffic, but I sure wouldn't want to drive in a Salt Lake City without light rail.
Hmm fascinating. Alan knows his stats, dont he?
ReplyDeleteRE: Light Rail Debate
ReplyDeleteFar as I see it; there is only one being on the #JAGMIL45473JCS track.
If people are not even willing to post a plausible deniable agreement to a Twitter hashtag; how committed do you think they are to an idea?
If two trains are on different tracks, they shall never collide/meet.
For a debate to occur, both parties need to debate the same subject.
For those interested in RealPolitik BedEat Fuckability, who have fuck all interest in women of honour and integrity; who prefer passive aggressive manipulative fuckability, who play mindfuck ambiguous bullshit games of non-availability, may I suggest: R1m pledge for the Arch - Charlene & Tutu team up again.
An excellent Afrikaans broodsow who happily supports fake two faced PR bullshit the public lies... and has sweet fuck all interest in brutal honesty and sincerity.