E-mail Story
Print Story
There are 106 comments - Display All Comments
Roch55904
rochester, mn
darbronno
co
Elgin, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:56:56 AM
What a waste of money. How about building more park and ride lots with direct shuttles to Mayo? Asphalt is cheap. I know a lot of people at Mayo work 12 hour shifts would really like this.
Catlady1
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 11:06:19 AM
Fantastic! Now this town has to get rid of all the other clutter, like: cars, trucks, suv’s etc. No smog, robberies and other horrific crimes will come of the fact, that this town is just too SMALL for all of the traffic. Busses and a reliable train course will work much better and easier.
kiwi2704
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 11:14:41 AM
I would like to see some transportation that takes into consideration needs in ADDITION to Mayo. If I want to take a bus instead of drive, why do I have to get on a bus, go downtown first, before getting to my destination. Replacing a ten minute car ride with a 45 minute bus ride is ridiculous.
darbronno
co
Elgin, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 11:37:20 AM
The millions they want to spend on these trains they could replace with a bus in everyones driveway that one could drive themselves to where ever they need to go!
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 12:07:34 PM
Hey, let’s waste more taxpayers money by having a “study” to build a 50 story business office building in Oronoco!
What a total waste of time and money- commuter rail for a pimple-in-the-middle-of-a-cornfield village like Rochester.
Commuter Rail- What does that mean? Mmmmm?
Regular trains like Metra in Chicago? Light Rail like the tolleys in Minneapolis?
Rochester has to give up the fantasy that they are like Zurich Switzerland.
Puritanni
calRoches
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 1:56:16 PM
Great, now we can have crime come to all areas of the city and save gas too!
Rochester, you are simply not important. Once you realize it you will be better off. This plan just sounds like something to get the taxpayers to pay for to the exclusive benefit of Mayo.
bench rid
er
byron, mn
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 2:09:44 PM
Now I know where I know all of you from...you all were against the invention of the wheel back in the stone age. Said it would bring nothing but trouble. And by golly you were right, all these cars, trains, wagons, wheelbarrows, motorcycles, planes are bringing in the wrong element.
Getalife
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 2:52:35 PM
If it is truly is Mayo that wants it let Mayo pay for it.
apollo13
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 9:20:51 PM
How much of our money went to that exercise in futility?
jeremy_hi
mli
Stewartville, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 9:23:14 PM
If it will be used by so many people, then it should be a profitable venture. In that case, private businesses should be scrambling to get in on the profits. But that is not the case. Just like light rail in the Twin Cities, it will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. Usership will never be enough to make it self-sufficient.
Bill
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 9:29:04 PM
“...for a pimple-in-the-middle-of-a-cornfield village like Rochester.” “Rochester, you are simply not important.” Good, when are you guys leaving? I’ll chip in gas money or towards a bus ticket. Getting rid of a couple of total whiners would be more than worth it.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:27:58 PM
darbronnoco wrote: “The millions they want to spend on these trains they could replace with a bus in everyones driveway that one could drive themselves to where ever they need to go!”
Sorry but, no they couldn’t do that. Rail cars last 30 to 40 years, buses 10 to 12. Rail cars also carry many more people than buses, so you need many more buses than railcars.
Then throw in the fact that according to the National Transit Database, on average in this country it costs 80 cents in operating costs to move one passenger one mile on a bus vs. 40 cents to do the same on a commuter rail line, and the rail option will be much cheaper than buses.
And the bus operating costs don’t include fixing the damage that the buses cause to the roads and highways, that cost falls directly on the taxpayers.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:31:12 PM
OnlyTheTruth wrote: “Commuter Rail- What does that mean? Mmmmm?
Regular trains like Metra in Chicago? Light Rail like the tolleys in Minneapolis?”
Commuter rail means METRA in Chicago.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:35:45 PM
PuritannicalRoches wrote: “Great, now we can have crime come to all areas of the city and save gas too!”
Criminals don’t ride trains. They want a fast getaway and don’t want to be trapped in a train or a bus. So they drive cars.
No criminal in their right mind says, “oh, let me go rob this house and then stand around waiting for the next regularly scheduled train to arrive, so that I can then be trapped in the train for the duration of the ride.”
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:39:57 PM
jeremy_himli wrote: “If it will be used by so many people, then it should be a profitable venture. In that case, private businesses should be scrambling to get in on the profits.”
Jeremy, if we applied that logic to all of our transportation options, we’d never leave our houses. We subsidize our airlines, and we subsidize our roads and highways.
In the case of the latter, we provide massive subsidies because despite the large number of users, they still don’t pay enough to even cover expenses, much less make a profit.
Even worse, despite massive subsidies this year, to the tune of $35.53 Billion so far this year, we still have more than $200 Billion in unfunded work needed on our nations highways. And that’s just at the Federal level.
SNAKE
ROCHESTER, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:41:52 PM
OnlyTheTruth, you never have anything intelligent to say, Mmmmmm? Mmmmm?
Mmmmmm.
SNAKE
ROCHESTER, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:43:31 PM
Commuter rail is a good thing. Not only will it help to relieve congestion downtown, but imagine the free reign one could have on a Friday or Saturday night: get as toasted as you want at the downtown bars, and ride the rails home without fear of a DUI and/or hurting others.
Dancinbea
r
Rochester, mn
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 1:01:25 AM
Now trains good? I so confused… Maybe bring wagon train back? Confucius say “last 20 year no predict next 20; maybe no need for train...”
mendeleev
o41o6
rochester, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 6:44:54 AM
AlanB wrote: “Criminals don’t ride trains. They want a fast getaway and don’t want to be trapped in a train or a bus. So they drive cars.”
Incorrect, Alan. It is an established fact that light rail has brought a large increase in crime to the Mall of America from downtown Minneapolis since it’s inception.
mendeleev
o41o6
rochester, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 7:06:17 AM
AlanB wrote: “In the case of the latter, we provide massive subsidies because despite the large number of users, they still don’t pay enough to even cover expenses, much less make a profit.
Even worse, despite massive subsidies this year, to the tune of $35.53 Billion so far this year, we still have more than $200 Billion in unfunded work needed on our nations highways. And that’s just at the Federal level.”
In this time of economic instability, and runaway county, state and federal debt, if a proposed form of transportation does not cover it’s expenses even with the advantage of “massive” subsidies, then why on earth would we undertake the building of it?
And if it is true that there is $200 billion in unfunded federal highway work needed with a $35 billion set aside to subsidize the process, then why not put the proposed transportation money toward restoring the safety of these highways?
Americans are wary of politicians touting the newest and more efficient that they, themselves, endorse.
Lately, all this means is more money out of our pockets in taxes to pay for something “better”.
Times are tight for individuals and our families. Our elected representatives of all levels need to recognize and respond to this fact in a substantive and thoughtful prioritization of funds.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 7:10:10 AM
“Criminals don’t ride trains.”
~AlanB~
LOL...Wrong....waaay wrong.
You need to learn a little about Minnesota from out there in West Nyack NY.
The hoods that came to Minnesota via Amtrak from Chicago to Winona, take the light rail to the Mall of America on a DAILY basis to put in a hard days work of shoplifting at the Mall of America.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 7:15:36 AM
I’d say the union has been buuusy. Busy spreading the word for their peeps to pound in the pro, “special interest”
word.
Yesterday it was ethanol, where they acornized the vote, today it’s about train “special interest.”
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 11:59:20 AM
Dancinbear wrote: “Now trains good? I so confused… Maybe bring wagon train back?”
Well if you want to give up your car for a wagon, then go for it. Because cars replaced wagons, not trains.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 12:10:23 PM
mendeleevo41o6 wrote: “Incorrect, Alan. It is an established fact that light rail has brought a large increase in crime to the Mall of America from downtown Minneapolis since it’s inception.”
That’s an interesting statement, since it flies in the face of the facts. Crime is lower now, than it was 10 years ago at the mall. In 1998 there were 2,405 crimes committed at the mall. In 2007, the last full year for which I can find numbers, there were only 1,890 crimes committed at the mall.
I quote from a story in the MinnPost:
“Crime: Mall of America crime rates are increasing, but they don’t near their all-time high in 1998. Theft, disturbance and drug-related crimes are particularly on the rise, while crimes like assault, vehicle theft and vandalism are declining. Theft, unsurprisingly, is by far the most common.”
And crime at malls across America is increasing, without regard to whether the mall can be accessed by rail.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 12:31:37 PM
In this time of economic instability, and runaway county, state and federal debt, if a proposed form of transportation does not cover it’s expenses even with the advantage of “massive” subsidies, then why on earth would we undertake the building of it?”
The only thing getting massive subsidies is the roads, yet we continue to build them even though they are unsustainable and bleeding us dry at a much faster rate than rail projects are doing.
mendeleevo41o6 wrote: “And if it is true that there is $200 billion in unfunded federal highway work needed with a $35 billion set aside to subsidize the process, then why not put the proposed transportation money toward restoring the safety of these highways?”
What we’re putting into rail is a small fraction of what we’re putting into highways. But if we can reduce our dependance on the roads by building rail, then we all benefit.
We benefit from less monies needing to be spent on our roads, we benefit from less fuel being used and therefore lower gas prices, and we benefit from less congestion and less clean up of accidents.
We simply cannot continue to build more roads, and make the existing one ever wider. The expense is unsustainable and in most cites, we don’t have the real estate to expand.
Seattle is currently engaged in expanding the beltway around the city by one lane in each direction for a total of 60 lane miles. The estimated price tag when they started 5 years ago was $11 Billion.
When Minneapolis/St. Paul gets done building the second light rail line, that in combination with the current line and the about to open Northstar, will move more people than that freeway expansion in Seattle will, and it will have cost anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/4th what Seattle is spending.
In California they were planning a freeway extension to the 710 that would have run less than 6 miles and cost more than the Los Angles subway did. And it would have moved less people than the subway. Thankfully, that project got killed.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 6:21:35 PM
Get it in your thick skulls- Rochester is small fry for the extravagant expense of light or heavy rail commuter.
This is GaGaLand-LaLaLand thinking if you differ with me.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 7:42:02 PM
OnlyTheTruth,
Here’s the truth about that so called “extravagant expense” of yours.
According to the National Transit Database, it costs on average 80 cents in operating costs to move one passenger one mile on a bus. And that doesn’t include fixing the damage that the bus causes to the roads and highways as it passes over them.
To do the same thing with commuter rail, costs only 40 cents per passenger mile.
The extravagance is the bus, not the train.
That said, without seeing real numbers and plans I do have to wonder if the initial plans being bandied about in this story may be a bit too much, but it is hard to say without serious plans and numbers, as well as when each route will start operation in comparison to expected population growth.
apollo13
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 7:49:30 PM
Why is someone from West Nyack,NY so concerned about this item?
MAHANGTTA
Everywhere, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 8:44:15 PM
Atilla.... your creative writing skills are astounding, do you make that drivel up as you go or just type out a bunch and past it to the story it most closely fits ?
Hoods riding the am-track LOL
What hoods and criminal elements that are here out of Chicago work like this. (Not train riders)
First hood here hooks some local naive young lass on crack, sells crack out of her apartment, uses funds to drive her car to Chicago and bring in more crack, repeat process.
A 5 $ rock in Chicago sells for 30-50 $ here, Why ride the train when there pulling in that kinda cash, and all your daughters and nieces etc. are such easy targets and have nice cars to drive ?
Theirs some truth for ya,
Trains are a good thing.... Period, Studies to show that are a waste of money
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:09:20 PM
Apollo13 - Alan B must have Rochester MN mixed up with Rochester NY- Rochester NY’s population is approximately 219,773 , making it New York’s third most populous city. Rochester is the center of a larger Metro area, encompassing SIX counties.
This population in 2005 was 1,039,028.
What is the population of Southern MN (below the Twin Cities) between WI and SD? Mmmmm? I think a little less with a lot more territory to cover.
Me thinks Alan has been drinking the Kool-Aid.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:13:16 PM
mahangtta- You could make a case with a metro of over 1 million. But, Rochester is a pimple-in-the-middle-of-a-cornfield.
Take in the entire county and we are talking less then a 130,000 pop. Whoopy-ding.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:25:20 PM
LOL, MAHANG.
Apparently you ain’t never ridden the light rail in Mpls when the homies are going back to their hoods after a hard day of shoplifting at the MOA.
The same homies that took the train from Chicago to Winona, where they were picked up and driven up to Mpls.
I said hood, because last time I said homie it got censored.....
merv
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:43:18 PM
OK, looking at the proposed routes… so, Atilla, is your concern that thugs from Country Club Manor are going to have easy access to downtown? Or that hoods will take the commuter link down Broadway to Shoppes on Maine? Versus taking the bus, hotwiring a car, or carjacking today?
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 12:06:50 AM
OnlyTheTruth wrote: “Alan B must have Rochester MN mixed up with Rochester NY- Rochester NY’s population is approximately 219,773 , making it New York’s third most populous city. Rochester is the center of a larger Metro area, encompassing SIX counties.
This population in 2005 was 1,039,028.”
No, I don’t have the two mixed up, although you do have your facts mixed up.
According to the US Census Bureau, the population of Rochester, NY was estimated to be 208,123 in 2006, just slightly more than double Rochester, MN’s estimated population of 96,975.
And Rochester, NY sits squarely within the county of Monroe, population 732,762 and does not encompass any other counties.
However, it’s not just about population, it’s about population density. And Rochester, MN’s density is 2,166.3 people per square mile.
Salt Lake City, Utah’s population density is 1,666.1 per square mile. They’ve already got 3 light rail lines and one commuter rail line. And they’re building 4 more light rail lines and a major extension to the commuter line, with still more rail lines on the drawing board.
Now, I’m not suggesting that for Rochester, MN. That I do think would be overkill for Rochester, at least at present. But to totally dismiss a rail option is foolish and forces people to continue to pay more and more for their transit needs.
OnlyTheTruth wrote: “Me thinks Alan has been drinking the Kool-Aid.”
Whatever helps you sleep at night. But it doesn’t change my facts. And if you had any facts to counter mine, then you wouldn’t have needed to resort to such a statement.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 12:16:25 AM
Atilla wrote: “Apparently you ain’t never ridden the light rail in Mpls when the homies are going back to their hoods after a hard day of shoplifting at the MOA.”
And you apparently didn’t read my post where I quoted the fact that crime at the mall is less now with light rail than it was before light rail was built.
So the criminal’s aren’t flocking to the mall on the light rail trains. In 1998 there were 1,623 thefts at the mall; in 2007 there were 1,012 thefts.
I’ll say it once again; people who commit crimes want a quick get away, so they jump into cars. They don’t wait for trains or buses, because the danger of being caught while waiting is too great.
Not to mention that once on a train or a bus, they are essentially locked into the vehicle. If the police know that they’ve boarded the train; then there is no escape, they’ll be taken into custody at the next stop.
Puritanni
calRoches
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 12:34:36 AM
You fail to mention the MOA has its own police force and taxpayers subsidize armed police officers riding the light rail.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 2:56:39 AM
I also forgot to mention that there are armed taxpayer subsidized police officers working out of the sub-station located right in the mall.
I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs.
dflash
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:22:45 AM
Every Amtrak ticket sold costs taxpayers $32.
While the energy cost to fuel a train is “cheap”; the cost to buy the cars, maintain the tracks, trains, stations and usual political patronage are not.
If commuter trains were a good deal, private companies would be rushing to set them up. They aren’t.
MAHANGTTA
Everywhere, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:35:43 AM
Oh yeah and a known drug dealer and Murderer recently came to town by bus from Chicago, so we need to end public transportation completely due to all facets of society using it, per your …thinking? (sic) atilla
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:37:33 AM
dflash- Let’s not get carried away now. Moving people generally has a subsidy stuck in somewhere. A Cruise ship makes use of a port paid for by you and me. A private bus company uses public roads. The license fee pays for only so much.
Bottom line- A commuter train comes in handy, when it can reduce road building costs, parking expenses, and congestion for a city.
If Chicago didn’t have subsidized commuter services (train and bus), the city would be wall-to-wall concrete and blacktop.
The issue here and you will agree....Rochester is NOT a Chicago.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:41:44 AM
Snake quips- “OnlyTheTruth, you never have anything intelligent to say”
So snake replies later- “get as toasted as you want at the downtown bars, and ride the rails home without fear of a DUI and/or hurting others.”
Has snake ever heard of using a Taxicab?
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:44:12 AM
I forgot to add that “commuter” trains usually don’t run at 2am on a weekend morning.
It is ironic that snake is trying to make itself out to be “intelligent”.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:52:10 AM
Add in if the two airlines serving Rochester had to pay for all the expenses (construction/maintaining) of the terminal and part of the expenses of the rest of the infrastructures (runway, tower, etc.), they would be outta Rochester in a flash. Same goes for a “use” percentage at the other end (MSP and O’Hare airports). The fees they pay now would never cover the costs for an airport.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 8:08:32 AM
Sheesh,
Not since Bill Clinton strained at a nat over the definition of the word sex, has there been such a concerted effort to define the word success with regards to rail.
Success and rail = oxymoron.
Any way you look at it, these projects are socialized wheel fare that benefit a relative few - but that’s really what it’s all about.
Spend billions to build something that NEVER turns a profit, plus needs millions in subsidies, BUT that’s ok since it will be taxpayer funded!!!
Rail service can not even make enough money to keep itself afloat. Why should taxpayers continually fund something that a very small percentage of the population use?
If rail is so great, why isn’t private industry willing to invest in it?
The group building/running the train/railroad will of course be union people, getting union wages to keep their union in power.
After aaaaall, unions are special, and are obviously entitled to any sort of jobs MORE than other people are.
They just have to snare government-funded projects to have those jobs granted to them, a quasi- an entitlement program which is quite deftly set up by the politicians and special interests who continue to grease their wheels.
Most private businesses don’t seem to want to deal with unions, as they tend to be a HUGE drag.....just ask the auto industry people.
Why would anyone want to pay workers extra money so they can turn the business over to henchmen posing as protectors of their jobs?
Since when is it the responsibility of business to give the henchmen their livelihoods?
It’s not...that’s why unions have morphed into extorting government funds for themselves through dues-paying government workers.
aghast
jefferson, mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 8:20:10 AM
“Spend billions to build something that NEVER turns a profit, plus needs millions in subsidies, BUT that’s ok since it will be taxpayer funded!!!
Like gasoline for unjust wars at $400.oo per gallon year after year after…
That doesn’t include the cost of innocent blood.
More proof that we need government to spend our money wisely. Uh huh.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 12:17:27 PM
dflash wrote: “Every Amtrak ticket sold costs taxpayers $32.”
Yeah, and your contribution to Amtrak last year was $4.38. You can barely buy two cups of coffee for that or put 2 gallons of gas in your car.
However, your contribution via Federal Income Tax for the highways this year currently stands at $116.85. And that’s without regard for whether one actually owns a car or not. That also does not include what you do pay via the Federal fuel tax, nor does that include what you pay at a state/city level. That’s just direct Federal subsidies.
That number also doesn’t include the bailouts to the auto industry.
dflash wrote: “If commuter trains were a good deal, private companies would be rushing to set them up. They aren’t.”
If roads were a good idea, private companies would be rushing to set them up too. They aren’t.
At least not without subsidies, which is why there is currently a bill working its way through Congress that will stop any toll roads owned by foreign investors from receiving any Federal funding to help maintain the highway.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 12:25:35 PM
OnlyTheTruth wrote: “If Chicago didn’t have subsidized commuter services (train and bus), the city would be wall-to-wall concrete and blacktop.
The issue here and you will agree....Rochester is NOT a Chicago.”
I’m glad to see that you are not totally opposed to commuter trains and do realize their value. And I do agree that Rochester isn’t a Chicago.
As I said before, I’m not saying that Rochester should blindly rush off and build commuter rail. In fact I suspect that the plan may well be too grand as currently being put forth. We need real numbers before an educated decision can be made one way or the other.
But it also shouldn’t be dismissed without a serious and solid study, especially when rail is the cheapest form of transportation around.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 12:33:31 PM
Atilla wrote: “Spend billions to build something that NEVER turns a profit, plus needs millions in subsidies, BUT that’s ok since it will be taxpayer funded!!!”
No, it’s of course much better to spend Trillions on our roads which will never make a profit either, knowing full well that they’ll require Billions in annual subsidies.
After all, we are concerned with keeping our tax bills down and cutting government spending, so natually we opt for the most expensive choice to accomplish that task.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 1:14:45 PM
AlanB- I used to clean P-70 commuter coaches (6 total) and even wiped down and ragged up oil drip pans on a couple of GP-7 locos free gratus. I was in high school and would help out the hostler at the “outlying” terminal of a pair of commuter trains.
I know about commuter trains. The trains traveled to a large Metro.
As for Rochester, they are NOT a large metro. If a bus route can’t get the job done, a light rail one won’t either.
dflash
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 1:42:06 PM
It might be worth noting that governments are busy selling off highways and turnpikes because private companies can run them at a profit, where government can not?
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 2:33:33 PM
AlanB,
Roadways and highways are covered with taxes placed upon the individuals that use them.. (gasoline tax, sales taxes on autos etc).
The state of Minnesota transfers around $150 million every year from the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax to the Metropolitan Council for mass transit (Light rail).
This is money taken from individuals buying vehicles for use on roads, but it is used to subsidize light rail. In addition, the federal government gives Light rail (Met Council) around $30 million. That’s $180 million that could have gone to Minnesota roads and bridges.
These funds are given to the Met Council every year. Every passenger on mass transit is subsidized $2.75 per trip in 2005. In 1999 that subsidy was $1.90. The Met Council Budget Summary for 2007 Transportation Division shows income from fares of $74 million. Expenses to operate are $310 MILLION. Without the government subsidy that is a loss of $236 million.
The gas tax has been subsidizing the general fund for years and the motor vehicle sales tax subsidizes the LRT line.
schmittts
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 2:44:48 PM
Rochester should look at light rail. Not because it will turn a profit. But it will reduce demand for roads, park&rides;, parking ramps, and reduce street traffic. All of the above makes a personal cars more expensive to the taxpayers than buses or rail.
There’s a reason a monthly bus pass is $38 and a monthly parking ramp pass is $70 (or more).
rkkragnes
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:06:50 PM
With light rail there is a better chance of having 24/7 public transportation service to/from downtown areas. It will also make a better case to businesses that are scouting out new locations.
Rochester has an underserved population of people that work 2nd and 3rd and weekend shifts. These people may normally be able to take public transportation to work, but not back home (or vice versa).
On Sundays, if you don’t have some form of personal transportation, you are limited in where you work, worship or shop to where you can walk or ride a bike. If you have to work outside of what would be a reasonable distance, you are limited by what you can afford to pay for a ride from a friend, co-worker or taxi.
By 2040, Rochester will be much larger. We’ll need a more sophisticated mass transit system than we have now.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:32:08 PM
OR we could buy a whole lot of those hybrid buses (made right here in Minnesota) which would be a whole lot more feasible, more realistic AND a h@ll of a lot cheaper than rail.
Cheaper than building rail.
Cheaper to maintain.
Cheaper to staff.
Cheap is good when the tax payers, city, county, state, and nation are bankrupt.
Look at these swift buses and transit stations:
http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2009/05/Community-Transit-unveils-first-Swift-BRT-station.aspx
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:38:14 PM
OnlyTheTruth wrote: “As for Rochester, they are NOT a large metro. If a bus route can’t get the job done, a light rail one won’t either.”
It’s not just about whether or not the buses are getting the job done. It’s about what gets the job done more cheaply and what positions the city for its future growth and expansion.
Why do you want to run more buses when they cost 80 cents per mile to move one passenger, when the same thing can be done for 40 cents per mile on commuter rail? With respect, do you actually want to pay more for public transportation?
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:39:40 PM
Phoenix also has a new style of bus transport that looks and operates like a train:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/03/20090203link0202.html
Holy guacamole!
$70 million a mile for light rail vs. $2.3 million a mile for this system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
That is 30x cheaper!!! The only discernible difference is one runs on steel rails and the other on tires.
Oh, and the rail line, in most places it was built, completely removed up to two lanes of existing roadway capacity (AND cab never be rerouted when the need arises) while the bus-type system leaves the roadway intact and just uses a FRACTION of one lane’s capacity.
Why oh WHY did they ever build the union elephant aka light rail/rail in the first place??
merv
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:45:19 PM
“Planners are considering a variety of kinds of mass transit vehicles, from trains to trolleys to low-floor buses, called Bus Rapid Transit, that are made to look like rail cars and follow fixed routes like trains do. The buses are considered temporary low-cost alternatives to trains.”
Nice job reading past the headline, Atilla!
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:45:31 PM
dflash wrote: “It might be worth noting that governments are busy selling off highways and turnpikes because private companies can run them at a profit, where government can not?”
It would have been worth it for you to note that I stated in an earlier post that there is currently a bill in Congress that will prevent Federal Funding to toll roads that are owned by non-US companies.
This bill isn’t working its way through Congress because people are worried that they might be subsidizing foreign investors, it’s working its way through Congress because that is what is currently happening.
State politicians see a cash cow by selling off our highways, knowing full well that in 20 years when they are no longer in government that it will be some other politician’s problem that they’ve sold off our infrastructure and people are now faced either with deteriorating roads or tolls so high that they cannot afford to drive any more.
These companies are only making a profit because we still are subsidizing the toll roads. The tolls aren’t paying for the roads, they’re paying to line someone’s pocket. Government is still paying for the roads.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:52:38 PM
Atilla wrote: “Roadways and highways are covered with taxes placed upon the individuals that use them.. (gasoline tax, sales taxes on autos etc).”
Wrong, dead wrong.
This year so far at the Federal level $7 Billion of our Federal Income Tax dollars has been dumped into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The HTF is what pays about 80% of all the costs incurred by states to maintain the Interstate Highway System (IHS). It’s estimated that $2B to $3B more will be needed before year’s end, since the Federal portion of the fuel tax is not covering the outlays from the HTF. Last year the HTF required $8 Billion of our Federal Income Tax dollars.
On top of that $7B, the Stimulus package dropped another $28.53 Billion into the DOT this year for our highways. That means that every man, women, and child without regard to whether they own a vehicle subsidized our nation’s roads to the tune of $116.85.
And the worst part of all that, is that there is still more than $200 Billion in unfunded work that is needed to return the IHS to a state of good repair.
And again, all of that is just at the Federal level. That has nothing to do with what the State Minn does or does not subsidize.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 4:53:16 PM
That cooking pork just smells too darn good don’t it
AlanB?
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 5:02:05 PM
Atilla wrote: “OR we could buy a whole lot of those hybrid buses (made right here in Minnesota) which would be a whole lot more feasible, more realistic AND a h@ll of a lot cheaper than rail.
Cheaper than building rail.
Cheaper to maintain.
Cheaper to staff.
Cheap is good when the tax payers, city, county, state, and nation are bankrupt.”
Again, totally wrong. Sorry!
You’re only looking at the short term, if you look at the long term the trains are cheaper.
Consider Portland, Oregon; where they move almost as many people by bus as they do by rail, 223.3 million passenger miles by bus and 186.5 by rail or about 20% less.
To build the light rail system as it existed in 2007, it cost $1.652 Billion. That price included 81 rail cars.
To move almost the same number of people, they require 532 buses. If we figure an average cost of $650,000 per bus, that’s $345.8 Million. But we’re not done yet. The average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years; the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years. So we need 3 sets of buses, which brings the total to $1.037 billion.
That’s before we build lots to park the buses, maintenance facilities, bus stops, and such. I’ll throw in a very conservative $100M for that, bringing our total to $1.137 Billion or just about $500M less than what it cost to build the light rail system.
And I haven’t even factored in inflation for those future bus buys, which would no doubt push that number higher.
Now let’s turn to the operational side of things. It cost Portland $207,701,265 to operate those buses and move the passengers. It cost them $73,656,174 to operate the light rail system. That’s a savings of $134 million per year. In just 5 years, light rail has made up the difference in capital costs, if there ever really was one thanks to inflation.
Over the next 25 years, taking the conservative life estimate of the cars, Portland will have saved more than $4 Billion dollars by having built its light rail system.
Now will Rochester see the same exact results? Probably not in part because they’re talking commuter rail, not light rail. However, commuter rail costs even less to operate than does light rail. One thing that is clear however, is that no matter how you slice it, rail is cheaper to operate. And remember, the bus operating costs do not include fixing the damage to the roads and highways that the buses cause.
So if you are concerned with costs and want things to be cheaper, why do you want to pay more for buses?
All numbers come from the National Transit Database and Tri-Met’s fact sheet for the costs to build the LRT.
sharwils
Elgin, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 6:02:08 PM
I could care less what they do. I DO find it funny that the route coming in on the Douglas Tail, used to be the railroad tracks to Minneapolis!!!! I rode on that train when I was very young. The train depot was on 1st or 2nd Ave SE down around the Post Bulletin area. Then it was moved over by the same tracks and became Mama D’s Restaurant, or something like that, and then I lost track! Pardon the pun.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/8/2009 at 6:24:40 PM
If you went north on the old train that now is the Douglas Trail, it would take you to Red Wing, where you would have to get off and hop another RR’s train to the Twin Cities.
If you wanted to stay on one RR company, you would have to catch a train on another line that left Red Wing and ventured west across HY 52 at Cannon Falls, to Randolph MN. From there, you could take a train north to the Twin Cities (Same RR, but different trains).
The Douglas Trail line was what was called a “branchline”. Slow poke running.
Catlady1
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/9/2009 at 12:19:07 PM
I didn’t mention the fact that trains can halt robberies too. The police will have their hands full with the subway and being on the trains, but ultimately, Rochester will be a more viable town to live in and have the transportation it needs, for people who work on WWEKENDS. (Are there such persons? Oh yeah, this is med city, isn’t it)
Tony
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 2:04:57 PM
AlanB, just curious, who are you a mouth-piece for?
Pirate77
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 2:15:12 PM
Somebody’s got a serious train fetish here, and it ain’t trainman! TOOOOT TOOOOT!
More AlanB of West Nyack HERE...
rathman11
Minneapolis, MN
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 3:37:23 PM
Alan B said “I’ll say it once again; people who commit crimes want a quick get away, so they jump into cars. They don’t wait for trains or buses, because the danger of being caught while waiting is too great.”
Alan, unfortunately you are incorrect. In October, a Minneapolis man was convicted of robbing a bank. Want to venture a guess as to how he left the scene? A Metro Transit bus! And, he paid for his fare with a portion of his loot!
As for another incident, a father and son were assualted and robbed at a light rail station in South Minneapolis. How did the assailants leave the scene? The light rail train!
Alan, I think the better way of stating this is, criminals look for the most readily available means of escaping. Remember, not all individuals own a car.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 4:23:11 PM
It was obvious when the NY poster compared Rochester to Salt Lake City and Portland that he has probably never been here.
apollo13
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 7:35:28 PM
I ask again; why would Alan from Nyack NY, have such a great interest in this item???
He has facts and numbers to try to support this “project”.
It just seems unusual for someone so far away to argue for this.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 8:13:40 PM
Apollo: My guess is that he is a hired gun with a local paycheck.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 12:55:51 AM
Tony wrote: “AlanB, just curious, who are you a mouth-piece for?”
Tony,
If I were a mouth-piece, then I’d already have been fired for suggesting that perhaps the plans, as lightly outlined in this story, for Rochester are too grand. Not to mention suggesting that I need to see actual plans, with ridership and cost estimates.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 1:02:31 AM
olm1968 wrote: “It was obvious when the NY poster compared Rochester to Salt Lake City and Portland that he has probably never been here.”
I never compared Rochester to Salt Lake City. I compared the population densities of the two cites. Population density is what transit needs, and therefore with double the population density, Rochester should be seriously looking at rail as a transporation alternative.
Those population numbers come from the US Census Bureau.
Where I’m from or not from is irrelevant to those numbers. And I have been to Rochester.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 1:28:16 AM
apollo13 wrote: “I ask again; why would Alan from Nyack NY, have such a great interest in this item???
He has facts and numbers to try to support this “project”.
It just seems unusual for someone so far away to argue for this.”
Apollo, I haven’t given you one fact to support this project, since the project has no facts yet available to the public.
I’ve have however given you facts that prove that rail is the cheapest form of public transportation in an effort to get some people to open their eyes and stop dismissing something that they clearly don’t fully understand. And I’ll be happy to provide links to all those numbers if you like, or you can just search for the National Transit Database.
Additionally, I’ve given you facts that prove that the most subsidized form of transportation is the roads, contrary to what other’s posted earlier.
As for why I have an interest in this matter, it’s immaterial. First, it doesn’t change my facts. Second, I could have lied and put in any zip code and you never would have been the wiser. Instead I provided the truth and now you want to use that to dismiss everything else.
However, the long and short of it is that I’m tired of watching my Federal tax dollars being wasted on continuing to widen our roads and highways to a point where we can no longer sustain things.
And again, I’ll remind you that I’ve stated several times that I still want to see real plans before I would advocate for and support any rail project.
Finally, now please answer my question posed several times to others, since it seems that you agree with them.
Why do you want to pay more? Do you enjoy paying extra money to run buses when rail is cheaper?
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 1:40:51 AM
olm1968 wrote: “Apollo: My guess is that he is a hired gun with a local paycheck.”
Olm,
If you can figure out how someone who runs a small network/computer consulting business in NY that specializes in companies with less than 100 employees can benefit from a rail project in Rochester, MN, that isn’t even funded yet nor has any concrete plans, then you’re a better man than I am.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 7:34:55 AM
You talk about population density but not population, thats the flaw in your argument. My opinion has not changed....I doubt you have ever been here.
theblueca
t
Roch, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 7:42:44 AM
AlanB,
If you want to throw out a few sources on your numbers, I’ll bookmark them. This one for instance:
“Yeah, and your contribution to Amtrak last year was $4.38. You can barely buy two cups of coffee for that or put 2 gallons of gas in your car.
However, your contribution via Federal Income Tax for the highways this year currently stands at $116.85. “
Articles on rail in the PB usually go down like this: first half dozen posters are concerned about Chicago to Rochester Amtrak riding gang bangers. I guess they like the extra security of the train. Atilla will then discuss the late night rides he takes with the homies(his word) on the Hiawatha Line. As if we’re interested. Then a general discussion of how rail doesn’t pay for itself will ensue. Never mind that roads don’t either.
Thanks for the info AlanB
reader008
Chatfield, Mn
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 7:59:07 AM
Commuter train for Rochester,,,,silly idea. From where I sit, the only reason Mayo wants it by the airport is to get the tracks out of down town. Why spend billions on train, that will never pay for itself, but it will raise our taxes more for something that won’t be used much. Buses will at least pay for itself and keeps the money in the private sector. Trains run on diesel the same as buses. Oh, you want to use electric trains. Fine, but it takes fuel to make electricity.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 11:25:34 AM
The plan doesn’t have actual routes yet, but does mention “corridors”.
Hmmm, where have we heard that before?
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 12:03:34 PM
olm1968 wrote: “You talk about population density but not population, thats the flaw in your argument. My opinion has not changed....I doubt you have ever been here.”
Population is important, but density is equally, if not more important. A city with a higher density will always benefit more from any form of transit, than will a city with a lower density.
However, to complete the comparison for you, Salt Lake City’s population is 178,858 or about double Rochester’s at 96,975.
It’s for that reason, coupled with the density, that I stated a long time ago in a post that it is likely that the plan being shown in this article may be too grand for Rochester. But rail should not be dismissed outright either, because of the heavy population density.
Again, as I’ve said many times, a serious plan is required to make a decision, not a couple of lines drawn on some map.
As for your doubts, that is your choice on what you wish to believe. I’m not going to hold a gun to your head to get you to agree that I’ve been to Rochester.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 12:47:34 PM
thebluecat wrote: “If you want to throw out a few sources on your numbers, I’ll bookmark them. This one for instance:”
Bluecat, here you go. The Amtrak funding number is most easily found over at NARP (link below), but it can also be found in the Amtrak financial statements and in the DOT budget, although it requires digging to find it in those later two sources.
I took the $1.332 billion and divided it by the estimated population of the US, 304,059,724, from the US Census Bureau.
http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/fund.pdf
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Turning to the highway numbers, start with the following graph from the FHWA.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/index.htm
In the notes at the bottom of the first graph they mention the $8 Billion from last year sent to the HTF from the General Fund (those dollars are not included in my calculations), and the second line denotes the $7 Billion transferred this past fiscal year, which is included in my calculations.
As for the remainder, that comes from the Stimulus. I had originally seen a number of $28.53 Billion, which gave me a total of $35.53 Billion. I can no longer find that original number, so I don’t know if that number was revised or just wrong. The DOT now reports that the FHWA will get $27.5 Billion, which would revise my number slightly, as the new total is now $34.5 Billion. Dividing that by the population above gives us the result of $113.46; down about three bucks from the number I originally provided.
The DOT funding levels can be found here.
http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm#fhwa
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 1:06:05 PM
reader008 wrote: “Why spend billions on train, that will never pay for itself, but it will raise our taxes more for something that won’t be used much. Buses will at least pay for itself and keeps the money in the private sector.”
First, Rochester’s bus system is not run by the private sector. It’s run by the the city. Rail would be no different.
Second, please go back an reread my posts. It is a proven fact that buses do not make money. In fact, they loose more money than does rail transportation.
The national averages for operating expenses to move one passenger one mile are as follows:
Bus - 80 cents per mile.
Light rail - 60 cents per mile.
Heavy rail - 40 cents per mile.
Commuter rail - 40 cents per mile.
Additionally, trains recover more of their operating expenses from the fare box than do buses.
The national averages for that are:
Bus: 26.61%
Rail: 44.31%
So if you want your taxes to be raised faster, support buses. If you want to slow tax increases down and subsidize public transportation less, support rail.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 2:16:49 PM
AlanB: Roch City Lines is a private entity (one of few in the nation).
Density might help shape rail routes, but population determines if there is a need. The Rochester metro currently has a population of approx 140-150k people. The Salt Lake metro has around 1.2 million people. In this case density means little because there is not enough POPULATION to support commuter rail.
Pirate77
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 2:20:58 PM
Rochester City Lines is operated by the City of Rochester Public Works Department.
Pirate77
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 2:23:28 PM
Correction: While they are a family business, they are the de facto public transportation service for the City of Rochester. In fact, go to rochestermn.gov, click on Departments, Public Works, Public Transportation and you are redirected to RCL’s website.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 3:59:11 PM
Thank you Pirate. :)
Sorry, olm1968, guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. While it is a private company, it takes public monies to provide the service. That in my mind makes it a public service.
A quick check of the fact sheet from the National Transit Database shows that, it cost $4.459 million in 2007 to run Roch Public Transit. Of that, $621,000 was for demand response service, leaving $3.837 million for the buses.
Fares collected were $1,723,453 or 39% of the costs, with $1,935,328 (43%) of the funding coming from the state, and 740,433 (17%) coming from the Fed.
So quite clearly, even with a private contractor, this is neither a profitable operation nor is it truly run by the private sector. It is run at the behest of the government and largely paid for by the government.
Now to Roch City Lines credit, I will say that they do beat the national average, spending only 63 cents in operating costs to move one passenger one mile. The National average is 80 cents.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 4:17:05 PM
olm1968 wrote: “Density might help shape rail routes, but population determines if there is a need. The Rochester metro currently has a population of approx 140-150k people. The Salt Lake metro has around 1.2 million people. In this case density means little because there is not enough POPULATION to support commuter rail.”
And again, density is more important than total overall population. The more crowded an area is, the more likely people are to ride transit and the more likely it is to be running at or near capacity.
If Rochester had a population of 5,000 people, then yes, building commuter rail would be foolish.
But if even 10% of the total population got on the trains, you’d have some pretty full trains. And with the population density, coupled with the fact that currently about 5% step onto the buses, 10% is a reasonable estimate for rail which always attracts more riders than buses.
rathman11
Minneapolis, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 4:44:19 PM
AlanB, keep in mind, it is equally important to note where and how far people are travling. High population density or not, if commuters are not traveling a distance that justifies rail then the need for rail is not necessary. Also, the designated corridors need to prove that they can provide a consistent number of riders to keep rail even halfway cost effective.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 7:09:36 PM
Rathman,
Overall I wouldn’t aruge what you’ve said at all, except to say that distance doesn’t eliminate rail, it just means that a different form should be considered. One typically uses commuter rail for distances over 30 to 40 miles, where as light rail can be effective even at distances around 5 miles.
And again, I agree and have been saying that we need to see studies with hard numbers of costs and ridership.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 1:20:11 PM
A lot of good a “commuter train” will be when everybody is unemployed.
They intend to spend the stimu=less supporting unions and dreaming up other expensive crazy stuff when instead we should be paying attention to what is going on in our country.
Plus, the gummint just simply CANNOT run passenger railroads on a cost effective basis.
They have tried to do so for decades and it is probably about time to stop looking for the reason and just give up.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 4:32:57 PM
AlanB: 5 miles from the center of downtown will put you in the country in almost any direction. You realize this is the Rochester, MN paper right?
These people tend to disagree with your numbers: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/01/southeast-minnesota-angles-for-rail-link-through-rochester/comment-page-1/#comment-15627
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 4:38:45 PM
Oops, wrong link. Try this one instead: www.americandreamcoalition.org/ADCFS1.pdf
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 9:31:36 PM
Atilla wrote: “A lot of good a “commuter train” will be when everybody is unemployed.”
A lot of good all those roads are going to do when everyone is unemployed. Yet they got far more money than did the rails from the Stimulus package.
Atilla wrote: “They intend to spend the stimu=less supporting unions and dreaming up other expensive crazy stuff when instead we should be paying attention to what is going on in our country.”
Guess who builds those roads that you think superior? Union workers. Guess who polices those roads? Union workers. Guess who rescues and drives those injured in accidents to the hospital? Union workers.
While I’m no fan of unions myself, as they’ve become way too powerful, you need to face the reality that the roads that you want not only cost this country more money and are driving it into bankruptcy faster than any train project, they provide far more union jobs than any train does.
Atilla wrote: “Plus, the gummint just simply CANNOT run passenger railroads on a cost effective basis.
They have tried to do so for decades and it is probably about time to stop looking for the reason and just give up.”
If you go back and actually look at the numbers that I’ve posted here, you’d find that no form of transit operates on a cost effective basis. However, rail is the most cost effective out of all the modes.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 9:38:22 PM
olm1968 wrote: “AlanB: 5 miles from the center of downtown will put you in the country in almost any direction. You realize this is the Rochester, MN paper right?”
Yes, I realize where Rochester, MN is. With respect, we already went through this once. And yes, I do realize that 5 miles in any direction pretty much does put you out in the country.
This is why I provided that definition of commuter rail vs. light rail and continue to state that we need to see actual plans and studies. I frankly have been wondering from the get go if the reporter didn’t misuse the term commuter rail.
Regarding the link you provided, I’ll respond to that in a separate post.
Puritanni
calRoches
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 9:40:54 PM
Just think, Rochesters notorious panhandlers could comute to the Twin Cities and after a hard day of panhandling, work the trains on the way home, before starting their shift at WalMart south.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 10:26:35 PM
AlanB: The roads have an advantage that the rail can’t top...they are already there.
Yes, we have discussed the size of Rochester, MN but you still don’t seem to get it. Commuter or light rail in Rochester, MINNESOTA makes as much sense as ore ships on Silver Lake (that’s the pond near downtown for those who aren’t local).
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 10:31:59 PM
Here’s my response to just some of Myth’s & Facts, Myth’s.
“New York City commuter rail lines carry close to half a freeway lane,”
I had to laugh at this one. The only way that’s true is if they cherry picked one poor performing line or if they’re calculating the freeway’s potential capacity and comparing it to what the RR is actually doing.
Here’s the truth. The Long Island RR carry’s more commuters into Manhattan with just 2 tracks than do the highways.
The pristine capacity of one highway lane is 2,000 cars per hour. Pristine means no trucks, no buses, and that traffic flows at 60 MPH with no traffic jams. The speed limits on the highways through Queens are 45 to 50 MPH.
But still, for the sake of argument, I’ll stick with the 2,000 number. The Grand Central Parkway has 4 lanes headed to Manhattan through Queens. The LIE has 3 through Queens. That’s a total of 7 lanes headed to Manhattan.
Multiply that by 2,000 and we have 14,000 cars an hour headed for Manhattan. Multiply that by the national average of 1.3 passengers per car and we arrive at 18,200 people per hour headed to Manhattan. Rush hour officially runs from 6 AM through 10 AM, so over 4 hours the highways can deliver a max of 72,800 people to Manhattan.
The problem is that not everyone is going to Manhattan. Some stop in Queens or Brooklyn, some go right through Manhattan to either the Bronx, points north or points west.
The LIRR puts about 140,000 people each day into Penn Station in Manhattan, the bulk of them during the morning rush hour. I’ll take off what I believe to be a high 40% of that number, as there are people who do go to the city outside of rush hour. That still leaves 84,000 people to the roads 72,800.
Even if the numbers are off a bit in either direction, be it rail or the roads, it’s still quite clear that the NY commuter RR’s are moving more than 1/2 of one lane’s capacity.
“New York is the only urban area where transit has more than a
10 percent share of urban travel”
The urban area myth. Counting people who have no access to transit is without a doubt going to make transit look bad. NYC’s urban area extends in places 50 to 60 miles from the center of NYC. Places where the nearest rail line might be a 20 mile drive or more from someone’s home.
Show me stats that include the population of the area that is actually serviced by transit. What they’re doing here is the same as someone adding Rochester’s population to that of MSP and then claiming that light rail isn’t doing it’s job because they just added almost 100,000 people who have no opportunity to ride light rail.
“Rail transit sometimes costs less to operate than the average bus
route in a bus system. But rail lines are usually built along the most
popular travel corridors, where costs per rider are lowest.”
Good for another chuckle. Here again are the numbers from Portland in 2007:
Bus operating expenses: $207,701,265
Light rail operating expenses: $73,656,174
That’s the actual operating expenses. Not expenses after deducting the fares collected. So ridership has nothing to do with the numbers. God forbid that every person in Portland came down with some form of the flu that kept everyone from going to work for 1 year, except for the transit workers themselves. And the city decided to keep running the transit system empty just to keep the employees working. It would still cost Portland $134 million dollars less to run the buses and trains empty!
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2007/agency_profiles/0008.pdf
“Over the past decade, light rail has killed about 11 people
per billion passenger miles, commuter rail and buses 8, and heavy rail
4. Freeways are about 4 to 5 and other roads and streets about 8.”
A useless comparison. Of course if you divide by the number of people actually traveling roads kill less. But when even one death is tragic, more people still die on our roads than from any other method of transportation.
“The Washington, DC, metro rail system was built at a cost of
$12.5 billion. Today, its managers say that over the next ten years they
will need to spend another $12.5 billion renovating roadbed, replacing
cars, and refurbishing stations.”
Another useless comparison. I didn’t even bother to go check to see if there claims of $12.5 Billion for both are correct, but if we assume for a minute that they are true, the $12.5 Billion spent in 1972 when the bulk of the system opened, that would have cost $63,645,864,887.56 in 2008 thanks to inflation.
I’m too tired to go on.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 10:51:19 PM
Although I admire your passion, I don’t understand your interest in our local politics. Are there no trees to hug in NY?
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 10:59:16 PM
olm1968 wrote: “Yes, we have discussed the size of Rochester, MN but you still don’t seem to get it. Commuter or light rail in Rochester, MINNESOTA makes as much sense as ore ships on Silver Lake (that’s the pond near downtown for those who aren’t local).”
And with respect, you still don’t seem to get it either. Rail is cheaper than the buses that you currently use.
I’m not saying that Rochester needs 30 lines. It doesn’t. A nice north/south 10 mile line, an east/west 8 mile line, and perhaps a loop in the downtown area would probably do quite nicely for Rochester.
And it would move more people than the buses do, for less money. Or do you enjoy paying more for your public transportation?
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 11:02:14 PM
AlanB: What works on the east coast doesn’t necessarily work here. Midwesterners like their cars (and trucks).
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 11:06:57 PM
olm1968 wrote: “Although I admire your passion, I don’t understand your interest in our local politics. Are there no trees to hug in NY?”
I’ve already told you what my interest is, it’s not standing by watching more and more of my hard earned dollars being wasted on the roads.
And frankly it shouldn’t matter what my interest’s are. Are you that opposed to saving your tax dollars that my interest’s are important?
I’ve given you actual numbers that show that rail is indeed cheaper, and you respond by insulting me. How sad. :(
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 11:10:23 PM
olm1968 wrote: “AlanB: What works on the east coast doesn’t necessarily work here. Midwesterners like their cars (and trucks).”
So do the people in ultra conservative Utah, yet they’re getting on transit. So do the people in Dallas, home of king oil. Yet they’re getting on transit. So do the people of Phoenix Arizona, Denver, St. Louis, and Houston just to name a few.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 11:26:11 PM
AlanB: By all means...come to Rochester and tell us WHAT other than Mayo someone would ride the train to. There is little to do in downtown and after 5:30 pm it’s like a ghost town because there is no entertainment district or place where people gather.
The roads are ALREADY there and paid for. If we were starting from scratch, rail might be competetive. For the cost of building a rail system, we could MAINTAIN the EXISTING roads for decades to come and still spend less.
Buses may not be the perfect “green” solution, but they offer the best ROI for a city the size of Rochester. It would very simple and cheap to run buses along the proposed routes as an experiment. Try it for a couple of years, if the numbers support it THEN build the rail.
Spending $100’s of millions without a need is poor use of taxpayer money.
olm1968
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/12/2009 at 11:36:56 PM
The cities you mentioned are not in the midwest. Oh yeah...they’re all several times larger than Rochester. Remember...the population thing?
I’m not against mass transit AlanB. I am against jumping on the rail bandwagon if it’s the wrong choice for Rocester, MN. We don’t have the money to make that kind of mistake. Why not try the buses first?
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/13/2009 at 12:11:44 AM
olm1968 wrote: “There is little to do in downtown and after 5:30 pm it’s like a ghost town because there is no entertainment district or place where people gather.”
With respect, did it ever occur to you that with adequate transportation available things might change downtown?
It is a proven fact that economic development always follows rail lines.
olm1968 wrote: “The roads are ALREADY there and paid for. If we were starting from scratch, rail might be competetive. For the cost of building a rail system, we could MAINTAIN the EXISTING roads for decades to come and still spend less.”
If only that were true. In 2007, last year for which data is available for, collectively for all transit systems including buses, senior transport, ferries, trains, and a few other types that I didn’t mention, this country spent a little over $47 Billion. That includes capital dollars and operating dollars, Federal, State, and local monies.
This year, just at the Federal level, we’ve spent $69.116 Billion. That includes nothing from the city/county/state levels of government.
And those numbers are reflective of total dollars spent. No effort was made to factor out what was paid by the users vs. the taxpayers.
olm1968 wrote: “Buses may not be the perfect “green” solution, but they offer the best ROI for a city the size of Rochester. It would very simple and cheap to run buses along the proposed routes as an experiment. Try it for a couple of years, if the numbers support it THEN build the rail.”
Buses are never a good indication of how rail will do. In some sense, I wish that it was, even though we’d be wasting the dollars to buy those buses only to throw them away.
Since Portland started building its rail lines, bus ridership has increased by about 5 million passenger miles annually. This despite the fact that rail replaced a few of the busiest bus routes.
Light rail ridership went from zero 25 years ago to 189 million passenger miles last fiscal year.
olm1968 wrote: “Spending $100’s of millions without a need is poor use of taxpayer money.”
With respect, that’s your opinion. Without proper studies, we can’t know if that’s true or not.
Again, I’ve never said “Oh, let’s run and build 500 miles of rail for Rochester.” I’m just not ready to dismiss the idea of rail without proper study, because I can see the benefit and I do think that there is indeed a chance that Rochester may be able to benefit.
Additionally, the idea here seems to be that the officials are finally trying to think long term in the future, rather than for the next 90 days or a year.
Even if they started seriously down the road tomorrow, it would be 5 years before a train would ever turn a wheel. Can you prove conclusively that in 5 years the population of Rochester won’t be 150,000? Or that it won’t have doubled to 200,000?
Wait for a serious and proper study, before you out and out oppose something that could save you and everyone else in Rochester money in the future.
AlanB
West Nyack, NY
Posted on 11/13/2009 at 12:30:11 AM
olm1968 wrote: “The cities you mentioned are not in the midwest. Oh yeah...they’re all several times larger than Rochester. Remember...the population thing?”
I was responding more to the idea that people in Rochester love their cars, not the other items in your statement. And again, people in those cities that I mentioned love their cars every bit as much as Minnesotans do, if not more.
As for the other items, last I knew St. Louis was in the mid-west. And Denver just misses by maybe 100 miles.
And the size of the city has no bearing on how much people love their cars. People love cars enough to pay thousands annually to park them in Manhattan, despite having the option of the greatest US transit system. Many don’t even drive their cars more than once or twice a week, but still they love them enough not to give them up.
