Maybe the FTA should start mandating a minimum service threshold for the corridors it funds....with some sort of 'snapback' that requires immediate repayment if service falls below that threshold.
"The system is planned for half-hourly service once additional trains arrive, yet the project is indicative of a problem among many major transit projects in the U.S.: we’re willing to spend billions of dollars on construction, but we have less interest in paying the long-term costs of making sure trains and buses on these lines are frequent and reliable".
And maybe would should be learning from places in Europe, and start following a 'design-build-operate' model for our major transit investments. Because otherwise, when the snapback hits, transit agencies will simply cut bus service to offset the costs, and total ridership will actually be less.
Which begs the question: Why are we building all this rail? I'm a transit advocate, I ride every train I get a chance to (Atlanta's streetcar stinks, by the way), and I still wonder. When I advocated for rail vs BRT (close to a decade ago) it was on the premise that rail could spur Transit-Oriented-Development. The reality check is that most rail spurs very little TOD, either. Mostly, it spurs park and rides. Only in a few select locations (downtown adjacent) do I ever see any TOD. And those locations are within streetcar range. So why build all the rail to suburbia? If all we're going to get is parking lots, why not build BRT? The academic research is pretty clear that it does no worse that rail at generating TOD.
I hate to say it, but rail (especially expensive rail) only makes sense for places that already have rail, either in the form of a network, or in the form of leftover freight rail. So that more rail either prevents a 'change of gauge' problem for riders (where they have to change vehicles), or makes duplicate use of rail track.
But I suppose that's the logic the New Starts program was designed to overcome: To provide a 'starter' rail system for places that didn't have rail, so they had a seed to grow from. Retrospectively (post Curitiba) it looks a little silly.
But as I reflect on it, there is another reason for rail: Guideway. When it's not just 'right of way', but actual guide-way. When you've got a vehicle moving through a tunnel, or on an elevated platform, when straying from the path would mean disaster.
"The system is planned for half-hourly service once additional trains arrive, yet the project is indicative of a problem among many major transit projects in the U.S.: we’re willing to spend billions of dollars on construction, but we have less interest in paying the long-term costs of making sure trains and buses on these lines are frequent and reliable".
And maybe would should be learning from places in Europe, and start following a 'design-build-operate' model for our major transit investments. Because otherwise, when the snapback hits, transit agencies will simply cut bus service to offset the costs, and total ridership will actually be less.
Which begs the question: Why are we building all this rail? I'm a transit advocate, I ride every train I get a chance to (Atlanta's streetcar stinks, by the way), and I still wonder. When I advocated for rail vs BRT (close to a decade ago) it was on the premise that rail could spur Transit-Oriented-Development. The reality check is that most rail spurs very little TOD, either. Mostly, it spurs park and rides. Only in a few select locations (downtown adjacent) do I ever see any TOD. And those locations are within streetcar range. So why build all the rail to suburbia? If all we're going to get is parking lots, why not build BRT? The academic research is pretty clear that it does no worse that rail at generating TOD.
I hate to say it, but rail (especially expensive rail) only makes sense for places that already have rail, either in the form of a network, or in the form of leftover freight rail. So that more rail either prevents a 'change of gauge' problem for riders (where they have to change vehicles), or makes duplicate use of rail track.
But I suppose that's the logic the New Starts program was designed to overcome: To provide a 'starter' rail system for places that didn't have rail, so they had a seed to grow from. Retrospectively (post Curitiba) it looks a little silly.
But as I reflect on it, there is another reason for rail: Guideway. When it's not just 'right of way', but actual guide-way. When you've got a vehicle moving through a tunnel, or on an elevated platform, when straying from the path would mean disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment
And your thoughts on the matter?