John Dewey
The Basics
- Name: John Dewey
John Dewey’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
Propane buses - neither smelly nor noisy
It may be because light rail is less "smelly and noisy", although electric buses are neither.
Propane buses produce fewer hydrocarbons and less smell than diesel buses. Propane buses require no infrastructure construction, other than refueling and maintenance stations.
I have no financial interest in promoting propane, other than the benefits of its cost efficiency to me, a taxpayer.
On Transit investment should and will be a part of the peak oil solution posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
light rail advocates get paid much more than I do
Maybe the freeways would be more congested, but some people are moving into Dallas, partly because of the light rail.
If people are moving into the Dallas because of the light rail, they certainly are not using it. Again, daily ridership is only 60,000, representing 30,000 round trip passengers - in a metro area of 6 million people.
The more people that live in the city proper, the less that are in the suburbs, the less congestion there is.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Geographic dispersion, not geographic concentration, is the solution to urban congestion. When workplaces are dispersed, much more affordable housing can be built close to workplaces. Moving jobs to the suburbs - which is exactly waht is happening nationwide - keeps commuters out of already congested cities.
Bus rapid transit has been very successful, it may be that that would have been a better decision for Dallas.
Thank you for that consideration of my argument.
Light rail continues to be voted in over BRT because the print news media buys into it. Local newspapers continue to feature the propaganda of DART and rail advocate organizations funded by special interests.
Light rail requires much greater financial commitment - and allows much greater financial rewards. Light rail beneficiaries pack public meetings with professional advocates. Individuals who object in meetings - as I have frequently - get a fraction of the coverage given to DART officials and rail lobbyists.
Local newspapers have published several of our letters opposing rail transit. But every time they do, they follow up with 3 or 4 counter letters within a few days. Never do newspapers give much credence to the simple facts of light rails ineffectiveness.On Transit investment should and will be a part of the peak oil solution posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
$5 billion is "particularly burdensome"
I doubt that whatever is being spent in the Dallas area on public transit, relative to the entire budget, is particularly burdensome. However it happened, some money got funneled to public transit
I'm sorry, but I don't see how $5 billion can be casually tossed aside as "not particularly burdensome". A 1% sales tax is particularly burdensome when used so ineffectively.
Just dedicating some fixed amount of money for mass transit should not be the goal of any planner or any community. Mass transit was alive and well and functioning before light rail transit was proposed. Those who required such transit were already using the Dallas bus system, which worked quite well.
DART promised that the light rail trains would reduce congestion. Their propaganda brochure claimed that 150,000 vehicles would be removed from the freeways. At most 30,000 have been removed, and only if we believe that every light rail rider represents a vehicle removed from the freeway. We know that's not true because a significant number of bus riders were moved to trains as bus routes were redesigned after light rail implementation. We also know that some light rail riders are using the close in train stations as free parking spots after they've clogged the freeways for most of their commute.
Most light rail opponents do not object to mass transit, just to expensive, inefficient mass transit. Buses are flexible and inexpensive. Light rail trains are ineffective toys that help the environmentally-conscious feel something has been accomplished - and generate huge payoffs to engineering, construction, and train companies.On Transit investment should and will be a part of the peak oil solution posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Let each culture pay its own way
I never liked living in suburbia, and there are certainly many people (don't have any figures) in Manhattan and other cities that don't. In fact, property values in dense city centers are even going up now, while they are going down in exurbia. So some people like it, some don't -- as long as I have a choice, it's cultural.
I agree that people have different desires. I do not agree that your property value assessment is valid across the U.S. Certainly those cities which have retained strong central business districts will see higher property values near center cores than in the far suburbs.
Housing in close proximity to workplaces continues to be more valuable. What has happened in the more modern cities is the dispersion of workplaces. Free markets and the availability of inexpensive land has combined to allow homebuyers with different desires both live in the neighborhoods they desire.
My issue with planners and environmentalists is their insistence that the predominant culture subsidize the minority one. It is apparently their intent to force change onto my culture, which is not going to happen. In the meantime, subsidization of your culture in modern cities have given us boondoggles such as Dallas light rail, a system that has cost $5 billion but only serves 30,000 people a day.
I try to have patience with the insistent argument that proper urban planning will change my culture to be closer to yours. If it were just argument, I wouldn't care. It's when you reach into my wallet to fund your new urban experiments that I get bothered. On Transit investment should and will be a part of the peak oil solution posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Forget mass transit, embrace sprawl
I picture a balanced system where cities remained compact, the most economical modes of walking, bicycling, and mass transit were used on a daily basis, and personal automobiles were used for weekend journeys on private roads out to the nearby low-density countryside. A man can dream, can't he?
And a dream is all it is. What doomed streetcars in the U.S. is dooming them everywhere in the world where property is available for expansion: prosperity. Few people, given the choice, will live crowded together when they can enjoy the freedom of their own private space.
Movement to the suburbs predates the automobile. Cities spread along rail lines far away from central business districts. Once economical personal transport became available, and once incomes rose to take advantage of it, sprawl took off.
Government may have built highways, funded by user fees in the form of tolls and gasoline taxes, of course. But highways and roads are what voters wanted, expressed through their elected officials.
Personal transportation is simply more convenient. Voters will continue to petition government for more road money. Automobile and energy companies will continue to meet consumers' demands for that transport.
If we somehow run out of fuel for internal combustion engines - which I think is unlikely for many decades if not a century or more - sprawled suburbanites will be using electric cars.
The intelligent action for planners is to match consumer's desire for single-family detached housing with the suggested reduction in fuel availability. That can easily be accomplished by the de-centralization of workplaces. Geographic dispersion of workplaces and homes allows workers to live in the homes they desire and also enjoy short, inexpensive commutes.
Sprawl is the solution to rising energy costs and the alleged GHG crisis.On Transit investment should and will be a part of the peak oil solution posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses