<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Public transit ridership is up, but no one’s talking about a better system]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by jonny2 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:08:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/1 Lack of Leadership

The single biggest reason politicians do not more actively support transit is the fact that they do not use it - especially at the national level. Therefore politicians do not posses the first-hand experiences of what role transit can play to solve and/or alleviate current challenges (environmental, energy, social equity, traffic, economic, etc), nor are they directly aware of how chronic under-funding has led many systems into a state of disarray. The logical conclusion is to create a national "bring your politician on transit" day, or if you are a bit more adventurous just "borrow" one (a politician) and drag him or her along to work the next time you take the bus or train.

]]> Lack of Leadership

The single biggest reason politicians do not more actively support transit is the fact that they do not use it - especially at the national level. Therefore politicians do not posses the first-hand experiences of what role transit can play to solve and/or alleviate current challenges (environmental, energy, social equity, traffic, economic, etc), nor are they directly aware of how chronic under-funding has led many systems into a state of disarray. The logical conclusion is to create a national "bring your politician on transit" day, or if you are a bit more adventurous just "borrow" one (a politician) and drag him or her along to work the next time you take the bus or train.

]]> Comment #2 by MAD MAC http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:01:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/2 Again, someone is over-complicating the simple

The reason the public transit sector atrophied was because it wasn't being used. It earned insufficient revenues. The more it's used, the more revenues it will generate. The more revenues it generates, the more it will be improved. Christ, you guys are killing me here.

]]> Again, someone is over-complicating the simple

The reason the public transit sector atrophied was because it wasn't being used. It earned insufficient revenues. The more it's used, the more revenues it will generate. The more revenues it generates, the more it will be improved. Christ, you guys are killing me here.

]]> Comment #3 by socialscientist http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:29:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/3 streetcars deliberately dimantled

In 1920, Phila streetcars carried 900,000,000 passengers in one year. The streetcar systems in the U.S. were deliberately and intentionally dismantled. Get your history on transit from the transit blogs, not from the MSM or the "environmentalist" sources.

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com

]]> streetcars deliberately dimantled

In 1920, Phila streetcars carried 900,000,000 passengers in one year. The streetcar systems in the U.S. were deliberately and intentionally dismantled. Get your history on transit from the transit blogs, not from the MSM or the "environmentalist" sources.

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com

]]> Comment #4 by MAD MAC http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:51:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/4 So it's an evil scheme......... of course

The auto industry didn't produce a product people really wanted, they destroyed other options and forced cars upon people in order to get rich at everyone's expense.

Good grief, people here will believe anything.

]]> So it's an evil scheme......... of course

The auto industry didn't produce a product people really wanted, they destroyed other options and forced cars upon people in order to get rich at everyone's expense.

Good grief, people here will believe anything.

]]> Comment #5 by socialscientist http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:39:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/5 Capitalism is not evil.

No evil involved. Corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. What is wrong is that we allow them too much influence on public policy.
.
The influence of the carbon and auto industries in government is well documented and, frankly, plain obvious. Remember the Chrysler bail-out? Remember the oil-depletion allowance? Remember the war in IRAQ...?
.
The auto and sprawl are heavily subsidized and now we can add to that subsidy the trillions needed to address global warming.
.
We have listed some of the carbon-auto subsidies (externalities) at:
http://freepublictransit.org/index.php?pr=Externalities
.







]]> Capitalism is not evil.

No evil involved. Corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. What is wrong is that we allow them too much influence on public policy.
.
The influence of the carbon and auto industries in government is well documented and, frankly, plain obvious. Remember the Chrysler bail-out? Remember the oil-depletion allowance? Remember the war in IRAQ...?
.
The auto and sprawl are heavily subsidized and now we can add to that subsidy the trillions needed to address global warming.
.
We have listed some of the carbon-auto subsidies (externalities) at:
http://freepublictransit.org/index.php?pr=Externalities
.







]]> Comment #6 by geoark http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:12:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/6 Next Transit Step - PRTs

When people think of transit as being "dirty, slow, unreliable, and inconvenient relative to automobiles" and 'that transit is seen as "not sexy."', why not fix the perception and create something clean, reliable, and convenient.  

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) will meet this need at a much lower cost than traditional rail. Read all about it at: http://www.acprt.org/

And while you are at it learn about the Green Tax Shift (http://www.green-shift.org) that would remove taxes off work and production and, instead, charge user fees on carbon pollution, fossil fuel extraction, etc.  It would also rebate the user fee back to individual citizens via Social Security, health care, and energy transition accounts.

With the Green Tax Shift we would see the rapid development of resource conserving technologies such as the PRT.

]]> Next Transit Step - PRTs

When people think of transit as being "dirty, slow, unreliable, and inconvenient relative to automobiles" and 'that transit is seen as "not sexy."', why not fix the perception and create something clean, reliable, and convenient.  

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) will meet this need at a much lower cost than traditional rail. Read all about it at: http://www.acprt.org/

And while you are at it learn about the Green Tax Shift (http://www.green-shift.org) that would remove taxes off work and production and, instead, charge user fees on carbon pollution, fossil fuel extraction, etc.  It would also rebate the user fee back to individual citizens via Social Security, health care, and energy transition accounts.

With the Green Tax Shift we would see the rapid development of resource conserving technologies such as the PRT.

]]> Comment #7 by marigoldmind http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:56:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/7 Do highways turn a profit?

One aspect of the transportation discussion that always confuses me is why people want and expect public transportation to be a profitable venture.  Do highways turn a profit?  They are publicly supported, so we all pay for them through our taxes.  However, most highways are not toll roads, so as far as I know, they aren't generating any income.  It seems like public transportation is held to a different (and unattainable) standard and the subsidies that it receives are somehow akin to "bailouts".  Capitalism isn't the solution to every problem.

I moved to DC partly so that I could get rid of my car and get around via public transportation.  The DC system (trains and buses) could of course be improved, but I love not having a car.  I hope to never again live in a place where a car is absolutely necessary.  Right now, that is only possible in a very few number of American cities.

]]> Do highways turn a profit?

One aspect of the transportation discussion that always confuses me is why people want and expect public transportation to be a profitable venture.  Do highways turn a profit?  They are publicly supported, so we all pay for them through our taxes.  However, most highways are not toll roads, so as far as I know, they aren't generating any income.  It seems like public transportation is held to a different (and unattainable) standard and the subsidies that it receives are somehow akin to "bailouts".  Capitalism isn't the solution to every problem.

I moved to DC partly so that I could get rid of my car and get around via public transportation.  The DC system (trains and buses) could of course be improved, but I love not having a car.  I hope to never again live in a place where a car is absolutely necessary.  Right now, that is only possible in a very few number of American cities.

]]> Comment #8 by socialscientist http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:38:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/8 The auto is what is subsidized

Thank you, marigoldmind. It is the auto, oil, and sprawl that are subsidized. They involve private profit. Public transit is a public investment. Its benefits accrue to all, not a narrow interest.
.
The DC system is excellent by U.S. standards. You might be interested to read the speeches against building the DC Metro. It was going to be a "socialist boondoggle" -- the end of free enterprise. The carbon-auto puppets in congress fought it tooth and nail.
.
http://freepublictransit.org
.






]]> The auto is what is subsidized

Thank you, marigoldmind. It is the auto, oil, and sprawl that are subsidized. They involve private profit. Public transit is a public investment. Its benefits accrue to all, not a narrow interest.
.
The DC system is excellent by U.S. standards. You might be interested to read the speeches against building the DC Metro. It was going to be a "socialist boondoggle" -- the end of free enterprise. The carbon-auto puppets in congress fought it tooth and nail.
.
http://freepublictransit.org
.






]]> Comment #9 by tlr http://www.grist.org/article/avent/ Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:58:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/avent/9 Someone is talking

Earth Policy Institute
Plan B 3.0 Book Byte
For Immediate Release
July 9, 2008

REDESIGNING URBAN TRANSPORT

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch10_ss3.htm

Lester R. Brown

The worldâ€TMs cities are facing unprecedented problems. In Mexico City, Tehran, Kolkata, Bangkok, Shanghai, and hundreds of other cities, the air is no longer safe to breathe. Respiratory illnesses are rampant. In the United States, the number of hours commuters spend sitting frustrated in traffic-congested streets and highways climbs higher each year. In response, forward-thinking city planners are seeking ways to redesign cities for people not cars. They have begun to realize that urban transport systems based on a combination of rail lines, bus lines, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian walkways offer the best of all possible worlds in providing mobility, low-cost transportation, and a healthy urban environment.

A rail system can provide the foundation for a cityâ€TMs transportation system. Rails, either underground or on the surface, are geographically fixed, providing a permanent means of transportation that people can count on. Once in place, the nodes on such a system become the obvious places to concentrate office buildings, high-rise apartment buildings, and shops.

Some of the most innovative public transportation systems, those that shift huge numbers of people from cars into buses, have been developed in Curitiba and Bogotá. The success of Bogotáâ€TMs bus rapid transit (BRT) system, TransMilenio, which uses special express lanes to move people quickly through the city, is being replicated not only in six other Colombian cities but elsewhere too: Mexico City, São Paulo, Hanoi, Seoul, Taipei, Quito, and several cities in Africa. In China, Beijing is one of 20 cities developing BRT systems. Even industrial-country cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and--much to everyoneâ€TMs delight--Los Angeles have launched or are now considering BRT systems.

Some cities are reducing traffic congestion and air pollution by charging cars to enter the city, including Singapore, London, Stockholm, and Milan. In 2003, London adopted a £5 ($10) charge on all motorists driving into the center city between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., immediately reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Within a year, bus ridership increased by 38 percent and delays dropped by 30 percent. In July 2005, the fee was raised to £8 ($16). Overall, since the congestion charge was adopted, car and minicab traffic into the central city has dropped 36 percent, while bicycle traffic has increased by 50 percent.

Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, who was elected in 2001, faced some of Europeâ€TMs worst traffic congestion and air pollution. He decided traffic would have to be cut 40 percent by 2020. The first step was to invest in better transit in outlying regions to ensure that everyone in the greater Paris area had access to high-quality public transit. The next step was to create express lanes on main thoroughfares for buses and bicycles, thus reducing the number of lanes for cars. The third step was to establish a city bicycle rental program that by the end of 2007 had 20,600 bikes available at 1,450 docking stations throughout Paris. Accessed by credit card at inexpensive daily, monthly, or annual rates, the bicycles are proving to be immensely popular. At this point Mayor Delanoë is well along on his goal of cutting car traffic by 40 percent.

The United States, which has lagged far behind Europe in developing diversified urban transport systems, is being swept by a â€oecomplete streets” movement, an effort to ensure that streets are friendly to pedestrians and bicycles as well as to cars. Many American communities lack sidewalks and bike lanes, making it difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to get around safely, particularly where streets are heavily traveled. This cars-only model is being challenged by the National Complete Streets Coalition, a powerful assemblage of citizen groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, AARP (an organization of 38 million older Americans), and local and national cycling organizations. This coalition has aggressively lobbied for â€oecomplete streets” policies, which are now in place in 14 states and 40 metropolitan areas, cities, and counties. In early 2008, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Representative Doris Matsui of California each introduced national â€oecomplete streets” legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Countries that have well-developed urban transit systems and a mature bicycle infrastructure are much better positioned to withstand the stresses of a downturn in world oil production than are countries whose only transport option is the car. With a full array of walking and biking options, the number of trips by car can easily be cut by 10â€"20 percent.

The bicycle has many attractions. It alleviates congestion, lowers air pollution, reduces obesity, does not emit climate-disrupting carbon dioxide, reduces the area of pavement needed, and has a price within reach for the billions of people who cannot afford an automobile.

Few methods of reducing carbon emissions are as effective as substituting a bicycle for a car on short trips. A bicycle is a marvel of engineering efficiency, one where an investment in 22 pounds of metal and rubber boosts the efficiency of individual mobility by a factor of three. On my bike I estimate that I get easily 7 miles per potato. An automobile, which requires at least a ton of material to transport one person, is extraordinarily inefficient by comparison.

The capacity of the bicycle to provide mobility for low-income populations was dramatically demonstrated in China. After the reforms in 1978 that led to an open market economy and rapidly rising incomes, bicycle production and ownership started climbing. The surge to 500 million bicycle owners in China since 1978 provided the greatest increase in human mobility in history.

Many cities are turning to bicycles for various uses. In the United States, nearly 75 percent of police departments serving populations of 50,000 or more now have routine patrols by bicycle. Bicycle messenger services are common in the worldâ€TMs larger cities simply because they deliver small parcels more quickly than cars can and at a lower cost.

The key to realizing the potential of the bicycle is to create a bicycle-friendly transport system. This means providing both bicycle trails and designated street lanes for bicycles. Among the industrial-country leaders doing so are the Dutch, the Danes, and the Germans. The Netherlands has incorporated a vision of the role of bicycles into a Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to creating bike lanes and trails in all its cities, the system also often gives cyclists the advantage over motorists in right-of-way and at traffic lights. Roughly 30 percent of all urban trips in the Netherlands are on bicycle, compared with 1 percent in the United States.

Both the Netherlands and Japan have made a concerted effort to integrate bicycles and rail commuter services by providing bicycle parking at rail stations, making it easier for cyclists to commute by train. In Japan, the use of bicycles for commuting to rail transportation has reached the point where some stations have invested in vertical, multi-level parking garages for bicycles, much as is often done for automobiles.

The combination of rail and bicycle, and particularly their integration into a single, overall transport system, makes a city eminently more livable than one that relies almost exclusively on private automobiles. Noise, pollution, congestion, and frustration are all lessened. We and the earth are both healthier.

#     #     #

Adapted from Chapter 10, â€oeDesigning Cities for People,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), available for free downloading and purchase at http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm.

For information contact:

Media Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12
E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org

Research Contact:
Janet Larsen
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14
E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org

Earth Policy Institute
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20036
Web: http://www.earthpolicy.org











]]> Someone is talking

Earth Policy Institute
Plan B 3.0 Book Byte
For Immediate Release
July 9, 2008

REDESIGNING URBAN TRANSPORT

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch10_ss3.htm

Lester R. Brown

The worldâ€TMs cities are facing unprecedented problems. In Mexico City, Tehran, Kolkata, Bangkok, Shanghai, and hundreds of other cities, the air is no longer safe to breathe. Respiratory illnesses are rampant. In the United States, the number of hours commuters spend sitting frustrated in traffic-congested streets and highways climbs higher each year. In response, forward-thinking city planners are seeking ways to redesign cities for people not cars. They have begun to realize that urban transport systems based on a combination of rail lines, bus lines, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian walkways offer the best of all possible worlds in providing mobility, low-cost transportation, and a healthy urban environment.

A rail system can provide the foundation for a cityâ€TMs transportation system. Rails, either underground or on the surface, are geographically fixed, providing a permanent means of transportation that people can count on. Once in place, the nodes on such a system become the obvious places to concentrate office buildings, high-rise apartment buildings, and shops.

Some of the most innovative public transportation systems, those that shift huge numbers of people from cars into buses, have been developed in Curitiba and Bogotá. The success of Bogotáâ€TMs bus rapid transit (BRT) system, TransMilenio, which uses special express lanes to move people quickly through the city, is being replicated not only in six other Colombian cities but elsewhere too: Mexico City, São Paulo, Hanoi, Seoul, Taipei, Quito, and several cities in Africa. In China, Beijing is one of 20 cities developing BRT systems. Even industrial-country cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and--much to everyoneâ€TMs delight--Los Angeles have launched or are now considering BRT systems.

Some cities are reducing traffic congestion and air pollution by charging cars to enter the city, including Singapore, London, Stockholm, and Milan. In 2003, London adopted a £5 ($10) charge on all motorists driving into the center city between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., immediately reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Within a year, bus ridership increased by 38 percent and delays dropped by 30 percent. In July 2005, the fee was raised to £8 ($16). Overall, since the congestion charge was adopted, car and minicab traffic into the central city has dropped 36 percent, while bicycle traffic has increased by 50 percent.

Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, who was elected in 2001, faced some of Europeâ€TMs worst traffic congestion and air pollution. He decided traffic would have to be cut 40 percent by 2020. The first step was to invest in better transit in outlying regions to ensure that everyone in the greater Paris area had access to high-quality public transit. The next step was to create express lanes on main thoroughfares for buses and bicycles, thus reducing the number of lanes for cars. The third step was to establish a city bicycle rental program that by the end of 2007 had 20,600 bikes available at 1,450 docking stations throughout Paris. Accessed by credit card at inexpensive daily, monthly, or annual rates, the bicycles are proving to be immensely popular. At this point Mayor Delanoë is well along on his goal of cutting car traffic by 40 percent.

The United States, which has lagged far behind Europe in developing diversified urban transport systems, is being swept by a â€oecomplete streets” movement, an effort to ensure that streets are friendly to pedestrians and bicycles as well as to cars. Many American communities lack sidewalks and bike lanes, making it difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to get around safely, particularly where streets are heavily traveled. This cars-only model is being challenged by the National Complete Streets Coalition, a powerful assemblage of citizen groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, AARP (an organization of 38 million older Americans), and local and national cycling organizations. This coalition has aggressively lobbied for â€oecomplete streets” policies, which are now in place in 14 states and 40 metropolitan areas, cities, and counties. In early 2008, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Representative Doris Matsui of California each introduced national â€oecomplete streets” legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Countries that have well-developed urban transit systems and a mature bicycle infrastructure are much better positioned to withstand the stresses of a downturn in world oil production than are countries whose only transport option is the car. With a full array of walking and biking options, the number of trips by car can easily be cut by 10â€"20 percent.

The bicycle has many attractions. It alleviates congestion, lowers air pollution, reduces obesity, does not emit climate-disrupting carbon dioxide, reduces the area of pavement needed, and has a price within reach for the billions of people who cannot afford an automobile.

Few methods of reducing carbon emissions are as effective as substituting a bicycle for a car on short trips. A bicycle is a marvel of engineering efficiency, one where an investment in 22 pounds of metal and rubber boosts the efficiency of individual mobility by a factor of three. On my bike I estimate that I get easily 7 miles per potato. An automobile, which requires at least a ton of material to transport one person, is extraordinarily inefficient by comparison.

The capacity of the bicycle to provide mobility for low-income populations was dramatically demonstrated in China. After the reforms in 1978 that led to an open market economy and rapidly rising incomes, bicycle production and ownership started climbing. The surge to 500 million bicycle owners in China since 1978 provided the greatest increase in human mobility in history.

Many cities are turning to bicycles for various uses. In the United States, nearly 75 percent of police departments serving populations of 50,000 or more now have routine patrols by bicycle. Bicycle messenger services are common in the worldâ€TMs larger cities simply because they deliver small parcels more quickly than cars can and at a lower cost.

The key to realizing the potential of the bicycle is to create a bicycle-friendly transport system. This means providing both bicycle trails and designated street lanes for bicycles. Among the industrial-country leaders doing so are the Dutch, the Danes, and the Germans. The Netherlands has incorporated a vision of the role of bicycles into a Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to creating bike lanes and trails in all its cities, the system also often gives cyclists the advantage over motorists in right-of-way and at traffic lights. Roughly 30 percent of all urban trips in the Netherlands are on bicycle, compared with 1 percent in the United States.

Both the Netherlands and Japan have made a concerted effort to integrate bicycles and rail commuter services by providing bicycle parking at rail stations, making it easier for cyclists to commute by train. In Japan, the use of bicycles for commuting to rail transportation has reached the point where some stations have invested in vertical, multi-level parking garages for bicycles, much as is often done for automobiles.

The combination of rail and bicycle, and particularly their integration into a single, overall transport system, makes a city eminently more livable than one that relies almost exclusively on private automobiles. Noise, pollution, congestion, and frustration are all lessened. We and the earth are both healthier.

#     #     #

Adapted from Chapter 10, â€oeDesigning Cities for People,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), available for free downloading and purchase at http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm.

For information contact:

Media Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12
E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org

Research Contact:
Janet Larsen
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14
E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org

Earth Policy Institute
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20036
Web: http://www.earthpolicy.org











]]>