After reading thru much of Vic Vreeland’s “Pave the World” website it seems pretty obvious it’s an extremely slanted propaganda piece, with gaping holes in the logic. <p>I certainly make no claim to being a mass transit expert, but on the PTW site there is no mention of existing systems in the U.S. that obviously work and work well. (Like New<br>York, Chicago, Boston. Just ones I can think of off the top of my head.)<p>There is also no mention or comparison made as to what the actual funds expended on the<br>proposed, or in work, light rail systems comprise as a percentage of total transportation dollars spent. I.e., if the Austin LR system is really costing $650 million, during this same period how much is being spent new road construction and old road maintenance.<p>Mixed in with all the hype and hot air are what seem to be some fairly well researched<br>articles/reports. Mr. Vreeland has linked to just about any site he can find that is anti LR, but that doesn’t mean all the anti LR people are as wacky as Vic.<p>The non-wackos ask some tough questions to which I don’t know the answers. In the<br>spirit of trying to learn more, and hoping there are people who visit this board that can help, I make the following general assertions/questions:<p>1. Light rail, while it has a place in mass transit is not a panacea for all our transit woes and congestion and pollution problems?<p>2. For light rail to really make a significant difference in traffic flows you would need systems on the order of what exists in my view primarily in the northeast? (Is building 52 miles of track really going to make a difference in Austin?)<p>3. Light rail works best when there is total separation of the ROW from vehicular traffic?<p>4. Light rail will never be self sustaining financially? (I ask this question fully realizing the same is more than true of roads.)<p>5. Light rail's primary advantage is its ability to move large numbers of people on a<br>relatively narrow ROW at relatively low cost? It’s cheaper than cars?<p>6. If we diverted say 10% of our total transportation dollars a year away from roads, could we build LR systems that would make a difference? Would this take 10 years? 20 years? More?<p>7. What sources of income are used to build roads outside of the gasoline tax? Property<br>taxes, sales taxes, toll roads, levies, bond issues, etc? The point being, how much do<br>roads really cost and is much of the funding for them from hidden taxes?<p>Well, this ought to start a good discussion or flame out big time. Again, I ask these<br>questions because I support light rail, but this is primarily a personal preference (I Like trains). I wouldn’t know how to answer the barrage of statistics thrown at me by an<br>emotional Vic Vreeland, or some housewife who’s mad because the tracks next to her<br>house are all of a sudden going to have trains again. The latter probably wouldn’t mind if they widened the mainstreet thru her neighborhood to 4 lanes, taking out half the houses in the process. Been there, seen that.<p>I think it incumbent upon us to have factual information with which to respond to these<br>auto junkies (and yeah, I get in my Ranger and drive it 20 miles to work on I-405 and I-5 every weekday).<p>Is the Interchange a place for such and exchange of ideas, or should we stick to<br>preservation?<br>



hkading@rypn.org

Let us not limit our vision to roads. Our airports and waterways, and even pipelines are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. I would suggest that rail transit probably, if operated reasonably, returns more of its actual operating costs through user fees than any other form of public transportation, most expecially compared to asphalt covered grades. <p>Like all transit systems, it is part of a larger system which is intermodal, and a certain population density is required for it to be practical. MARTA works by providing parking lots in the suburbs and collecting a mass of commuters at their lots to bring downtown without their cars. San Francisco has almost everything connecting including boats. <p>Working now on a plan to use light rail to connect satellite parking garages through an historic district with water taxis from a convention center, private and public tour busses, and major hotels. <p>So, it can and should be a part of the mix where practical but isn't the cure all for everybody. Grade seperation is OK but not necessary as we have proven for decades in New Orleans and Dallas.<p>Now consider freight. Suppose privately owned trucking companies had to build, maintain and operate their own private rights of way, and pay property taxes on it. That would provide a level playing field with railroads, but would drive the cost of trucking beyong economic consideration. <p>But why do we need long haul trucking at all with ROADRAILER technology? My vote for boondoggle of the century is our encouraging long haul trucking instead of delivering the truck trailer by rail to within 20 miles of its final destination and having only short haul trucking at either end. <p>Dave <br>



lathro19@idt.net

Keep in mind that when the Eisenhower administration proposed the "Interstate Defense and Highway Bill," the Secretary of Transportation was none other than the former head of General Motors. Nuff said!<br>



K4s1361@hotmail.com

I live in San Francisco, one of the most rail oriented cities in the USA. We have three rail gauges here. There are 5 Light Rail Lines, with another under construction.<p>People here like them better than riding diesel buses -hands down-. They also like the Heritage Street Cars on the F line; the Municipial Railway is out looking for ten more PCCS to handle the crouds on it.<p>I don't know a lot of numbers for Light Rail; but people have to like Mass Transit or they will not ride it!<p>It has been said that LRVs can only work here in California because we have a lot of hydro-electric power. How about: St Louis,Denver,Salt Lake City and now New Jersey?<br>

This website "Railroading America" is just another scary idea from Texas. Read in to that whatever you choose.<br>



vlnmkr@aol.com

Light rail,along with heavy rail (read commuter rail) are the best ways to cut down on traffic,pollution,and urban decay that man could ever devise. the success of these systems in Dallas,San Diego,Los Angelas proves that with a sound system,the systems will work as advertised.<br> Some may feel that more highways are the answer...where i live,there is no alternative to mas transit but by bus,which operate over jam-packed roads during rush hour!<br> I believe this is important to post here for these reasons:<p>1. If commuter rail (or light rail) operates over a segregated right of way,this might give steam operators an opportunity to operate where they might not have an opportunity to operate.<p>2. If either one of these systems operates over a current railroad right-of way ( the Austin light-rail project comes to mind) improved speeds and perhaps the opportunity to operate more trains could impact directly on a steam operators' bottom line,enabling them to continue operating providing more frequent service that they could otherwise offer.<p>3. It also might present an opportunity to operators to provide such commuter service,also impacting the bottom line.<br>



kbcotton@flash.net

Hume, I don't think it belongs here, except, as Aarne so capably pointed out, to learn from the past. <p>This is a hugely polarizing subject, especially with some of the zealots on the pro-rail side who just like trains, don't give a hoot about anything else but trains, and are determined that the cure to all ills is to force people into rail cars. <p>It's tough for the pro-rail zealots (I define them that way to differentiate them from those who actually study the pros and cons and costs and often as not determine that light rail won't work well in a particular situation) to come out of those ivory towers and admit that a lot of their arguments are just plain crap. Especially the continued ranting and wailing about how this mode or that mode is more subsidized than rail and that just isn't fair. <p>Some of you know-it-alls should buy, license and operate a truck for a while and then try to say with a straight face that the trucker gets a free ride. Pay $3,000-$5,000 for license plates and permits for ONE vehicle for ONE year, then pay the state and federal fuel taxes (far higher than what cars pay), the highway use taxes, the weight/mile taxes, the property taxes, the excise tax on a set of tires (the tax alone can be more thas you pay for 2 full sets of tires for your Yugo) and all the other stuff. It all goes into the Highway Trust Fund, where a certain amount is then syphoned off to pay for somebody's pet streetcar to run around empty most of the time. <p>And when you fly, take a look at how much of your ticket price is taxes. You won't see how much of your ticket price is landing fees, aviation fuel taxes, principle and interest payments on airport construction bonds, etc. But it's there.<p>Aarne is right; highways and airways do pay their own way. Transit schemes and Amtrak suck some money from those who don't use or need or even have them available, then want to get even more.<p>The idea that all modes but rail (light or heavy) get free rides is both an urban and a foamer myth. <p>Having said all that, can we leave this stuff to the other boards that thrive on it and return to preservation? <br>

Problem is, I would have to find and subscribe to all those boards when we could just discuss this subject here for a while until it dies, as all subjects do.<p>Are you implying that there is something wrong with a trucker paying all those taxes? Sounds fair to me, and a small price to pay to be relieved of the burden of having to buy your own roads. I would think that the $6,000 to $8,000 paid in taxes a year by a big rig is a hell of a good deal, when you look at all the miles of roadway in the U.S. that the truck can operate over. <p>If we are to start complaining about tax money being siphoned off to pay for pet projects that benefit some but not all, then let's talk about all of the other government programs that do not benefit every single taxpayer in the U.S. Childrens programs, Head Start, schools, welfare, NEA funding, NPS, etc. The list goes on. But I don't mind paying for things that I will never use,(to a certain extent) because I realize that I am part of a greater community and this is my role in that community. <p>We should not have transit for transit's sake, only where there is a demonstrable need for the service. <br>

Great post Rick, and to respond to Emeril, The fuel tax on diesel fuel is comperable to gasoline, the diffenence is usage. Trucks getting 6mpg will pay more. That $8000 per year doesn't even come close to covering the cost that the big rigs bear on the system. The shear force that an 80,000 lb truck places on an expansion joint is many times the figure that the 4000 lb car places, and this is where the damage comes from. Add to that the scales and enforcement, rest areas etc... I don't need to go on. <br> In my area, Southeastern Wisconsin, I can and frequently do hop on a Metra train at the Kenosha depot, and for $5 I am in downtown Chicago in under 2 hours. I don't have to drive, worry about parking, and most importantly, I don't add to the conjestion and pollution. The city of Chicago dosn't have to deal with finding a spot for my car, their overtaxed roads have 1 fewer car on them. It is a win/win! I know that you need the right situation to make it work, but where it is available, I like it. I also ride Amtrak to Chicago ocasionally from Sturtevant Wisconsin. Often in the morning the 6:45 train is standing room only. If you want to look at the inequality of it, just take a look at the Sturtevant depot. Historically it is a jem, ex-Milwaukee Road, probably over 90 years old. Too bad it is almost falling down. The seats in the waiting area have most of the covers ripped off, and the platform has more waves than the oceans. I would love to see a comprehensive resto of the old gal, but it will probably never happen. I can guaranty you this, you would never see this dilapidated state at any airline served terminal anywhere. It truly shows where our transportation priorities are in this country. <br>

Here in Philadelphia the land just doesn't exist to keep building the needed capacity to handle the growing traffic levels. Nor do we have a bottomless source of funding to build new roads. In my estimation what's happening is that highway budgets are continuously being cannibalized to pay for new expansion at the expense of maintaining an ever-aging national highway system. Hundreds of bridges of various sizes in Pennsylvania alone are deemed to need major repairs and replacement in the near future. <p>In large cities cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc. it makes perfect sense to devote large amounts of capital to maintain and expand viable transit systems. Philadelphia seems to be an exception to this as it's lost 100,000 people to urban flight within the last 10 years. The commuter rail network of the precursor Pennsylvania and Reading railroads where designed as hub and spoke systems that funneled most of the traffic towards a then centralized downtown workplace. It still services a respectable percentage of the commuter traffic to center city, but the trend continues to shift. Like many major cities, most of Philadelphia is ringed with increasing suburban sprawl. At this time there exists no commuter rail alternative that would more appropriately serve the population by encircling the region. <p>Septa is proposing building a light rail line that will be almost as long as Austin's. However ambitious, many believe it's misguided and money already wasted. It will do nothing to help link the surrounding communities, but will become another "feeder" line eventually ending up in downtown Philadelphia. Septa is estimating the project will cost close to $1.5 billion (+$2 billion with cost overruns?). Given their horrible track record, overly-generous ridership figures and the fact that they're not using standard off-the-shelf technology, I'm afraid this will go down as one of the largest public works blunders in the region. Norfolk Southern's ex-Reading mainline would be the best alternative, allowing rail service to begin much more cheaply and sooner. However instead of making the fiscally prudent choice, Septa seems more concerned with having the most expensive toys.<p>That being said, I'm still a proponent of light rail, commuter rail and Amtrak. If the true costs of flying were factored into the cost of a ticket (airports, air traffic control system, FAA, etc.), most of us could never afford to fly. And with the skies and roads becoming ever more congested, Amtrak, presents a viable solution to alleviate traffic on many short-haul corridors linking major metro areas. What doesn't work is forcing light rail and commuter rail solutions on the public in situations where they don't make sense or are not cost-effective. Don't chase the market, build or add capacity where the demand already exists. LA's redline is a textbook example.<p>Just my $.02 worth.<p>And yes, why not discuss this on this board? We've got great posters who can rationally discuss any rail-related topic without the fear of being flamed. <p>Long-live RyPN!<p>Mike<br>

Thanks for the thoroughly enjoyable discussion on both sides. While not directly preservation discussion, this serves to remind us of the difficulty for those deciding the fate of the storied PE and LARy systems in Southern California. Hindsight would suggest that some tracks should have remained. But as with the current discussion, I am sure plausible arguments were made on both sides. As a born and raised "Angelino" I love my car and the freedom of movement it gives me (even at 15 mph at rush hour). However, if the routing fits I use Metrolink, Amtrak and MTA. I believe my transportation choices are quite typical for the region. One last comment far afield from preservation: Our "Fastrack" toll lanes down the center of the 91 fwy east of Los Angeles toward Corona may have been better used for a light rail corridor. It is a lousy idea that actually snarls traffic at either end of it. Guys, great discussion as always.<br>



wyld@oc-net.com