Comments on: Mass Transit Advocates Must Address the Cost Problem

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:41:36 +0000

It is not really fair to compare the cost of one project to another. The rail in Charlotte was far more complicated in designing and implementing then the rail in Salt Lake City. I would encourage you to look at the the economic growth adjacent to the Charlotte lines. I think you will see a higher return on investment.

By: Roger Retzlaff

Roger Retzlaff — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:14:08 +0000

Essentially, I agree with your comment. We just need to understand that roadways and in particular, high speed highways, have never paid for themselves except as toll roads. Streets and roads as we know them today have been heavily subsidized through various modes of taxation. Rail systems, including older trolley systems, were established as privately owned enterprises. It’s why so much rail bed is still privately owned.
We have to be careful about the”level playing field” idea. If the choice of system would be based on the greatest individual investment of the general population, roads would win every time even though a transit solution might be more strongly preferred by a large enough segment of the population to make it viable. Viability in transportation modes never means they will pay for themselves. Every system is supported through some form of governmental financial backing to make them workable. It’s true for roads, harbors, airports, trains, recreational paths, sidewalks. The question is, what provides the greatest return in civic development and local economic sustainability? What gets the most people between work, home and other activities for the long term investment? From that standpoint, I believe motor vehicle roadways often reveal themselves as the most unstable and costly to communities.

By: jabacon@baconsrebellion.com

jabacon@baconsrebellion.com — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:32:16 +0000

We should apply the same logic to highways and mass transit — no subsidies for either. Let them compete on a level playing field. That would require a dramatic restructuring of the way we pay for transportation improvements, but until each mode is capable of paying its own way, so to speak, funding decisions will be based on politics and ideology, with little heed paid to economic efficiency.

By: Roger Retzlaff

Roger Retzlaff — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:15:33 +0000

How is this argument any different than the one that should be applied to roadway construction, especially high-speed, limited access roadways? “What gives is that nowhere in the process of building [highways] is there any player who has an interest in keeping costs down. There are, however, many players who have no interest in keeping costs down; indeed, they may have an incentive to drive costs up, because they make more money.” Transit systems are transportation mechanisms like roadways and one should not take precedence over the other except in analyzing which will more effectively serve the intended populations resulting in lower overall transportation expense to the user, greater economic potential for the community and opportunity for the individual, lower impact on the environment and lower long term maintenance costs on a society-wide basis. Most roadway projects cannot do this any better than transit projects, if you truly examine all of the ancillary costs to individuals and families.

By: Tammi Diaz

Tammi Diaz — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:35:28 +0000

Utah Transit Authority is out of Control. All UTA Executives Care is Ridership on Trax, FrontRunner & StreetCar so UTA Executives can keep Earning their Excessive Salaries & Bonuses at Taxpayers Expense. UTA has Destroyed the Bus System.. Taxpayers are paying for 75% of Fares for Paratransit because it is to Costly for the Disabled it is $4.00 each way, a Good Bus System would reduce the need for Paratransit. There needs to be a Full Investigation into Utah Transit Authority.

By: Marcus Garnet

Marcus Garnet — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:52:41 +0000

As a Canadian community planner, I’ve long suspected the barriers to rail transit are institutional, as you suggest in terms of cost. I like your idea of a “cost watchdog” agency.
You may also find some UK technological innovations have potential cost savings, though we must, of course, beware of technological panaceas. Two innovations may hold potential, however:
1. LR55 Rails are specially shaped to minimize wastage in street rights-of-way, and enable underground utilities to remain in place. They’ve been tested in Sheffield, England, I believe.
2. Ultralight rail such as the Parry People Mover and its innovative carpet track concept may be an option for low-speed circulator trams around parking lots or through ecologically sensitive areas, and for small-city urban streetcars. The cars store energy in flywheels, and the tracks can be as narrow as 2 feet wide. Temporary tracks are also available, which can be placed on top of the pavement for demonstration services.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment!