How to cut the crap on mass transit: tie highway funds to light rail on highway right of way

[yurbud]

Light rail and other alternatives that take mass transit out of traffic invariably get bogged down in big cities in the planning stages by businesses that want the rail to come by them, those that don't, those that don't want it at all because it competes with their cab, limo, or shuttle business.

There is also the usual NIMBY complaints from the public.

There is also the cost of buying the land and the maneuvering of various real estate speculators to profit from it or steer it away from some development they think it will interfere with, and the little old lady who won't give up her lot in the one place where you can't go around.

All of these considerations make the situation ripe for political corruption, and projects that turn out to be worthless. Here in LA, we have a light rail line that ends near but not AT the airport, so it won't compete with all the businesses that profit from taking people TO the airport.

Requiring that rail or similar mass transit be built along freeway right of ways eliminates all these problems and would expedite planning and building. Most freeways are where people want to go, and buses could be used to fill in the gaps.

Also, even the most thick-headed, diehard SUV-driving commuter, might eventually figure out that the train is a good idea if he sees it zipping by him everyday while he's crawling in rush hour traffic.

The feds give highway money and the feds give mass transit money--why not tie the two together, so the Mayberry Machiavellis across the fruited plain won't have an opportunity to keep fucking us out of usable mass transit?

[Mountainman]

1. I have always thought that building magnetically propelled monorails down the middle of

highway medians would be great. Your sitting in your car daily in a traffic jam on the freeway and several monorails full if smiling commuters pass you by before you get to your destination. With $4/per gallon gas that would have to make you think about taking mass transit.

[yurbud]

4. ideally, they would have rest rooms that drain out on to traffic.

[originalpckelly]

5. While maglev monorails are cool and fast, they're damned expensive.

Instead of just needing metal for the rails, one must use far more precious metals to create magnets. It's like unrolling the motor of a conventional train down the length of the track (which is why those kind of trains are so fast).

We can solve the problem by evolving rolling wheeled trains. Possibly with a new track system that eliminates the "hunting oscillation" that causes the rocking back and forth (side to side) on many systems.

[Mountainman]

14. hunting oscillation That was solved in the pre war period.

At least it was a try. There was a car on the Santa Fe between San Diego and Los Angles that was attached to the frame at the roof. It was a pendulum car and hung down. It remained level around turns and did not rock side to side. That's what I was told anyway.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. K&R

this only makes sense. Let's hope President Obama acts upon it.

[originalpckelly]

3. We have that here in Denver/Metro area.

Problem is when the light rail ends, no one can get around without a bus. Buses really suck, they're noisy, bumpy, and because they're bogged down in traffic, they're slow. For that reason middle class citizens tend not to take them.

Light rail has the image of cleanliness and systems are patronized by members of the middle class who'd otherwise refuse to take a bus.

The problem is that you can drive/walk to a light rail park-n-ride, but what happens when you get off the train on the other side?

Unless your business is right next to the rail line, you have to take a bus, but as I just explained, middle class citizens don't ride buses. This is the inherent limitation of passenger rail systems.

The interesting thing is that we use highways like public transportation. We all get on the same route, head in the same direction, and we have on/off-ramps that act like stops on a train.

But then when we get off the highway, we are reliant upon the freedom of mobility provided by an automobile.

We need one of two things:
1. A small vehicle that can be brought along on a light rail train:
Bikes can help extend the range of light rail riders, but many people don't want to have to do exercise before going to work or they're just plain lazy and don't want to do anything physically strenuous. And if bikes were the solution, then it would all be solved. Most light rail systems (at least the ones in Denver) have a way to bring bikes along. What we need is something the size of a bike with the stability of a car.

2. A train that can carry cars/people at the same time:
In both Austria and Switzerland some routes carry semi trucks on the backs of railroad cars. These are called "rolling highways".

The Eurotunnel Shuttle service, ferries cars/semis under the English Channel.

What we need is a rolling highway, like those found in Austria and Switzerland, that carries both cars and semis. We know it's possible to do under the English Channel, so it should be possible to do it above ground.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Uh...

You say: Bikes can help extend the range of light rail riders, but many people don't want to have to do exercise before going to work or they're just plain lazy and don't want to do anything physically strenuous.

I say, lots of people are disabled, elderly, too young or otherwise unable to take advantage of bicycle transportation or long distance walking.
I say many people live in areas where riding a bike would not be possible. And sure some are probably lazy too.
I do wonder if you ever notice old people or those lazy bastards in wheel chairs as you go springing through life.

[yurbud]

9. I used to notice more of the old & disabled when I rode the bus a lot as a kid.

buses aren't intolerable for short distances, but if they are the backbone of a mass transit system, taking it is essentially trading driving your car at a crawl to sitting (or standing) as a passenger in a crawling bus.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. well my point to the other poster

Was that there are many reasons beyond personal sloth that prevent people from biking for transportation. I find that to be a tad offensive as a generalization. Similar to saying, well the poor are just not disiplined, or they have saved up a few hunderd thousand. Let them eat cake, let them ride bikes.
I just wanted to point out that not all who are not bikeing around are lazy and slothful. Keith Olberman for example is unable to drive a car, and riding a bike in any sort of traffic would be most likely deadly to him. He is unable to judge the speed of approaching objects. He's not the only one. He is young and healthy looking, but not able to do such things.
Assuming all have the assests you have is just not a Progressive mindset, you know? Those with the health and body that allow such things should be thankful.

[KamaAina]

12. Not to mention that, in Denver,

you could ride your bike to the light rail stop in bright sunshine -- and by the time the train reached your destination stop, it could be snowing. :scared:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. In Portland, the transit system is so good that it has overcome some of the

stigma against bus riding.

I like to use the example of my Saturday morning computer class at Portland Community College's Rock Creek campus. I'd get on the train, a couple of blocks from my apartment, at 7:30 AM and arrive at the suburban Willow Creek station at about 8:15. The bus that went to the campus was either there waiting for the train or due to arrive in a couple of minutes. I arrived at the campus at 8:25, just in time for my 8:30 class.

I lived a block from a street where two bus lines each ran a minimum of 15 minutes apart, seven days a week, and more often during peak periods. There were definitely more middle-class people riding the bus in Portland than in the Twin Cities, where the bus service is mediocre.

Could I have driven to my destinations in less time? Undoubtedly, but then I would have had to own a car, something I hate, even though it's a necessary evil here in the Twin Cities. When I moved to the Twin Cities, my disposable income immediately dropped by $3000 a year due to car expenses. That $3000 would fund an annual trip overseas.

Besides, I liked the idea that if I was stuck in traffic, I didn't have to worry about it. I could just sit back and relax.

[PVnRT]

6. What the hell is a "Mayberry Machiavelli"?

Is this one of the unwashed evil people that for some reason don't live in the glorious cities?

[yurbud]

8. No, this particular problem is actually worse in many big cities than medium ones

In medium cities, the business interests don't seem to trump common sense quite as much as in big cities, which is why Portland, Oregon has better light rail than LA.

[Warpy]

10. The new north-south commuter train here in NM

is being put in the median of I-25 for most of the route.

Even though people need to take buses from the station to their work destination, gas prices have ensured high ridership from the exurbs.

Distances out west are great, and a 60 mile one way commute wasn't seen as anything out of the ordinary just two years ago. Now, it's seen as a reason to take the train.

Other exurbs will likely be ghost towns in a couple of decades. The exurbs along the Rio Grande will likely continue to prosper because of the train.

[yurbud]

15. yep. My job depends on a lot of people patching together part time jobs and commuting

from place to place, but rising gas prices are making it harder to hire people to do it, so they will probably change the system, not because it is exploitative but because of market forces.