Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Mass Transit Brainstorming


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 06 April 2008 - 08:58 PM

From the Editorial page of Sunday's Star-Telegram.

http://www.star-tele...ory/564752.html

It is claimed we will need $468.4 million per year between 2010 and 2030 to build and operate new rail lines in the metroplex. They aren't real clear what kind of rail they are talking about, but it looks like commuter rail to me.

They address financing issues, but I think they may have missed some options, even though, in my opinion, all the options listed will be unpopular. Of the options listed the one I found most promising was a sales tax on gasoline. It would raise the most money and they are only suggesting a 3 percent tax.

I think some rail mass transit would be nice but, we have neglected highways for too long here and we should catch up on highway lanes before moving into other modes of mass transit that won't carry as many people.

#2 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 07 April 2008 - 01:00 AM

QUOTE (Keller Pirate @ Apr 6 2008, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think some rail mass transit would be nice but, we have neglected highways for too long here and we should catch up on highway lanes before moving into other modes of mass transit that won't carry as many people.


I agree. The North Freeway is not only antiquated and inadequate, it is downright dangerous at times. And the northern part of 820 is almost as bad.

The reality is that we will NEVER be Manhattan or even Boston when it comes to transit. Wishing or pretending that we are and acting accordingly - well, it will accomplish nothing and end up forcing a lot of people to pay for stuff that they will never use while the problem only gets worse.

There is no reason why transit AND highways cannot play off each other in ways that would be actually useful to people. Someone in a different thread suggested that, whenever freeways are built or expanded, to right then and there include right of way for a rail line. THAT is something that makes sense - the freeways already go to the areas that people want to go so they are excellent routes on which to build a system.

Currently, it costs me about $9 per day in gasoline alone to make my daily commute to and from work. That does not include the other costs of operating a car. I have zero desire to move to anywhere near where I work in Dallas County - so commuting is a fact of life for me. Right now it is not practical for me to take the TRE to work - the time spent for a transfer to a VERY slow moving bus that goes by where I work would be a total waste. Plus, if something came up during the day and I needed to go somewhere or I needed to work extra late beyond the bus/train schedule - well, I would be screwed.

If a train with a decent frequency of runs existed between here and there and there was ample parking, including overnight parking options, at both ends, I might be very tempted to get a second, inexpensive vehicle and park it at the stop near where I work. I could then drive to the stop in Fort Worth, park, get on a train to the stop near where I work and drive to work from there. Sure, I would have to pay for the insurance and purchase of a second car. But I would save money in gasoline and possibly get there quicker during rush hours. And I would not have to deal with the stress of traffic. But I would also have the ability to drive to wherever I needed to whenever I needed to at all times - and if I decided at the last minute to stay late or do something after work, I could always drive home.

I know someone who commutes from Collin County to Fort Worth. And I suspect there are people in Fort Worth who commute to North Dallas and Collin County. Something like that would be IDEAL for such commuters. That would be a way for transit to serve employment centers at the ends of commuter rail lines in a way that traditional trolleys and buses simply cannot. The Dart Lines in Dallas go all sorts of places. But once you get there, unless you work or live VERY close to the station - well, there is little that you can do. You are stuck taking a bus with all of the hassle and delays that are involved with that. If you have a car waiting for you at the other end of your ride, however, you can do anything or go anywhere you wish.

The advantage of something like that is it would boost the number of riders on the rail routes and make them more viable - i.e., enable them to add more trains to their schedules. Additional trains will make the rail routes more viable for people who live or work close enough to the stops that they don't necessarily need a car at both ends. Over time, the viable routes will be viewed as a benefit for residential and office developments that are located near the station. As more developments are built near the lines, the options for people who prefer to ride transit grow. Eventually one could see the emergence of several self-contained islands within our metro area where it WOULD be possible to get around by transit. Those islands could be connected to each other - but they would be surrounded by a wider area where people still get around by car. That way, everyone has the ability to choose and experience the best that both worlds offer.

I would LOVE to be able to ride a train to work everyday. I hate driving more and more with every passing year. It is fun to drive out in the country - it is a pain in the rear to have to do so in town. But even if it were possible to ride a train to work, I would NEVER give up my car.

I lived in Boston for a while some years ago and know what it is like to be without a car. Try grocery shopping without one. I was young and very poor and the grocery store nearby was extremely expensive. I had a part time job out in the suburbs near the train station - so on my way home I would do my weekly shopping at a supermarket there where prices were much lower. Ever try carrying two full grocery bags on a train - and then have the condensation from your milk bottle eat a hole in the bottom of one of them? Not fun, I promise you. People in places like Boston and NYC are limited to purchasing only what they can physically lug home or else paying expensive delivery fees - which is not an insignificant thing if you are on a tight budget. The simplest of errands can become a major hassle. One ends up having to make multiple trips because one can only carry so much. With a car and a trunk, it is not a big deal to run multiple errands on a single trip. Last time I was in New York, I held a social event for area Radio Dismuke listeners at a Manhattan nightclub where 1920s music was being performed. At 10:30 one of the people attending looked at his watch and said he had to leave immediately or he would be late for the last train back to where he lived in Connecticut. Soon after, another fellow said that he also had to leave so that he could be in time for the last train back to where he lived in Jersey. Both of these people were successful individuals older than me - and it was like they were teenagers with a curfew and bedtime. (Both did, by the way, own cars - but for them to bring them to Manhattan and find parking on a weekday would have been a major ordeal.)

Transit has its place - and I always enjoy using it when I am in the Northeast. I wish I were able to use it here. But that does not alter the fact that the automobile is WONDERFUL and has been a great liberator. With an automobile you can go WHEREVER you want, WHENEVER you want 24 hours per day - something that even the best and most successful transit system in the world will never be able to offer. Such a level of individual mobility was nothing more than a wild Utopian fantasy for pre-20th century generations. And yet, today, it is something that is taken for granted by even the poorest segments in our society. For us, it is such a commonplace part of our lives and so taken for granted that a great many people whose lives have been liberated by it in countless ways curse and damn the automobile's very existence. Of course, a lot of people who damn it the loudest have no intention of giving up THEIR automobiles - these are the types that demand that EVERYBODY ELSE ride buses and make their lives dependent upon transit routes and timetables.

Automobiles are GOOD - and therefore adequate roads are also good. Recognizing this fact in no way invalidates the benefits that mass transit can also provide. There is no reason why we cannot appreciate and enjoy the benefits of both.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#3 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 07 April 2008 - 07:16 AM

Taxation must have representation.
Its ok to tax my way of life as long as I receive immediate benefit.
Means if you tax my life style for trains - then the trains must be available to me, where and when I want.
Taxing for the greater good, just because someone thinks "Train tranportation is a good idea" is a poor idea and will never get my vote.

Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#4 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 07 April 2008 - 10:18 AM

QUOTE (360texas @ Apr 7 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Means if you tax my life style for trains - then the trains must be available to me, where and when I want.
Taxing for the greater good, just because someone thinks "Train tranportation is a good idea" is a poor idea and will never get my vote.



I am SO very sympathetic to your sentiments here. That is a very high standard that a great many government programs are simply not capable of living up to.

By contrast, private enterprises operating in a free market do live up to that standard: if a company does not make a service you want available to you where and when you want it, you can simply abstain from doing business with them and keep your money to save or invest elsewhere.

Unfortunately, most people will tell you that it is not possible for private enterprise to provide mass transit. I strongly disagree: private companies have done so in the past and they are certainly more qualified to do so than a government bureaucracy. However, they are probably correct in that it is not possible to do so in today's context given that mass transit's primary competitor - high speed expressways - are heavily subsidized by the government and that, unlike the highway system, all forms of private transit are very heavily regulated and, on top of everything else, taxed. Government policies in the early 20th century basically worked to kill private transit during a period of time when they were already in the a competitive fight for survival and relevance with the advent of the automobile. Private transit can work - but for it to do so requires a free market and even the watered down free market conditions that once existed in this area were killed off many decades ago.

It is this situation that gives me such very mixed feelings when it comes to mass transit. I don't think the government has any more business running trains than it does operating grocery stores, hotels or dishwasher factories. On the other hand, governmental policies have made it next to impossible for private enterprise to provide it. But such forms of transit do most likely have a place in the overall mix of options. So if it is to be provided - well, that leaves the government. It is sort of a small scale version of what Chavez has been doing in Venezuela: he issues edicts and regulations that drive entire industries to the brink of bankruptcy and, just as they are about to fail, he nationalizes them in order to hold off the riots and unrest that will occur if the goods and services once provided by those industries disappear.

Even if local transit officials agreed with my perspective on this - and I seriously doubt that a single one of them does - the difficulty they face is the fact that the reforms that are needed in order to make private transit possible are way out of their hands. Such reforms would have to take place on the national and state levels - and it is not like such reforms are going to take place anytime soon given that few even in the Republican party fully understand, let alone support, a fully free market. I am NOT using this as an excuse for local transit officials to go hog wild on putting together some wide-eyd Utopian social engineering transit scheme. On the other hand, given current realities, I can't say that I completely oppose rail when it is looked at as an option as part of the money that is already being spent on road improvements. But given the lack of a free market, I think the standard of what to build has to depend entirely on paid ridership - if the thing does not actually attract riders and hopefully reduce capacity on roadways that would otherwise have to have costly upgrades, then it shouldn't be built.

Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#5 dustin

dustin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE FW - Riverside

Posted 07 April 2008 - 11:16 AM

There is something regarding mass pubic transportation that is not often mentioned. When we consider the need for public transit, we should also consider tourism. Fort Worth is becoming a major destination for tourists. Unfortunately, as of right now the only options for tourists that come to fort worth are car rental or bus. Our taxi availability is only by request and our bus transportation system is terribly confusing and intimidating for tourists. Beyond that, parking at our attractions is becoming something that hurting our local internal tourism (residents visiting local attractions). In the next year or two, the cultural district is gaining a few parking garages but is losing a major parking lot by the museums and the demand for parking will drastically increase. I am not saying that we should only invest in a rail system only for our tourists, but when you think of economic engines, tourism is one that can seriously drive an economy forward and a rail system can only improve our reputation as a travel destination.

Regarding the tax issue. Rejecting the idea of light rail just because it does not directly benefit you is a narrow approach. At the core, the proposed lines would benefit the city a whole immensely by stimulating the areas that are ripe for development or are currently being developed (TRV, the Cultural District, Near South Side, etc.) Tax revenue would increase, occupancy would increase, and tourism would increase. While there may not be a line a block away from everyone's house, the net benefit for the city would be worth it.

#6 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 07 April 2008 - 12:16 PM

QUOTE (dustin @ Apr 7 2008, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Rejecting the idea of light rail just because it does not directly benefit you is a narrow approach. At the core, the proposed lines would benefit the city a whole immensely by stimulating the areas that are ripe for development or are currently being developed (TRV, the Cultural District, Near South Side, etc.) Tax revenue would increase, occupancy would increase, and tourism would increase. While there may not be a line a block away from everyone's house, the net benefit for the city would be worth it.

I think we are mixing light rail with commuter rail again. While the S-T was not clear what they were talking about, this is a proposal that applies to 9 counties in North Texas. Therefore my assumption this is commuter rail. If we were talking light rail for only Ft Worth I have no doubt the proposals outlined in the editorial are doomed, The 8 other counties aren't going to raise their taxes to build something in Tarrant County.

They mentioned a line from Cleburne to Ft Worth as one possibility. How would an increase in taxes for Johnson County to fund a train to Ft Worth be a net benefit to all of those folks? I haven't heard of anyone making the development and tax revenue advantage for commuter rail the way that has been done for light rail and streetcars.

One reason I favor the gas sales tax over the other options is I think it is fairer. I currently spend about $50 to fill my midsize SUV at $3.25 a gallon. A 3 percent sales tax would add about $1.50 to my bill. Dismuke says he spend about $9 a day for gas, that would be about 27 cents extra for him. I am willing to spend $1.50 a tank to build something in my own backyard that might help offset the more than likely $25 that is going to a foreign potentate.

People that live far away form their work will pay more and people that drive vehicles with poor mileage will pay more. Bicycle riders will pay nothing. The people that can actually use the rail system to commute can consider themselves as lucky lotto winners.



#7 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 07 April 2008 - 12:17 PM

Atomic,
I see what he's saying though, as it relates to North FW. 820 and 35 are terrible up there, and should be just like the South and West parts of town where you've got 3 lanes in all directions at the very minimum. Once you get to 4 lanes there less marginal benefit to adding more capacity, but I-35 and 830 North only having 2 lanes is ridiculous.

Agree that we don't need to build any new freeways.

EDIT: Either Atomic just deleted his post or I need a nap.

#8 dustin

dustin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE FW - Riverside

Posted 07 April 2008 - 03:46 PM

my fault for injecting light rain into the conversation. Let me rephrase to fit with the topic:

Opposing taxes to build things like football stadiums is one thing, however to oppose infrastructure is another. Fort Worth and surrounding counties are growing rapidly, and there doesnt look like there is any end in sight. By adding commuter rail, we are basically laying down infrastructure to both ease congestion and to manage growth. By managing growth, i mean that commuter rail is known to encourage dense development (ie denver, alexandria VA., etc.) so by creating rail lines, we would be encouraging development along those lines as opposed to the shotgun approach that exists now. The proposed lines are not going to be able to serve everyone in the whole city, and the people advocating the rail lines aren't suggesting that these would be car replacements. However, what they are suggesting is that for those that live near the lines could use the train to commute to work (for those that work downtown or along the line) or use it for recreation to come downtown (and hopefully pick up a light rail line to some attraction). A family in that situation could feasibly eliminate 1 car. People will still need a car to go to the grocery store, the doctor, etc. but the effect on congestion and air quality with be considerable. Another thing that a commuter rail system would do would improve the office density along the rail lines, especially downtown.

In terms of the tax situation, it makes sense that we should pay for something like this. The city (cities) as a whole stand to benefit in the long term. We ease congestion, we encourage new development, which, as i said before, increases sales tax and property tax revenue, improves air quality and congestion, and increases tourism.

Regarding the tourism part of what I said, I still think that any kind of transit, be it light or commuter rail will improve tourism. Right now, Fort Worth attractions have a significant problem in reaching the midcites. We believe the reason is that there is a stigma of driving to Fort Worth. People in Southlake are more likely to drive to Dallas for cultural events than they are to Fort Worth. It is so bad that the FW Symphony had to build a concert venue in Southlake so that people would come to concerts. With improved transportation options, i believe that the stigma will change.

#9 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 07 April 2008 - 06:15 PM

I like the motor fuels sales tax the best. Actually, I think a motor fuels excise tax would be more appropriate, but the sales tax is probably administratively easier on a local basis. The problem with doing it by sales is that you are taxing price as much as you're taxing usage. This makes for a much more elastic revenue stream. And you're taxing people who buy premium fuel more. There are a lot of efficient cars that use a higher compression and require premium fuel. On kind of an aside, ALL of our motor fuels excise taxes at the federal and state levels should be indexed to inflation. I don't know how we've come this far without doing something so basic.

There is a benefit to mass transit (light or heavy rail) that does accrue to motorists. The greater proportion of people who take public transportation, the less there are on the roads causing traffic.

Taxes aren't just about benefits. Sometimes they can be used to internalize the costs of a market transaction with negative externalities. It's difficult to put a price on all the external costs of car use. The true costs of pollution, war, and lost productivity (from sitting in traffic) as a result of our reliance on oil and gas are hard to calculate. But we are able to measure the costs of providing public transit.

All that said, the figures they are quoting for the cost of public transit sound absolutely ludicrous. A half a billion dollars a year for twenty years?! Really?! Are the tracks made out of gold?

#10 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 07 April 2008 - 07:01 PM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Apr 7 2008, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reality is that we will NEVER be Manhattan or even Boston when it comes to transit.


That's not reality, that's conjecture. You may turn out to be right, but you cannot ever know.

The actual reality is that Fort Worth will be whatever its citizens decide to make it.

Now then, if we're going to have this conversation, we need to do some real accounting of highway miles, along with their external costs, versus rail and whatever other options we might conjure. If we're going to budget dollars for highway miles, we must also budget some amount for pollution abatement, some amount for additional lanes on feeders and arterials, and everything else that additional car miles per day entails.

Then we figure out how to pay for it, and then whether people will pay. But not before then.


#11 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 07 April 2008 - 11:25 PM

QUOTE (cbellomy @ Apr 7 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Dismuke @ Apr 7 2008, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reality is that we will NEVER be Manhattan or even Boston when it comes to transit.


That's not reality, that's conjecture. You may turn out to be right, but you cannot ever know.

The actual reality is that Fort Worth will be whatever its citizens decide to make it.



Well, no, it is not conjecture. You are indeed correct in that Fort Worth has a very wide range of possibilities open to it in terms of what its citizens decide to make of it. But one of those possibilities is NOT being another Manhattan - certainly not in our lifetimes.

You could LOSE Manhattan in Fort Worth. It has a land area of 22.96 square miles. Fort Worth has 292.5 square miles. On that 22.96 square miles, Manhattan has 1,611,500 residents with a per square mile density of 66,940. In its 292.5 square miles, Fort Worth has only 653,300 people or a population density of 1,827 per square mile. If Fort Worth were to achieve the same population density as Manhattan, that would mean a population of over 19.5 million people - just under the current population of the entire state of Texas.

Now, perhaps my using Manhattan alone is not exactly a fair example as it is but one borough of New York City. The other boroughs of New York City, after all, have smaller populations and are less dense. But even taking New York City as a whole, there is still no way that Fort Worth can even come close within our lifetime. All of New York City is 303.3 square miles - in other words, it is only 10.8 square miles larger than Fort Worth. It has a population of 8,274,500 and the density is 27,282 people per square mile. If Fort Worth were to have the same population density as New York City, it would have a population of 7,979,985. That would be more people living within Fort Worth's city limits than currently live in the entire Metroplex. I don't think even the most kool-aid drinking zealot Fort Worth booster would say that such a population is going to be possible anytime in this still very young century.

And speaking of the Metroplex, to compare with New York becomes even more difficult when one considers that city boundaries, per se, are pretty meaningless to most people. Unless one is a Chamber of Commerce type booster for a particular municipality, most people couldn't care less what jurisdiction they happen to be in when the do things like go shopping and go on job interviews. Any viable transit system has to serve the region because it is a fact of reality that people do not limit their travels to whatever municipality they happen to live in. So if one starts to project the population density of New York City across Tarrant County or even the entire Metroplex - well, you are suddenly talking about many tens of millions of people. That ain't gonna happen.

Boston, by the way, is only 89.6 square miles. It is a tiny city - one day I more or less walked from one end of it to the other. It has a population density of 12,327 people per square mile. For Fort Worth to have a similar population density would give us a population of 3,605,650. Again, that ain't gonna happen

Population density is not just relevant here, it is crucial. It is much easier for a transit system to be viable when there are many tens of thousands of people within easy walking distance of each transit stop. To build a transit stop within reasonable walking distance of the majority of people who live in Fort Worth at its current level of population - well, the thing would be beyond cost prohibitive.

The bottom line is, no matter how hard one might wish reality is something other than it is - the reality is that automobile transportation is a necessary fact of life in the Metroplex and it will continue to be necessary. That is a fact of reality that MUST be taken into consideration in any conversation about the area's transportation requirements. To ignore it will result in the same sort of disastrous consequences that inevitably occur whenever one ignores crucial and relevant facts of reality.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#12 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:08 AM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Apr 7 2008, 01:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would LOVE to be able to ride a train to work everyday. I hate driving more and more with every passing year. It is fun to drive out in the country - it is a pain in the rear to have to do so in town. But even if it were possible to ride a train to work, I would NEVER give up my car.


My recommendation, if you are still working in Las Colinas in a few years, would be to catch the new commuter rail line at the Medical Center Station area (Magnolia near 8th), ride to DFW Airport and then transfer to the new DART light rail line that is planned to go through Las Colinas. Course I'm not sure about the final cost or station locations, but it might just work out for you when all the systems are up and running.

Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#13 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:18 AM

QUOTE (AndyN @ Apr 8 2008, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My recommendation, if you are still working in Las Colinas in a few years, would be to catch the new commuter rail line at the Medical Center Station area (Magnolia near 8th), ride to DFW Airport and then transfer to the new DART light rail line that is planned to go through Las Colinas. Course I'm not sure about the final cost or station locations, but it might just work out for you when all the systems are up and running.



It probably wouldn't work for me personally as I work in a very out-of-the way part of Irving that wouldn't make a lot of sense for a transit line to serve. I basically mentioned Los Colinas as an example because a great many people from Fort Worth do work there - and I used to work there. I wouldn't be surprised if more people from Fort Worth work in Los Colinas than they do downtown Dallas which is served by the TRE. If the transfer from the D/FW commuter train to the DART line turns out to not be a big hassle, my guess is it would attract quite a number of Fort Worth riders - probably a lot more than passengers merely wanting to go to the airport.

Any decent transportation network in the area MUST make it possible for people to quickly and easily get to major employment centers such as Los Colinas, downtown Fort Worth and downtown Dallas. And it would be ideal to at least have easier access to North Dallas, the Telecom Corridor and Plano. Any proposed rail network that does not focus heavily on such areas would be a joke.

Unless one is a renter and able/willing to move it is pretty risky for many people to choose to live in a part of town that only has viable access to a single employment center - especially if it is a two-income household. In this day and age, most people are going to have multiple jobs over the course of their careers - and not all of the job changes are going to be planned or voluntary. When I was downsized from the previous company I worked for - something that I did not see coming as I had survived so many previous downsizings - as much as I would have loved to have worked in Fort Worth, during my job hunt I did not have a single serious job interview in Tarrant County. They were all in Irving or downtown Dallas or uptown Dallas. Had my transportation options been limited to Fort Worth - well, I would have been up a creek because, at that time, the job market here was awful verses what it was in Dallas. And since I own my house, it is not just like I can up and move at the end of a lease. I was already at a disadvantage as I had to ignore potential jobs in North Dallas and Richardson because there was simply no way that I was up for the sort of commute that would involve - and that is one of the disadvantages of owning a house in Fort Worth.

I live in Fort Worth instead of closer to Dallas because I think it is a neat city - and I stayed here after the job in Fort Worth I moved here for went away because, at the time I moved here, neighborhoods of cool 1920s homes in Dallas were either way out of my price range or were crime ridden. Remaining in Fort Worth was sort of a luxury for me - and the price of that luxury was having to commute to where the jobs were. Had there not been adequate roads to take me to those jobs - well, I might not have been able to stay here and I suspect a great many Fort Worth residents are in the same boat.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#14 urbancowboy

urbancowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Was Philly, now Houston
  • Interests:Sustainable, Livable, Urbanism

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:17 PM

I agree with many of dismuke's points. However, I think its time that people see the correlation between transit and land use. Land use is going to have to change in order to accommodate mass transit. That is not to say that in order for rail to be viable that we are going to have to Manhattanize Fort Worth. There are many examples of good Southern/Texan urbanism, look at Galveston, New Orleans, Savannah, or even our own inner loop neighborhoods. I think this is what is so frustrating when you see the new development in and around the city such as the Alliance, Walsh Ranch (outside the town center), or even our suburbs that have downtowns like Mansfield or Burleson. Most of the new development isn't transit friendly at all much less pedestrian friendly. What is going to make getting the the line that we want built or decent frequencies is going to be contingent on density.

#15 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:29 PM

Good point, urbancowboy.

I never think Manhattan is a fair comparison for anything. It's at the tail end of the spectrum for density and development. It's not representative of most cities in the US, even big ones that have light rail. It's not even representative of the rest of New York City.

There are many cities of similar size to FW that have light rail. FW has a lot of different densities and I think we need to think of public transit as being part of a larger transportation environment in which cars are complemented by light rail. Speaking of, does anyone have a definitive list of US cities and what public transit systems they have?

#16 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:56 PM

Again, I think we are getting away from commuter rail if we start talking about light rail in the same thread. This is a regionwide plan by a regional planning group. According to the S-T, "The estimated cost to build and maintain that 260-mile system: $468.4 million a year between 2010 and 2030. A little more than $100 million of that is for the Tarrant County lines alone." So Tarrant is only getting 21% of the pie, but a lot of Tarrant folks work in Dallas County.

Light rail and streetcars would be more of a local option. However, DART is light rail and has a regional reach. Since we are going off the topic, here is a website with info on transit systems here and there. I don't necessarily believe all their propoganda all the time, but even I get something right once in a while. smilewink.gif
http://www.lightrailnow.org/

The Mad Motorman of McKinney Ave. may move this post if it gets to far away from Trains.

#17 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 08 April 2008 - 03:52 PM

Hmm tarrant county only getting 21 % of the "Pie".

The only reason I would need to use the rail (of any type) is to fly out of Meacham or DFW and then on the return trip home. Would not mind driving a few blocks from home and park my car in a covered sheltered park n' ride for couple of weeks if it was cheaper than the off airport "Parking Spot" on the South end of DFW. And then he wrote... I only need to fly couple times a year. Taxi's are $50 one way.

People thinking trains should also think linkage to other means of transportation. Car to train; train to airport; plane to train or taxi etc The train by no means is an end unto itself.

Other than that I have no reason to go elsewhere because a train could not and does NOT begin to provide 'door to door' transportation. I am already paying high gas price to do that so why would I need to pay extra for a train feature that does not serve my needs.

Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#18 dustin

dustin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE FW - Riverside

Posted 08 April 2008 - 04:01 PM

Dismuke, i agree about the Manhattan and Boston relevance. We wont ever reach that density and density does relate to transit. But consider that with commuter rail options we can begin to reign in on our sprawl problems. It isnt a magic bullet, but precedent is set and it is proven that development is attracted to things like commuter rail. Look at that development that was just announced on the other thread in north arlington (viridian i think). Long term, i could see along the lines like the SW2NE rail and the like, density will improve...never to manhattan or boston numbers, but better than what they are.

#19 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 08 April 2008 - 07:04 PM

QUOTE (dustin @ Apr 8 2008, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But consider that with commuter rail options we can begin to reign in on our sprawl problems. It isnt a magic bullet, but precedent is set and it is proven that development is attracted to things like commuter rail.

Dustin, I have not heard the claims made that commuter rail promotes development the way lightrail and streetcars do. I could be wrong but I don't think the TRE is taking credit for developing anything more than parking lots between Ft Worth and Dallas.

At one time, commuter rail was considered as bad as freeways for promoting sprawl. A good commuter system would allow a person to live in Cleburne or Denton or Gainsville and be able to drive a short distance to a subrban station for a quick ride to Dallas or Ft Worth for work and then home from the gritti city to the nice clean country.

#20 urbancowboy

urbancowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Was Philly, now Houston
  • Interests:Sustainable, Livable, Urbanism

Posted 08 April 2008 - 07:52 PM

I was thinking that this was about transit in general. However, I would think that you would want some type of intracity transit (i.e.trolley, light rail, subway) would eventually needed to compliment the commuter rail network. That is some of the problem that people have when they Take the TRE from Dallas and points east is that there isn't a fast way to get to other places in the city. Let's face it our bus service and coverage isn't all that great. I understand that to have intracity transit that there must be density that is why land use is so important, and we don't have to be Manhattan to be a pedestrian/transit friendly place.

#21 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 09 April 2008 - 10:42 AM

QUOTE (dustin @ Apr 8 2008, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But consider that with commuter rail options we can begin to reign in on our sprawl problems.


I don't regard "sprawl" per se to be a problem. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person preferring to have a large house instead of a small apartment and I see nothing wrong with a person wishing to have a private yard or even a large area of land around their house to separate them further from their neighbors. Other people can be annoying at times - so I can fully understand why people do not wish to live in close proximity to them.

It's not like we have a shortage of land in our part of the country. While it may seem to a person traveling on the ground that the Metroplex sprawls on and on, from an airplane, one can quickly see that it is but a little island in the middle of a VAST expanse of rural emptiness. And simple geometry dictates that the further the metro area spreads out, an increasingly greater amount of economic expansion is necessary to push those boundaries out further. If you have a circle of urbanized area 100 miles wide, the number of square miles worth of development needed to push that circle to 101 miles wide is MUCH greater than the number of square miles worth of development needed to push a circle 50 miles wide to 51 miles wide.

The primary problem with sprawl is not so much the sprawl itself but rather the inadequacy of our existing transportation networks to keep up with it. Again, this goes back to what I mentioned in a different thread about the fact that the ONLY services that have difficulty keeping up with growth are those provided by the government and which, therefore, do not operate according to market forces. Non-governmentally provided services such as grocery stores, movie theaters, dry cleaners, cell phone companies, etc. do not have any problems at all keeping up with the area's growth and expansion.

A lot of what we call "sprawl" is subsidized by the government when it builds beautiful new highways out to the middle of nowhere. The first example of this in our area was when Central Expressway was built in the late 1940s. Suddenly, it was possible for people to live in once sleepy farm towns such as Richardson and Plano and still work in Dallas. And, for home buyers, there were a lot of advantages to moving up there - so that's what people did and there were plenty of developers who built houses for them to move to.

Imagine if in the 1940s there was a prohibition on the books limiting government owned roads ONLY to side streets and requiring all expressways which would compete with the railroads and commuter lines to be privately financed and operated. Let's say that Central Expressway was instead built as a private toll road. Do you think that the road would have been built out to the middle of nowhere if private capital had to be raised to build it? Of course not - unless the investors had reason to believe that they could continue to operate at a loss long enough for the empty land to develop and thus provide new toll road customers. And perhaps that would have been the case and the road would have been built. But the fact that people moving up there would have had to pay the toll to ride the road into work and that the toll would have had to have been large enough to cover the costs of building and operating the road would have made it that much more expensive for people to live there. That extra expense would have likely slowed down the rate of development thus requiring even longer amount of time for the area to grow to the point the toll road could turn a profit.

Under the above scenario, you would have had a marketplace coordination between the growth of transportation infrastructure and the development of empty land. The law of supply and demand would have operated with regard to both. Without the new transportation infrastructure, the development would not have taken place. But without sufficient development, the transporation infrastructure would not have been viable either. Since private capital would have been involved with both and any mistakes in calculation would have been VERY costly and financially ruinous, all parties would have been VERY careful before going forward. Unlike the government, they would not have had the ability to simply go out and confiscate (i.e., tax) money from the rest of the population to pay for and, therefore, insulate themselves from the consequences of their bad choices and bad planning.

Instead of our transportation infrastructure being planned on the basis of a free market supply and demand economy, it is instead "planned" more along the lines of the Soviet model - a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who are completely exempt from the bad consequences that arise as a result from their decisions come up with plans based on anything BUT market considerations. For example, developers and speculators who own empty farm land outside the city use their connections and political pull to have a highway built at taxpayer expense so that they can make a lot of money developing the land. Nothing wrong with developing land and certainly there is nothing wrong with making a lot of money - but there is if it comes about as a result of political pull instead of the voluntary participation of all who have to pay for it. If such a highway had to be privately financed - well maybe the amount proposed development will not be enough or occur fast enough to justify the cost of building the road. If so, the road will not be built and the development will have to wait until market conditions arise that make more sense for it.

Had a market based expressway network existed, I guarantee you our "sprawl" would have occurred at a rate that was much slower and at a rate that would have made much more economic sense - and would have helped the older inner city neighborhoods remain more viable during their years of decline.

Furthermore, had the expressways been market-based toll roads, once they were built, they would have continued to operate as a supply and demand based "break" on the rate of development. Eventually, as more development occurs, demand for a road grows making it more congested. One way to deal with this is to widen the road. But that is a VERY expensive thing to do and, if such a project has to rely on private capital, it is something that would be done ONLY if the costs could be recovered in a timely manner.

What happens when demand exceeds supply? Prices go up. If we had a free market road and there were more people wishing to use the road than the road could handle - well, the tolls would rise to the point that it reduces the number of cars to a manageable volume. If we had free market toll roads, they wouldn't be parking lots at rush hour because the cost of the tolls during peak hours would force a certain percentage of users to take alternative routes/forms of transportation or else shift their use of the road to less busy periods when the tolls are lower. As development continues to occur, the tolls would continue to grow higher - just as rents in high demand parts of town continue to go up as they become increasingly popular. These higher tolls will increase the cost of living in such areas and, therefore, put a break on their growth. This would make it increasingly viable for other forms of transit - such as rail, buses and privately operated shuttles - to capture a share of the market as well.

If you look at our economy at a whole, the ONLY areas where you see significant imbalances between supply and demand are those which are either provided by the government or those parts of the private sector (such as health care and energy) where government regulations and interference has significantly disrupted market forces and made it impossible for the law of supply to properly function.

The result of our government run expressways is that the law of supply and demand has been SERIOUSLY disrupted and does not function until after things have gotten out of hand and it is too late to easily fix. There is a certain "supply and demand" consequence that is operating as a break on development and people's behavior in the form of lengthy commuting times. But that is the consequence of people's reaction to a broken down system. It is basically a form of the same rationing by queue that was commonplace in Soviet Russia and other "planned" economies - if people have to wait around for something long enough, a certain number of them will give up and go away thus reducing demand. That is NOT a desirable state of affairs.

Considering that people's time has value, for a great many people paying a higher toll is MUCH less expensive than having to waste time in a queue or traffic jam. For those whose time is NOT especially valuable - well, they would then have an economic incentive to do their waiting around at home and use the roads at non-peak hours instead of doing their waiting on on the road as they do now clogging things up for those who have an economically viable need to be somewhere quickly.

Plus we are having to rebuild from scratch a regional transit system that once existed (and was privately financed) that might have perhaps remained viable had the government not subsidized its primary and powerful competitor.

Bottom line, the "problems" we have from "sprawl" come not from the widespread notion that economic growth is somehow bad or that it is somehow evil for people to spend their own money on and enjoy the sort of houses that want and can afford but rather they come from the unintended consequences and economic dislocations resulting from a clunky, top-down soviet style approach to how our transportation infrastructure should be "planned" and financed.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#22 dustin

dustin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE FW - Riverside

Posted 09 April 2008 - 02:12 PM

KP, I dont think that we are ever going to convince everyone that everyone should live inside the loop. We are always going to have those that want to live out in the boonies. However, if we can encourage responsible development by adding commuter rail (The Center for Transit Oriented Development believes that commuter rail does in fact encourage smart urban development), the sprawling communities out in the boonies can begin to contribute to a multinucleated urban approach as opposed to just simply sprawl.

Dismuke, I appreciate your faith in the Free Market, however I think it can be as utopian as the "soviet model." In the model that you suggest, it is most likely that those with the most money would have the nicest most convenient roads, while those without would be left with old, poorly maintained roads. I am in no way suggesting that people should not be able to go out and buy land away from the central city and enjoy their purchase, I am saying that we should be responsible about how that is handled. I just think we should be responsible about the transportation options so that our city is sustainable. If we can encourage development in places like Alliance, where there already is an established community, we can increase density there where there is potential. If we continue with the current model of growth, we will end up with a sea of low density housing and stripmalls and air that looks something like Beijing's. Further, if gas prices continue the way that they are, we will start to see some serious decay in those outlying communities as people begin to re-concentrate into the central city.

#23 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 09 April 2008 - 05:26 PM

Dustin, can you give me a link, I looked at the The Center for Transit Oriented Development website, but I couldn't find what you were referring to, but I would like to read it. Of course, you can have smart urban development at the core, where the trains all come home, like honeybees.

I have seen people write that the Pacific Electric system in Southern California was the incubator of the sprawl there. By providing a convenient way for people to move about, the electric railway system allowed real estate speculators to develop and market towns away from Los Angeles. In many places streetcars were provided as loss leaders to get the people out of town where developers had purchased cheap land and were re-selling it. This very well may have been the case here in Ft Worth. Streetcars weren’t built to get people into town; they were built to get them out of town.

The same goes for the commuter rail systems around New York and Chicago. I lived in Naperville, IL. About 35 miles west of Chicago, everyday about 40 commuter trains in each direction passed through our town. We even had express trains for the morning and afternoon rush; it only took 25 minutes on a non stop express. Without those trains that had been running since the 1800's Naperville would not have been the third largest city in Illinois.

Past history and personal experience makes me think that commuter rail to places like Gainesville, Cleburne and Weatherford would only encourage sprawl for the next 50 years. Developers would use a train as a selling point to develop vast tracts of single family homes even further away from the city center. This will happen anyway but I think commuter rail will speed it up.

None of this means I am not in favor of some projects. Remember, on your post about service to Alliance, I said anywhere there is a railroad track a planner will want to put a passenger train on it. The proposed destinations for this system seem to fulfill that prediction.


#24 dustin

dustin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE FW - Riverside

Posted 09 April 2008 - 05:55 PM

KP, i will see if i can dig out the literature i received from the presentation i listened to last year. What i ultimately mean about reigning in sprawl is that we already have established sprawl communities in Alliance and soon Crowley. The proposed commuter rail lines can create those cities as nucleated parts of the metroplex as opposed to leaving them to unaddressed and low density. If we keep leaving these outlying communities to grow in extremely low density, it will reach a capacity and a new ultra low density community will appear. If we can focus our growth into areas that are established we can start to improve density in those areas as opposed to undeveloped land.

#25 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 10 April 2008 - 12:57 AM

QUOTE (dustin @ Apr 9 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In the model that you suggest, it is most likely that those with the most money would have the nicest most convenient roads, while those without would be left with old, poorly maintained roads.


But isn't that already the case? Are the roads in the poorer parts of town as nice and maintained as in wealthier parts of town? I know that this has certainly been a sore spot for many over in Dallas where folks in the poorer parts of town have to dodge potholes while officials at City Hall stroke their egos figuring out how to impress big shots who live in other cities with pretentious "signature bridges" and such.

But I will readily admit that it is entirely possible under the model I propose that people in wealthier areas might have better access to nicer and more convenient expressways. (Keep in mind, however, that I am ONLY proposing that expressways be private - I have difficulty conceiving a viable alternative to most government owned side streets).

So let's assume for a moment that wealthier people would have access to nicer expressways. Why is that necessarily a problem? After all, wealthier people already have nicer and newer cars, houses, clothes, home entertainment systems, refrigerators, hotels, etc., than do the less well off. But it doesn't necessarily follow that there is anything wrong with the cars, houses, clothes, refrigerators, etc. that the less well off have - they just aren't as nice. And there are some things that the wealthy have such as boats, artworks, vacation homes, exclusive resorts, etc., that are well beyond the reach of even many upper middle class people, let alone the poor. There are a lot of things I would love to have that are beyond my financial reach. If I want them badly enough, it is up to me to figure out what I need to do to put myself in a position to afford them - and if I am either unwilling or unable to do those things, then the burden is on me to make peace with that fact and learn to appreciate the many wonderful things that I already do have. The people in this country we call "poor" are, in fact, enormously wealthy when compared with the average person in countries such as Cuba, for instance, where the average salary is $20 per month plus a pitiful ration of rice, dry beans and cooking oil.

It is entirely possible that under a system where all expressways are private toll roads, being able to live out on the very fringe of an urban area and use a brand new toll road would end up being a very expensive luxury. This is possible because such a road is VERY expensive to build and the costs have to be recovered through tolls. It is not uncommon for things that are just coming on to the market to be very expensive. Remember when a VHS player cost $900 - and that was in 1980s dollars? Once the initial expenses of bringing a product to market are recovered, prices tend to fall rapidly. What did a VCR cost before it became obsolete? Something like $30 perhaps? Perhaps the same will be true with toll roads - at first they will be expensive with the price gradually falling over time until a road reaches capacity at which point it will rise again.

On the other hand, I think a case can also be made for the opposite: Building roads is expensive and the percentage of the population that is wealthy is fairly small. The question is whether there would be enough wealthy users able to pay the high tolls needed to justify building the road? If the answer is no, then either the road does not get built or someone has to figure out a way to make it viable by lowering the toll and hoping to attract a large number of less affluent users and to earn the necessary revenue by volume.

Here is what I think will be the more likely scenario: Wealthier people WILL have easier access to the toll roads - but only during peak periods. The problem with operating a road is that there are times of the day when everybody wants to use the road at the same time and other times of the day when they are practically empty. So under a free market, most likely the price of the toll would be very high during peak periods and less expensive at other periods and perhaps even free during other periods (just like cell phone companies give customers free access to their networks during off-peak hours)

If your employer demands that you work an 8:00 - 5:00 type shift and you don't live nearby, you have no choice but to use roads (or transit) during the period when it is most in demand. If that means that you have to pay a significantly higher toll in order to be at work at that time, that is an added cost to your working for that particular employer. If you have a high paying job, that may not be a big deal. But if you are earning, say, $8 per hour a high toll might very well be a heavy enough burden to make you inclined to work for some other employer who allows you to work a shift that brings you to work when the toll is at a lower off-peak rate. If you are an employer hiring people at $8 to assemble widgets and it really doesn't matter what time of day the widgets are assembled, by offering shifts coincidental with off-peak toll hours, you would effectively be giving your employees a tax free pay raise without an extra dime coming from your pocket. On the other hand, if you are only paying $8 per hour and insist on the workers showing up at a time when the toll is, let's say $10 - well you may have a difficult time finding qualified employees.

The reality is that some people's time has a higher economic value than others. And some people have a more urgent need to quickly get from Point A to Point B at a certain time of day than do others. Under a free market, everyone gets to make the choice that works best for them - save money by getting there at a non-peak hour or pay extra money in exchange for the convenience of having a quick commute during peak hours. As things are such a choice is not available. If you want to get someplace on time during rush hour, you have to waste time stuck in traffic or by leaving ridiculously early to beat it. And if you decide to wait until non-peak hours to take your trip - well, you save time but you don't get a break on your taxes for the fact that you used the road when it was in less demand.

QUOTE
I am saying that we should be responsible about how that is handled. I just think we should be responsible about the transportation options so that our city is sustainable.


I do agree that we need to be responsible. But my question here is what makes government officials more qualified and responsible to make such decisions than private individuals who are risking their own hard earned capital with every decision they make?

A lot of what is necessary to be responsible in this context involves making accurate projections of future needs and planing accordingly. How are government officials more qualified to to this? I submit that they are probably less qualified. Just exactly how much salary do these government officials earn? They probably don't starve - but my guess is they are far from wealthy. The simple fact, however, is if they are all so expert and omniscient at being able to predict the future in terms of economic growth - well, with that kind of talent, they could make a FORTUNE on Wall Street and in consulting fees with Fortune 500 companies. The success of most large companies relies on accurately predicting the future which enables them to know when they should and should not expand into new markets, whether to build new factories, etc. The difference between being accurate and inaccurate on such projections can cost a large company many HUNDREDS of millions of dollars - so if government planners are so particularly expert at making such projections and predictions, why are they working for peanuts for some local municipality instead of raking in the millions that companies would eagerly pay them for the same knowledge?

So much for the notion that being employed by the government somehow makes one a more qualified authority.

This bring us back to responsibility. Which person tends to make more responsible decisions: the person who has to pay for those decisions and their consequences with his own money or the person who is spending other people's money - money that the other people were required by law to fork over whether they wanted to or not?

Anywhere in the world you go, whenever the government runs services that private enterprise is capable of providing, they are always less efficient, less capable, less innovative, more expensive, more corrupt and more wasteful than their free market counterparts. Why would the operation of things such as trains, trolleys, buses and toll roads somehow be an exception to that?

Again, the problems with "sprawl" overwhelming our transportation infrastructure were largely created by governmental policies that subsidized much of that sprawl without any market oriented "brake" to slow things down when they started to get out of hand. The solution is not to turn to the same crowd that caused the problems in the first place for a "solution." The answer is to get the government out of the people moving business and leave that to private enterprise which is much more qualified and which, unlike the government, works with voluntary participants as opposed to coerced participants. Given that the government already owns the expressways and transit authorities and that the mess they created has already been accomplished, how one gets to such an ideal - well, I am not sure exactly how one would go about that. But ultimately, that ought to be the very long term objective. I wouldn't say my proposal is "Utopian" anymore than I would say the fact that grocery stores are privately owned and not government run somehow constitutes a Utopia. But I will admit that what I am proposing is pretty radical and not something I am likely to live long enough to see.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#26 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 10 April 2008 - 01:56 AM

QUOTE (Keller Pirate @ Apr 9 2008, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have seen people write that the Pacific Electric system in Southern California was the incubator of the sprawl there. By providing a convenient way for people to move about, the electric railway system allowed real estate speculators to develop and market towns away from Los Angeles. In many places streetcars were provided as loss leaders to get the people out of town where developers had purchased cheap land and were re-selling it. This very well may have been the case here in Ft Worth. Streetcars weren’t built to get people into town; they were built to get them out of town.



This I suspect is entirely true. But this sort of "spawl" did not have the impact on the cities that the highways later had. Once a person rode the Pacific Electric or some other commuter line in town - well, once they got off the train, they had to get around somehow. Except for those who worked within walking distance of the train station, most of the people who rode the trains probably got on some sort of street car or subway. The infrastructure that enabled the commuters to get around the city was the same infrastructure that enabled urban residents to get around - and by using it, the commuters helped make it more viable.

New York and Boston are both cities that had long distance commuter rail lines very early on - and the inner core of those cities continued to remain viable. Indeed, I think one can make the case that such early sprawl was probably beneficial to the cities. There was a reason why people wanted to escape the cities in the late 19th century: they were overcrowded, congested and dirty. Beyond a certain point, too much density becomes a liability.

A good example is Hong Kong. It is a tiny place that people flocked to under British rule because of its incredible degree of political and economic freedom but which was artificially limited in size by its political boundaries surrounded by a dictatorship. Things are so dense in Hong Kong and real estate so expensive that there are poor people whose home essentially consists of a bunk on a bunk bed. Is there any doubt that Hong Kong would have been a better city to live in and do business in had there been room for suburbs to help relieve the population burden and the pressure it places on real estate prices and rents for every person who lives in or rents office/factory space in the city?

You are probably correct in that in the 19th century the streetcars were built to get people out of town - at least in terms of where they lived. Today, most of the population lives in the suburbs or areas within Fort Worth's city limits that are essentially suburban in their layout and the migration is in the other direction.

My point is this: a train load of people coming into the Intermodal Center each day from Gainesville and Cleburne will not have the same impact that the same number of people arriving by car will. Those people on the train are ONLY going to be going to downtown Fort Worth. Those who arrive by car might well end up at an office park along 820 somewhere. In terms of the viability of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, does it really matter if a person rides the rail in from Keller or Gainseville? The fact that people in those outlying areas can easily work in downtown Fort Worth makes downtown that much more of an attractive location for employers to be verses other parts of town - which will, in turn, bring new jobs, a certain number of which will be filled by people who will decide to live near downtown rather than elsewhere.

Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users