archangelrichard
12-10-2007, 08:16 PM
Ok.
1. Its demeaning to your argument to name call.
2. It indicates a complete lack of understanding of certain things:
a. the basic physics: steel on steel is more efficient at transmitting more of the force into movement than rubber on asphalt; it is more energy efficient, cheaper to operate. Further you are not carrying your powerplant as a bus does, making it lighter; and you get cleaner energy from dams, etc. than gasoline or diesel
b. most of the cost of light rail is in P R O W (Private Right of Way - that is not sharing the street with anyone else). In a city as dense as Vancouver, you could just dedicate a street like Columbia or Broadway strictly as P R O W and "1 way 1 lane and parking" (No one ever does this because there is just so much money to be made on large construction projects by large donators to political campaigns)
c. Light rail is far cheaper to build than new freeways and can carry as many people.
d. regardless of rail or bus, transit supports higher densities; which means your route becomes fixed as people tend to build things near it. The argument that buses are better because you can move the route is silly on the face of it - buildings do NOT move.
e. building light rail immediately increases the value of property along the route in cities that have done so by 20 - 25%; creating a funding source - if anyone has the bravery to do so (in those cities that have built light rail no one has challenged the entrenched powers to recover the cost of their benefits)
in short, the issues have less to do with light rail than the standard issue of forcing the costs onto everyone for public investments that benefit everyone some, but some far more than others. Since this is the case, why not go after those who push it for their own profit in increased real estate values, large construction projects, etc. rather than as a piece of the overall transit system? This is not a technology problem, it is a people problem.
1. Its demeaning to your argument to name call.
2. It indicates a complete lack of understanding of certain things:
a. the basic physics: steel on steel is more efficient at transmitting more of the force into movement than rubber on asphalt; it is more energy efficient, cheaper to operate. Further you are not carrying your powerplant as a bus does, making it lighter; and you get cleaner energy from dams, etc. than gasoline or diesel
b. most of the cost of light rail is in P R O W (Private Right of Way - that is not sharing the street with anyone else). In a city as dense as Vancouver, you could just dedicate a street like Columbia or Broadway strictly as P R O W and "1 way 1 lane and parking" (No one ever does this because there is just so much money to be made on large construction projects by large donators to political campaigns)
c. Light rail is far cheaper to build than new freeways and can carry as many people.
d. regardless of rail or bus, transit supports higher densities; which means your route becomes fixed as people tend to build things near it. The argument that buses are better because you can move the route is silly on the face of it - buildings do NOT move.
e. building light rail immediately increases the value of property along the route in cities that have done so by 20 - 25%; creating a funding source - if anyone has the bravery to do so (in those cities that have built light rail no one has challenged the entrenched powers to recover the cost of their benefits)
in short, the issues have less to do with light rail than the standard issue of forcing the costs onto everyone for public investments that benefit everyone some, but some far more than others. Since this is the case, why not go after those who push it for their own profit in increased real estate values, large construction projects, etc. rather than as a piece of the overall transit system? This is not a technology problem, it is a people problem.