Riding the
London Underground (which is mostly above ground)
reminded me of what I like — and what I dislike — about rail transit.
What I like are these three things: Rail transit is usually the quickest way to get around cities that grew up around rail transit. Rides are usually inexpensive, at least for the rider, though that is less true in London than I expected. You can sometimes read while you ride.
My list of dislikes is longer. The trains are, almost always, noisy. The tracks, and the areas next to them, are usually ugly. Passengers are often exposed to diseases from other passengers. (I caught a cold while I was in London. I don't know where, but the Underground is the most likely place, for a number of reasons.) It is difficult to ride rail transit and carry more than a single package. The seats are usually uncomfortable. Worse yet, in rush hours, many passengers are forced to stand. (While I was in London, I never saw a man giving up a seat to a woman, or a young person giving up a seat to an older person.) The systems are often especially difficult for mothers of young children. (I helped one young mother carry her toddler up and down three or four flights of stairs and saw other young mothers struggling.) Most rail transit systems attract criminals. (There were warning signs about thieves at the station near my hotel in London, which was not in a bad part of London.) The systems lack flexibility; they can not easily adapt to changes in ridership, either up, or down. They are targets for terrorists; offhand, I can think of terrorist attacks on rail transit in London, Madrid, Paris, and Tokyo, and I don't doubt that many other cities have suffered from this modern scourge.
Of course, in cities not built around rail transit, rail transit is rarely the fastest way to get around, especially for those who are making more than one stop in a journey. Riders waste enormous amounts of time. This seldom bothers those who push rail transit on the public; they expect others to use the systems and do not care that those others waste vast amounts of time. It is rare for leaders, in any city that has rail transit, to use the systems themselves.
Rail transit made sense for 19th century cities. (London's system was started in 1863.) And it makes sense in some of the cities that grew up around rail transit. But it makes no sense in 20th century cities, much less the cities that we will build or rebuild in this century.
Unless, of course, you are an offical who does not care about the riders of those rail transit systems, and just want them off the roads, so that there is more room for your limousine.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Correction: Thanks to the commenters who pointed out that I should have said "rail transit", rather than "light rail". I have corrected the text above.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 22, 2008 01:44 PM | Email ThisThere is very little reason for light rail in the Puget Sound other than that it becomes a make-work project for unions who in turn vote Democrat. And it offers yet another vehicle for increased statism, authoritarianism and social engineering.
But no matter all that, because the demographics, geography, etc. all make it abundantly clear that the car is not going anywhere. People like the convenience and safety and it is still the fastest means of transportation.
For example, last week I had to go to Shoreline from Tacoma at about 8:30 on Friday. There was a bad accident on I-5 North. The trip took me two hours. But I checked Sounder Train schedules and inferred from proposed light rail routes and bus schedules that the trip still would have taken me at least two hours by mass transit. And I was carrying some expensive tools that I would not have been able to safely carry on mass transit.
Train Transit makes sense for a measly 1% or less of the population. And yet it is funded by all to the tune of billions.
The effective wealth transfer and increased bureaucracy are very appealing to Progressives, regardless of any actual utility of the transit.
There's never been a good outline for Seattle's light rail of what the total cost per mile is or what percent of the total costs are actually paid for by fares.
Would somebody tell the mass-transit liberals that time is money, and I simply can't afford the time to use their expensive toys?
Posted by: Ex-WA on January 22, 2008 03:01 PMYour gripes basically boil down to "the Tube is old and people use it." Scant consideration was given to the infirm or disabled in the era when it was constructed. The technology of their era makes them noisy (note that the newer lines and rolling stock are not.) When when the trains are packed, everyone gets where they're going on time unlike, say, 520, which is why they're packed.
Seattle transit planning and implementation has been garbage since before I was born, but it doesn't have to be.
That wretched hive of scum and villainy known as DC built a massive grade-separated metro in the 70's for under $10 billion (and that was after the inevitable graft and cost overruns). In hindsight it was a bargain - consider the absurd financing scheme that finally sunk the green line monorail topped $11b. DC might be older than Seattle, but it isn't any more dense and its metro area sprawls just like us.
As far as the panderiffic "fear the terrorists" junk goes, I recommend Idaho or therapy. Living among other people isn't for everyone - cowards may find it hazardous to their sanity.
Posted by: no fear on January 22, 2008 03:33 PMYou have me all confused. Unless you were riding the Docklands Light Rail in eastern London (which is officially part of the London Underground), you were not on light rail in London. Rather you were riding heavy rail (there are many differences - a major one is that heavy rail trains generally do not have grade crossings).
You point out that rail systems attract terrorism. But it's not just that. Public transportation is what attracts terrorists. Have you heard of buses being blown up - in London, in Israel, in Russia, in Sri Lanka, all over the world.
Also, I'm sorry you caught a cold on the London tube, but there is nothing about trains that makes this any more likely than getting sick from a crowded bus.
Posted by: confused on January 22, 2008 03:34 PMYou have me all confused. Unless you were riding the Docklands Light Rail in eastern London (which is officially part of the London Underground), you were not on light rail in London. Rather you were riding heavy rail (there are many differences - a major one is that heavy rail trains generally do not have grade crossings).
You point out that rail systems attract terrorism. But it's not just that. Public transportation is what attracts terrorists. Have you heard of buses being blown up - in London, in Israel, in Russia, in Sri Lanka, all over the world.
Also, I'm sorry you caught a cold on the London tube, but there is nothing about trains that makes this any more likely than getting sick from a crowded bus.
Posted by: confused on January 22, 2008 03:35 PMYou have me all confused. Unless you were riding the Docklands Light Rail in eastern London (which is officially part of the London Underground), you were not on light rail in London. Rather you were riding heavy rail (there are many differences - a major one is that heavy rail trains generally do not have grade crossings).
You point out that rail systems attract terrorism. But it's not just that. Public transportation is what attracts terrorists. Have you heard of buses being blown up - in London, in Israel, in Russia, in Sri Lanka, all over the world.
Also, I'm sorry you caught a cold on the London tube, but there is nothing about trains that makes this any more likely than getting sick from a crowded bus.
Posted by: confused on January 22, 2008 03:36 PMAnd it is cheering, at my age, to be called "Dude".
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 22, 2008 04:38 PM1. The automobile is the ultimate "transit system". Transit should always be personal, like walking, not mass, like rail.
2. Those not having a car, or access to one, should use taxis.
3. Those who cannot afford taxis should be given vouchers.
Posted by: John Bailo on January 22, 2008 06:17 PM2. Reading your post it seems like one of your points is that older cities, that built rail earlier, aren't a good model for us here, today. So, what city's transportation system would be a good model for us?
Posted by: Cleve on January 22, 2008 06:28 PMOy...
As a regular commuter on the Tacoma-Seattle 594 bus, and on buses in general, I can't say much for the taxi plan. My house to Seattle in a taxi is nearly $100. I can't possibly imagine that the vouchers for such a system wouldn't way exceed the costs of running a bus. I can't quote the cost of the bus system offhand, but I just can't fathom your system making sense fiscally, environmentally, or practically.
I'd much prefer a walk-friendly commute distance, but frankly, not everyone considers a "personal commute" the best when it involves operating a vehicle. More expensive and more dangerous do not outweigh more personal to me.
You could make an argument for bus vouchers, maybe, but I just don't see how taxi vouchers would work.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on January 22, 2008 07:49 PMWhich happens to include most of the developed world's largest and densest cities (except LA, which is less a city than a collection of suburbs). And most big cities in the developing world are now adding rail in an attempt to cure/prevent total gridlock -- e.g., Bangkok.
(I'm not saying this applies to Seattle, which is not one of the world's largest or densest cities. But that's another matter.)
Posted by: Bruce on January 22, 2008 11:46 PMThis shows how clueless the whole global warming thing really is. If no one burned the logs, they would rot, and release not only C02, but methane which is far more effective a greenhouse gas.
#17. As someone who has lived in some of these cities, I can say that the trains, such as BART) have done little to help the situation. When they have, its been surface rail, private-sector trains (like Southern Pacific CalTrain, referred to as "Cow Train" among those who've tried it).
These show the problem in a nutshell. Either you have a long walk among the winos, with the distinct possiblity of a criminal encounter, or at least getting some faeces thrown at you.
Or, you take BART and it stops every few miles, making the trip incredibly slow.
You, know, it seems to me the reasonable question is whether 1900 really was the peak of human civilisation, with cities to match (tenements, trains, and row houses) or whether the Dallas-Denver-LA car based model isn't superior in terms of livibility and economics.
Posted by: bfr on January 23, 2008 10:30 AMAre there any large interesting cities that did not grow up around rail transit, and that you wish to point to as models? LA? Bangkok?
In other word, do you actually have a better idea?
Posted by: Bruce on January 23, 2008 11:47 AMExamples in North America:
Dallas
Denver
LA
Atlanta
Dade-Broward-West Palm
Orlando
Saskatoon
Calgary
Edmonton
Halifax
etc
Examples outside north america:
Sydney
Melbourne
Tel Aviv
Haifa
Hong Kong
Shanghai
Kyoto
Negoya
Columbo, Sri Lanka
etc.
All of these are very livable cities. I didn't even have to try. There's plenty more.
Bruce
Posted by: bfr on January 23, 2008 11:56 AMYet another person who bought the myth of "Autopia" Los Angeles. Sorry, it just isn't true.
L.A. "didn't grow up around rail"? Not likely. The city exploded in population in the 1880's when competition among railroads reduced the fare from Chicago to Los Angeles to $1. There were four major railroads terminating here, each with their own station.
The Coast Starlight (San Luis Obispo to San Diego) has the largest ridership of any Amtrak route in the USA outside the Northeast.
What city had the largest streetcar network in the United States? Los Angeles. There was over 1,400 miles of track across five counties, from L.A. t0 San Fernando to Pasadena, to Huntington Beach, to Riverside, to San Bernardino, with the Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway.
L.A. is a collection of suburbs? Yes, and that collection of suburbs was only POSSIBLE because of the massive rail network connecting it all together into one giant REGION.
Unfortunately, all the passenger rail service was unceremoniously ripped out in the 1950's and replaced with freeways. DUMB. Only now are the citizens of Los Angeles Country trying to rectify this mistake.
Now, we have the sixth largest urban rail system in the USA (up from NOTHING in 1990), and we are shooting for fifth largest in the next five years (about 95 miles total). Good, but by all rights we should have something approaching New York's subway (450 miles). But we'll get there eventually.
So, Jim, even in Los Angeles, rail is a good way to get around. Doesn't go everywhere yet, but it can take you to Downtown, Hollywood, Los Feliz, North Hollywood, Long Beach, Koreatown, Norwalk, El Segundo, Highland Park and (coming soon) East L.A. And almost (darn it) to the Airport.
Posted by: Scott Mercer on January 23, 2008 05:20 PMNo, Thom, that's not the argument.
Let me see if I can explain it to you.
We don't want to avoid building roads "because people will use them."
We want to avoid building more roads because (just like whatever roads exist now) they will become choked with traffic AND, AS ROADS, THEY WILL BE USELESS. (Okay, much, much less useful.)
That means spending BILLIONS of tax payer dollars for something THAT IS USELESS. A road is only useful is the traffic MOVES AT A DECENT RATE OF SPEED. Otherwise it's a psuedo parking lot!
Hey, how about this idea: give people AN ALTERNATIVE TO DRIVING ON A ROAD by building effective mass transit.
Then, maybe the traffic on the roads will GO DOWN, making the ROADS MORE USEFUL.
How about that? Solves two problems at once!
It never ceases to amaze me that Road Warriors don't get that increased mass transit will give them more room on their freeways for their own precious vehicles.
Now, maybe if we had unlimited land to build more freeways on, your argument might have some credence. But we have run out of room to cram more multi-lane freeways into. Especially in dense downtown areas, which, oddly enough is where people want to drive to much of the time!
300 people on a light rail train takes up much less space than 300 people driving 300 cars on a multi lane freeway. Easy to see that. If you get really spendy and build a subway, it takes up even less space on the ground: almost zero space, in fact. You get what you pay for.
Posted by: Scott Mercer on January 23, 2008 05:36 PM