One Billion,two hundred and twenty-eight million dollars.
Forgive me! but these figures jump out at me from today’s TRAINS Newswire. What is that amount of a mix of Federal dollars and local tax dollars going to buy?
For startrs in Minnesota you are going to get 11 miles of light rail connecting Minneapolis and St. Paul with a modern version of the old street cars. I am guessing it also gets you some cars to carry the paying passengers on; the prediction is for 41,000 people on a weekday day to ride the system. They have already spent some $145 million dollars on engineering, ROW purchases and construction costs. They are now going to Congress expecting that the US Congress will fund at least half of the Remaining Costs of #957 Million.
New Orleans is wanting to expand its current existing system by 2.5 miles. expanding into neighborhoods not currently served. From the French Quarter Canal Street out Rampart to St Claude and branch down Elysian Fields ( which was where Tennessee Williams: A Streetcar Named Desire was set) This little expansion is expected to cost $45 MIllion from Federal Funds and $79 million from Sales Taxes.
The few time I have ridden on NOPSI Cars they were a long way from being full, although, I am sure at times they are S.R.O. mostlty, they don’t seem to be so the $79 m seems to be overly optimistic, but sures that would never be with politicians in New Orleans.[:^)][2c]
First, I don’t see that multi billion dollar figure you mention in any of today’s NewWire items. But It takes money to do things. We spend billions and billions doing lots of things in this country. Other countries spend more. We have a private enterprise system. They havent stepped up to do it. They will benefit by their employees being able to get to and from work quickly and inexpensively. Retailers will benefit from those who will be able to travel to and from their estabilshiments quickly and inexpensively. Environmentalists have their own set of accomplishments these lines will bring that will lower the costs of living. But with no private entrapenure willing to do the the job for himself and fellow entrepenures, who should do it? And how much should they pay?
I posted the total of the figures listed in the Newswire Stories referencing the Transit lin between Minneapolis and St. Paul,Mn. It indicated that they were wanting to build a line linking the Twin Cities of 11 miles in length. Also that they had already spent a total of $145 Million already spent on engineering/ROW and Construction(?); and then were going to Congress for additional funding of at least half the amount totaling $957 Million to finish their LRT/Trolley (?) link.
The story about the 2.5 mile EXTENTION of the existing trackage was expected to run $45 MIllion with that money to come from the Federal Piggybank and the additional $79 million to come from a local tax issue amounting to $79 million. This money was to pay for a 2.5 mile line addition to the existing NOPSI Trolley lines.
As you are aware we have discussed costs on a number of occasions in the Threads on this Forum. I was just flabbergasted at the fact tha some a totaled amount was going to buy and construct 13.5 miles of track and ROW. It seems that when the Government is envolved the costs just go pout the roof, especially in a time when it seems that budget busting projects and spending issues. I can understand that if the folks in Minnesota had already spent $145 M on their project, that rather than go to the Feds for more, issue bonds to finish the project.
New Orleans is a tourist destination and relies on the tourist industry to bring in lots of monies, but it has been 6 years since Katrina and they still have not rebuilt the 9th Ward to asny major degree or completed the planned repairs on the levves and pumps around the city. Some of the areas that they want to build the Rampart/St Claude Extention are unbelieveably depressed. Just to spend $124 M just so you could name the line for t
Unfortunately, There is more truth than poetry in that statement!
I couldn’t agree more![:‘(][:’(][:'(]
What was the story about Barbara Streisand; Her agent said she would hit the ceiling when anyone wanted to mention buying something for a couple of thousand dollars, and spending tens of thousands went uncommented. When asked; Babs said, she could understand, and knew what it took for the smaller amounts, but could not simply comprehend the larger amounts.
I guess when you Own the printing press, money is not a problem?[oX)]
Real millionairs, not the new ones, old money millionairs, know the value of a penny. Or a nickle. Rockefeller sold clean, high quality kerosene for a nickle a quart and gave out nickels and dimes to people on the street noting that it was the earned interest on one dollar in the bank for a year. Wrigley and Astor collected thier millions selling items and services a nickel at a time as did many others. Today, a nickle is too much for a bank to pay in interest and too little for an investor to bother trying to earn. It is too little an amount to comprehend in terms of millions of dollars a year! Yet that is what it is still all about.
Henry6 wrote:“…Today, a nickle is too much for a bank to pay in interest and too little for an investor to bother trying to earn. It is too little an amount to comprehend in terms of millions of dollars a year! Yet that is what it is still all about…”
Exactly That was the point I was trying to make. It seems like an awful lot of monies to spend for a relatively short amount of track, and equipment . One has to wonder what kinds of fares will have to be charged to justify the original expenses and operating overhead.[sigh]
Investor owned enterprises (private enterprise) have not invested in passenger rail (intercity or transit) for a very good reason. They would lose money by the buckets, which would not be acceptable to their investors.
Businesses benefit from local transit, especially if it is economical and, therefore, used by their employees and customers. They pay taxes to support the systems. My Dallas corporate employer paid more in local taxes than it paid in federal income taxes. Some of the monies went to support Dallas Area Rapid Transit. A relatively small per cent of our employees used DART to get to and from work. I was one of the few managers who used public transit. And I was the only senior manager in the company who used it. The company subsidized the cost of the transit fares. At the end of the day, however, most of the employees drove to work.
The McKinney Avenue Trolley runs from a high density residential complex in Uptown Dallas to downtown Dallas. It should draw a significant number of commuters. It doesn’t! Most people in Upt
Sam, you underscore what I call the “Lionel” syndrome approach to HSR and transit both. It is proposed because of the glitz and glitter, the concept of the Lionel set running around the Christmas tree, the nostalgic kick of steaming home from war or to grandma’s for holiday. Too often it is built with dreams in mind rather than practicality or is just plain not sold and marketed in an intellegent and effective way. We do need good public transportation for ecological reasons as much as for the crowding of highways and lack of parking and raising fuel costs. But we have to get the public behind it for what it is, what it does, and what it will do, and not because it sounds sexy or nostalgic.
I think you are both missing the point. Decisions (including economic ones - look at the field of behavioral economics for more) are often irrational. Perhaps the reason transit and passenger rail doesn’t sell is because it isn’t perceived by the public as sexy or glamorous? Look at what sells most products: not cold rational facts and logic, but rather sex, violence and lots of bling. Obviously, the rational choice for people in that neighborhood in Dallas would be to take the trolley. Short distance, quick, convenient. But it’s not as cool as driving your auto, which if it is a well-off neighborhood, might be some prestige brand.
Behavior is a function of its consequences. The economic driver is only one of them. There are many others, as you have pointed out. And most of them have a high emotional quotient.
In Texas, where I have lived for more than 35 years, most people believe the consequences associated with driving and flying beat the consequences of ground based public transport. This is the reason why there is a very limited market for it in the Lone Star state, as well as most other areas of the United States.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, as well as other transit agencies in the state, has run numerous ad campaigns touting the benefits of public transit. They have appealed to a variety of economic and psychological (emotional) variables, even suggesting that riding the train is cool. It has not had many takers. Less than three to five per cent of the people in the state’s major metropolitan areas use public transport not withstanding the investment of billions of dollars in improved transit systems, with Dallas leading the way.
Most people in my part of the country will continue to drive for work, shopping, entertainment, etc. And they will continue to do so until the cost of driving is prohibitive. In 2008 there was a dramatic increase in the
A lot of people have a perception of public transit as noisy, slow, old, dirty, smelly equipment, with fixed schedules and often filled with loud patrons and no seats available. That perception may be based on first hand experience or the media. In any case, it can be at least partially true. No wonder they stay away. An ad campaign calling it “cool” will probably get laughs.
Schlimm…peoples’ perceptions are a very big part of the question of public transit. The more urban the area, the more it is understoood and accepted, especially in older towns like east coast cities and LA and SF. I was told once that only the poor and welfare types rode buses, for instance. In my current home town, probably it is not a far off preception, but I grew up in the NYC area where subway, bus, ferry, and commuter train were acceptable by all walks of life…and still is today. And that, also addresses you Sam, in your living in Dallas and how public transportation is looked at…not on a social economic level, but by the fact that they grew up drinking oil and driving cars and that has always been their way of life and they see no reason to change. In LA, where mass transit, particularly rail mass transit, was once big, then eradicated by the automobile, but now shows a resurgence coupled with how other long time urban centers which always have had public transit all along and know they want and need it, shows the geographical demographical divide public transit and passenger rail faces in the national spectrum.
Do you think a Mercedes CLS550 is really worth three times the price of a Chevrolet Impala or do you think the Mercedes owner is showing the world that he can AFFORD a Mercedes?
Do you know how many of those Mercedes are company cars? Those same companies could reduce their parking lot expenses is they offered their other employees transit passes.
Oh, you are right on that one PV! Realize that the Hamburger Joint and La Boef Palace ala Ritz buy the same food stuff from the same supplier in many instance. The difference in the atmosphere/ambience, and the looks of hardware; then the attitude and needs of those who choose one over the other.
Perhaps the key to expanding mass transit and Amtrak should be: “Perception and How to Change It”
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs where it was “normal” to take the CNW commuter scoots or the CA&E (Great 3rd Rail) electric until 1957. And in Chicago, the L or a bus. So for people who grew up in the area, riding mass transit is at least something folks consider using if it gets you to work (often not b/c of auto-driven sprawl). Ditto for intercity rail. But for many Americans, there is no mass transit or passenger train experience, and hasn’t been since long before their birth. Their knowledge of both comes from TV and movies, and often portrays both in a negative and unrealistic way. So changing the perception many folks have is a tough sell.
Perception is a large part of it. You having grown up in Chicagoland and me in the NY Metropolitan area have a view a farmer in mid America or high in the Rockies cannot imagine. But perception can be changed in proper marketing: reliable, must run when scheduled, when said it will run; , economical, at a price that makes it usable to the rider; useable in that it must run when riders need and want to use it; safe for the riders, the community, and the environment.
henry6: The items you mention are only a portion of providing service that is the heart of what can be marketed. That in itself is unlikely to change the attitudes toward passenger rail that most Americans have, which is based on the media picture, not personal experience. That will only happen when sufficient services of the right kind are planned, built, and are up and running in the appropriate areas. Then people can be coaxed into trying. If the service is only slightly better than much of the pathetic present-day Amtrak routes, most will not return. So just having economical, on-time, reliable, safe services is not enough. But if it is a real breakthrough (in other words fast, so that it is competitive with alternatives), it becomes a “build it and they will come” event. That is why constructing several appropriate corridors with quasi to true HSR is essential for success. Incremental improvements on many existing routes is money wasted. At the same time, long distance Amtrak service should be phased out or turned over to any interested private land cruise operators.
Of course the user has to have a need for the service or be convinced it is needed. Also let’s not confuse HSR with rapid transit with commuter rail…three distinct operations to meet three distinct transit/transportation needs.
Will the line be named “Desire?” As well as I can tell from the description, it will not reach Desire Street (which the streetcar named Desire at least reached, if it did not run on). If it runs south on Elysian Fields to Peters Street and ends, it will end about three quarters of a mile from Desire.