Here is one aspect of public transit that the promotors don’t like to talk about. But as the article at the end of the link makes clear, it is a problem.
I rode public transit for more than 33 years in Dallas. And before that I rode it in New York City. I had some harrowing experiences. Some of them are not fit to discuss in a public forum. But they were threatening. At the end of the day, I believe the threat of crime, real or imagined, is a major reason why people will stick with their cars if they can afford to do so.
The crime threat in large cities is not discriminatory. Public transit, private transit, sidewalks, places of business and private residence - crime can and does strike anywhere at any time.
How is an occasional crime on mass transit different from a car jacking? I wonder how many of those Indecent Exposure cases are homeless people urinating in inappropriate places.
Perception is everything. Many people use debit cards and carry little or no cash because they are afraid of being robbed. Apparently not noticing how many people are abducted and taken at gunpoint to an ATM where the bad guy can get even more of their money.
I rode our one line 10 mile light rail yesterday at about 2 PM and it was so crowded that people were having trouble getting in and out the doors. Imagine how many people would use it if it went more places. Yet every article in the paper about expanding the system is followed in the comments section by claims that no one rides the “choo choo”. I can only assume that those comments are written by people who never ride it.
Phoebe: the only way those comments can be refuted is if the articles have a picture of the overcrowding of trains. Why hasn’t that been done ? Media laziness ? 2PM? That certainly is not rush hour. Was it because the headways at that time are less than at rush hours ?
Trying to mitigate overcrowding will of course increase operating expenses. I can see 3 possible ways to increase capacity but all increase operating expenses. You will have to comment on each and the pitfalls of each.
1. Rebuild the line platforms for 3 car trains. Has any cost figures been released stating possible costs of expanding all platforms?
2. Decrease headways - Is there enough equipment? That would also apply to #1/
3. Run a short station train that does not go to or originate at the end of the line. Run this short station train just in front of a complete route train ?
Phoebe: the only way those comments can be refuted is if the articles have a picture of the overcrowding of trains. Why hasn’t that been done ? Media laziness ? 2PM? That certainly is not rush hour. Was it because the headways at that time are less than at rush hours ?
Trying to mitigate overcrowding will of course increase operating expenses. I can see 3 possible ways to increase capacity but all increase operating expenses. You will have to comment on each and the pitfalls of each.
1. Rebuild the line platforms for 3 car trains. Has any cost figures been released stating possible costs of expanding all platforms?
2. Decrease headways - Is there enough equipment? That would also apply to #1/
3. Run a short station train that does not go to or originate at the end of the line. Run this short station train just in front of a complete route train ?
Yes, headways are different during rush hour. Rush hour they are two set trains every 7 1/2 minutes, other times they are one set trains every 15 minutes. The original plans were for 300 ft platforms to allow three set trains but the Feds, believing that the ridership estimates were overly optimistic, required the plans for both platform length and parking be reduced as a contingency of their participation. From day one the actual ridership has exceeded the original estimates.
CATS has requested the money to lengthen the platforms as part of the design of the 10 mile extension of the line which is in the engineering phase. I don’t know if it will happen. It will be expensive because many of the platforms are elevated.
I only ride about once every two weeks. My particular need takes us from end to end. The train is not always that crowded, but Yesterday it was that crowded almost from end point to end point. Every time I have been on it all the seats were full and there were people standing. It was a one set train.
My real point in posting it was the fact that people who don’t ride it don’t seem to believe that anyone else does, either.
Mass transit in Charlotte, bus, car pool vans, and rail, is funded in part by a 1/2% dedicated sales tax. When the economy crashed and the two major banks that are headquartered here (Bank of America and Wachovia) got in big trouble, the sales tax revenue plummeted. As a result, construction is WAY behind the original plan. They have recently started selling advertising space on the outside of the trains and buses.
When they planned the first rail line, I was NOT a believer. I based that on how few people I saw riding the buses on the road that rou
Agree. People in relatively safe suburban communities often opt for gate subdivisions, home alarms, etc. I think we are very good a scaring ourselves to death over things that are not particularly risky. I have ridden a variety of transit for 30 years and the scariest moments have generally been walking to or from. Like anything else, you do need to be aware of your surroundings and don’t do anything stupid.
My observation is that many Americans desire to live in perfect safety and are willing to yield many of their basic rights to obtain that safety. I remember speaking to a person who would prefer a fascist regime like Franco’s Spain since he, as he put it, could walk around with money hanging out of his pockets and not have to worry about anything happening to him.
We must be very lucky here in Pittsburgh, compared to some other cities. Transit related crime here is rare, to my knowledge. And I’m a regular light rail and bus rider. Over the last year I can recall just two news items about altercations, one a serious disagreement between a passenger and a light rail operator, the other a passenger assault on a bus driver. I agree that it’s smart to be aware of your surroundings when walking to and from transit stops. Here, home invasions seem like a bigger problem than transit crime.
Wow! Is that ever true. No pictures on the platform or of the trains but anyone a mile or more away with a super zoom lens has a perfect picture…even the guy monitoring his sattellite can get a good picture of the spike heads in the rails…while a railfan is carted off for innocenlty pursuing an interest. Walk through any crowded area and there are dozens of sniffing dogs looking for as many different things; and beside them their handlers and at least to others per squad to keep an eye on us while a perpatrator can drive into the crowd with a car loaded with explosives or just casually walk in with fruit of the doom underware ready to blow or an innocent looking package or whatever is radio conrolled by a cell phone to ignite the whole town. Safety, in this context, is an illusion for sure.
Phoebe Vet’s “I based that on how few people I saw riding the buses on the road that roughly parallels the rail line. But I am a believer now” does not seem to have been picked up yet. Slight surprise there becasue it’s a really important quote and shows why light rail should be encouraged. What it shows is that Light Rail does more than provide existing bus riders with a nicer journey - it also encourages those using other modes (most notably cars) to use public transit. That modal shift is why the passenger figures often exceed predictions.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but the fact that a knowledgeable railway supporter may think that a light rail system is a bad idea, and the Feds who are supposed to be professionals (no anti Feds griping please) can get their figures wrong suggests that some new thinking is needed.
On crime one interesting point concerns statistics. To say, and I’m using hypothetical figures, that there were 10,000 crime on the New York Subway sounds a lot. But if there were 1,000,000,000 passengers the crime rate is 1 in 100,000. 10,000 crimes sounds a lot, but put it the other way and you have 999,990,000 passengers who were not affected. Actually the figures are something of an exaggeration my way because of course there aren’t 1bn separate riders there are instead a much lower number who take multiple journeys. This means the chance of being a victim is in fact rather higher.
We seem to always have crime where people gather…from a simple aggrigation of houses to a crowded street to a gathering of people to pockets to pick on the platforms or aboard a train. Crime on trains can only be avoided by moving to the hinterlands where there are not only no trains but also no people.
They extended the platforms on the blue line to accomadate three car trains. It cost several million dollars.
Due to the economy public transit is being forced to cut back on service both rail and buses. Also due to changes in the design of buses about 30 years ago a forty foot bus now only has about 45 seats as opposed to 55 seats on old buses. This has been resently addressed with 45 foot buses but many agencys won’t buy them because of the re-training need to operate them
Get mugged one time, as I was at a transit station, and your views about crime and safety are likely to change. No more glib statements about crime anywhere or weak kneed Americans over reacting to it, which is great sloganeering but adds nothing of substance.
Prior to the coming of the light rail line in Dallas, big D did not have a transit police force. It did not need one. But that changed with the coming of the rail line. Today, the Dallas Transit Police force numbers approximately 185 officers. Needless to say, numerous variables have contributed to the need for a significant transit police force, but is is not an unnoticed coincident that the need for the police force arose with the coming of the light rail system.
Crime happens, it was not invented by the light rail system. Anywhere there are people there is crime. That is why we hire policemen. We keep enforcement in perspective by supervising those policemen with a court system. Anything that weakens that court system is dangerous.
My claim that people prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom is evident all around you. People support the bizarre treatment of citizens by TSA because it makes them feel safe, even though TSA has never caught a terrorist. They have, however, arrested numerous citizens who had the audacity to be offended by their tactics, and they make a substantial amount of money auctioning off all the property they have seized from those citizens.
Congress has passed the USAPatriot Act which negates the need for many search and wiretap warrants and Americans support it. Our government tortures military and CIA prisoners, and Americans support it. Congress in the last couple of days, attached to the defense funding bill, a section that allows the President to detain people, even citizens arrested in the US, for years without trial if he suspects them of terrorism. President Obama says he is going to sign it. People think it’s a good idea because it makes them feel safer.
I stand by my statement that Americans prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom.
An unconstrained government is more dangerous that any terrorist or any criminal.
Balancing personal freedom with the need for personal security is a challenge. To hear you tell it, however, people wanting to be safe from crime are wimps. What are you saying? That the TSA should be abolished, and we should go back to the day when anyone could ro