Antone's Nightclub
Anti-Rail for Austin
RECEIVED Wed., June 9, 2004
Dear Editor,
Contrary to Representative Mike Krusee's notion, the recent Center for the American Dream assessed data for rail regions in 13 categories, including transit ridership trends, congestion trends, rail cost effectiveness, safety, and energy costs ["Here Come the Transporters," News, June 4]. The survey used data from 23 regions, which are among the 50 largest urban areas. The comparisons were between rail districts and bus districts, not rail and nonrail areas.
Now just to show the survey was accurate, New York City scored high! Hey, transit makes sense in NYC, but if New York didn't already have rail, given the high cost, it probably wouldn't make sense to build it today. Even adding to the present New York system has been estimated at costs a whooping $2.1 billion a mile.
The study concludes: "Rail transit is even more difficult to justify in other urban areas. Bus-rapid transit can carry as many people as fast as rail at a far lower cost, while freeways are 14 times more cost effective than rail." Add to, bus rapid transit is forever flexible compared to rail which is permanently "nailed" to the pavement. The study suggests entities "abandon" their trolleys saving taxpayers dollars and providing space for bus, autos, and pedestrians. In the 24 regions, rail lost 14,000 riders during the Nineties. Bus actually gained 53,000 riders during the same period. Rail transit reduces so called "livability" by encouraging congestion in 16 of the fastest growing areas. Rail has, in fact, reduced "livability" in every area it has been built.
Krusee and his pals might want to site areas where rail transit has improved livability. How about Los Angeles, Mike? The study can be found on the Independence Institute Web site www.i2i.org.
Contrary to Representative Mike Krusee's notion, the recent Center for the American Dream assessed data for rail regions in 13 categories, including transit ridership trends, congestion trends, rail cost effectiveness, safety, and energy costs ["Here Come the Transporters," News, June 4]. The survey used data from 23 regions, which are among the 50 largest urban areas. The comparisons were between rail districts and bus districts, not rail and nonrail areas.
Now just to show the survey was accurate, New York City scored high! Hey, transit makes sense in NYC, but if New York didn't already have rail, given the high cost, it probably wouldn't make sense to build it today. Even adding to the present New York system has been estimated at costs a whooping $2.1 billion a mile.
The study concludes: "Rail transit is even more difficult to justify in other urban areas. Bus-rapid transit can carry as many people as fast as rail at a far lower cost, while freeways are 14 times more cost effective than rail." Add to, bus rapid transit is forever flexible compared to rail which is permanently "nailed" to the pavement. The study suggests entities "abandon" their trolleys saving taxpayers dollars and providing space for bus, autos, and pedestrians. In the 24 regions, rail lost 14,000 riders during the Nineties. Bus actually gained 53,000 riders during the same period. Rail transit reduces so called "livability" by encouraging congestion in 16 of the fastest growing areas. Rail has, in fact, reduced "livability" in every area it has been built.
Krusee and his pals might want to site areas where rail transit has improved livability. How about Los Angeles, Mike? The study can be found on the Independence Institute Web site www.i2i.org.
Cheers
Vic Vreeland
Vic Vreeland