Re: Transportation issues "We don't care" about
Author: Than Bus Guy
Date: 08-17-2019 - 20:39
> This is one of the dumber articles on public
> transit and probably could have been better done
> by a high school student for free.
> Some random observations about transit in the US
> in response to this piece:
> 1. Some cities are dumb and poor, like Akron,
> where they have no rail transit and recently tore
> up a freeway they had build not too long ago.
> Treat every public expenditure as precious and
> plan accordingly as you may not get any more money
> for a long time.
Why are you calling City of Akron "dumb" for not having rail transit? It's population is just under 200,000. Cities in this size group do not have rail transit systems, unless they are in a region which has a regional rapid rail or commuter rail serving a much larger central city. Do not put this all on the City of Akron as the transit system serves an a greater area encompassing other communities in Summit County. Additionally, the State of Ohio is very non-supportive of mass transit.
> 2. Some cities are rich and putatively modern but
> just have a bad attitude, like Columbus. No rail
> transit and may never have any. Tear out those
> trolley coaches. Buses are good enough for the
> masses and if you behave yourself you might just
> get something non-diesel, sometime. It is run by
> a handful of rich families and corporations(and
> always has been)and they might be tempted by a
> Jetsons gadgetbahn like a monorail and the like
> but they are too cheap, so maybe BRT. They are
> easily contented, so they have OSU football but no
> professional team. But the promise of
> self-driving vehicles might motivate a place like
> Columbus to build another whole new set of
> freeways and streets and parking to accommodate.
Another off-base comment. Transit serving Columbus is operated by the Central Ohio Transit Authority, not as you put it "a handful of rich families and corporations."
I know that light rail was considered for a long time in Columbus. However, based on my observations of living in Columbus for a year is that most of the city does not have the density to support rail transit. Additionally, following on to my comment above, finding sufficient state funding to finance major new rail transit systems would have been difficult.
If you bothered to do a little research before commenting, you would know that BRT is not a "maybe" for Columbus. It's been a reality since January 1, 2018.
> What is so wrong with a moderate size mostly low
> rise city with a mostly surface electric rail
> transit system? Johnstown still had something
> like it in 1959 and SF in the sixties.
The transit system serving Johnstown, Pennsylvania was the last small city system to run PCC trolleys. When electric traction was completely replaced by buses, there was not sufficient demand for rail transit so that fares could make a significant contribution towards covering expenses. The City's population and level of economic activity greatly declined since the 1960s and now rail transit (except for maybe the Johnstown Incline) would be even less cost-effective now than it was in the 1950s & 1960s.