 |
Re: Setting the record straight
Author: A Transit Planner Asks
Date: 05-03-2013 - 21:41
In what reality do you live in?
I've been working as a transit planner for 24 years and your statements about me and other transit planners are just wrong.
mvs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Transit planning is now a threat to rail
> right-of-ways. With the conversion of the old
> ATSF 2nd District to light rail, there goes any
> viability of freight service west of Irwindale.
> The ATSF Harbor Subdivision has been similarly
> sacrificed for the Crenshaw Corridor light rail.
As I transit planner, I have investigated the potential for using many active railroad rights-of-way for transit. The projects have either considered placing new transit investments adjacent to active railroad lines or use of commuter rail. I never proposed, advocated or suggested that an active railroad line be abandoned for a railroad use. When others have proposed use of railroad tracks for transit purposes, I typically would point out the difficulties in doing so and note that the railroad would still need to maintain its operations on the line.
As noted above, when railroad lines are abandoned in my area, it is because there is no longer sufficient business to support the railroad operations, not because I want to use it for a transit line or bike path.
That said, three different railroads (a Class 1, a regional and an industrial railroad) have approached my employer to inquire about our potential interest in using railroad lines for public transportation purposes. In none of those cases did we pursue use of those rights-of-way because they did not fit our needs.
>
> Now in Ventura County, a bike path may take out
> the F&W. Nevermind the revenue the F&W provides
> from movie shoots and the tourist dollars it sends
> to Fillmore, Santa Paula, Piru, transit planners
> have to have their bike paths.
Why do transit planners have to have "their bike" paths? Transit planners, are by definition, planners for bus and rail transit systems, not parks or trail organizations. They are primarily responsible for making bus and rail transit improvements, not bike paths. Yes, there are times when transit planners (including me) try to figure out how bike lanes may be incorporated into a public transportation project, but I have never favored abandonment of an active railroad line for conversion to a trail.
>
I've been working as a transit planner for 24 years and your statements about me and other transit planners are just wrong.
mvs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Transit planning is now a threat to rail
> right-of-ways. With the conversion of the old
> ATSF 2nd District to light rail, there goes any
> viability of freight service west of Irwindale.
> The ATSF Harbor Subdivision has been similarly
> sacrificed for the Crenshaw Corridor light rail.
As I transit planner, I have investigated the potential for using many active railroad rights-of-way for transit. The projects have either considered placing new transit investments adjacent to active railroad lines or use of commuter rail. I never proposed, advocated or suggested that an active railroad line be abandoned for a railroad use. When others have proposed use of railroad tracks for transit purposes, I typically would point out the difficulties in doing so and note that the railroad would still need to maintain its operations on the line.
As noted above, when railroad lines are abandoned in my area, it is because there is no longer sufficient business to support the railroad operations, not because I want to use it for a transit line or bike path.
That said, three different railroads (a Class 1, a regional and an industrial railroad) have approached my employer to inquire about our potential interest in using railroad lines for public transportation purposes. In none of those cases did we pursue use of those rights-of-way because they did not fit our needs.
>
> Now in Ventura County, a bike path may take out
> the F&W. Nevermind the revenue the F&W provides
> from movie shoots and the tourist dollars it sends
> to Fillmore, Santa Paula, Piru, transit planners
> have to have their bike paths.
Why do transit planners have to have "their bike" paths? Transit planners, are by definition, planners for bus and rail transit systems, not parks or trail organizations. They are primarily responsible for making bus and rail transit improvements, not bike paths. Yes, there are times when transit planners (including me) try to figure out how bike lanes may be incorporated into a public transportation project, but I have never favored abandonment of an active railroad line for conversion to a trail.
>
