- comment
Doogman - body
- Excellent point. However, what do you DO with those people when they GET to their destination?
The biggest problems we'll face in the post-gasoline future will be changing the design of cities to accomdate -people- not cars.
Imagine how much free space there will be when there doesn't have to be four lanes of asphalt everywhere. You'll have room for a station every two blocks as well as larger sidewalks, etc. Of course it will cost billions... which we spent ONCE taking out all the tracks for the trolleys.
Maybe we could bring back the electric centrally-powered trolleys like they have in San Francisco - which, btw, proved cheaper to run than the bus lines (contrary to the screeching of their opponents).
Funny how the right way to do things becomes obvious only after years of being shouted down by auto manufacturers and trucking companies.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- That's just it though -- voters don't want a station because of the associated tax increase the Dems have demanded to build it.
There was a plan to have a developer build a station near Lee Hill as a proffer, but that was shot to hell (from what I last understood). If there was a way to make VRE pay for itself or build a station w/o participating in VRE, then I'd be all for it.
Unfortunately, the moment a locality buys into VRE, they are obligated to implement a two cent gas tax.
Not an option.
There was a bill that I believe one of our Spotsylvania delegates was going to introduce to GA that would make the 2-cent gas tax optional (meaning localities could implement a 0-cent gas tax and pay for the contribution out of the general fund), but I don't know where that bill is.
Add to the stack the fact that GA hasn't resolved the VDOT issue, and it's a real mess. Why subsidize VRE and make it easier for the state to dodge the question of fast rail, etc.
All this having been said, more taxes won't solve the problem. In fact, the whole idea of VRE was to *lessen* the cost of transportation by implementing fast rail. 11 stops and $350/mo later for a train ticket, and I'd rather slug into D.C. than ride the train.
- comment James A. Bacon
- body
- Interesting observation, Sean. Now you understand why people are so excited about rail. But Doogman raises the critical question: "What do you DO with those people when they GET to their destination?"
Unlike an automobile, which can take its driver from his driveway to the parking lot next to his office, the VRE train does not complete the traveler's entire trip. People must get to the train station and find parking (if they have a car), and then they must get from the train station at the other end to their final destination -- sans car.
It is generally agreed that mass transit works best when people can walk to a station at one end and walk to their destination at the other, without the need for intermediary forms of transportation. Planners use a rule of thumb that people are willing to walk up to 1/4 mile to/from a transit stop. To attract all the riders that the VRE is theoretically capable of transporting, there MUST be density around the transit stops. If local governments refuse to permit the density, they are limiting the potential of the rail line. VRE could carry a million passengers an hour, and it wouldn't matter if people found it inconvenient to get to and from the VRE stations.
Rail stations are the critical bottleneck. Address that problem, and you've made real progress.
- comment Charles
- body
- And to just emphasise that all the more --
How do you get 15,000 people TO and THROUGH a train station each hour? 10 turnstiles, one person every 5 seconds, puts 120 people a minute, or 7200 people an hour. onto the train.
If you assume you have three train stations, and each has a parking lot with 2 entrances of 2 lanes each and the parking is free, and an average of 1.3 people are in the cars just like the freeway, you have a total of 12 lanes entering the parking lot.
but the study shows you need 17 lanes at highway speeds to move 15,000 people an hour, so the 12 slow-speed entrances to the parking won't cut it. Which is good, because you don't have 10,000 parking spaces for the first hour either. And imagine trying to drop 15,000 people off at the entrance.
We can move a lot more people with cars if we force them to ride 3 or 4 to a car. And if we built a smart highway the cars could run close together and we'd move a lot more people.
Last thing -- I'm really not sure I agree with what it takes to move 15,000 people. Don't we get 80,000+ people out of FedEx field after a football game, in less than 4 hours? And we don't have 17 lanes. In normal traffic, you can get up to 2000 cars per hour in your main lanes, with about 1500 per hour in your rightmost lane.
Anyway, the answer isn't finding better ways to move people to their jobs, it's finding ways to move the jobs to the people.
4 Comments:
The biggest problems we'll face in the post-gasoline future will be changing the design of cities to accomdate -people- not cars.
Imagine how much free space there will be when there doesn't have to be four lanes of asphalt everywhere. You'll have room for a station every two blocks as well as larger sidewalks, etc. Of course it will cost billions... which we spent ONCE taking out all the tracks for the trolleys.
Maybe we could bring back the electric centrally-powered trolleys like they have in San Francisco - which, btw, proved cheaper to run than the bus lines (contrary to the screeching of their opponents).
Funny how the right way to do things becomes obvious only after years of being shouted down by auto manufacturers and trucking companies.
There was a plan to have a developer build a station near Lee Hill as a proffer, but that was shot to hell (from what I last understood). If there was a way to make VRE pay for itself or build a station w/o participating in VRE, then I'd be all for it.
Unfortunately, the moment a locality buys into VRE, they are obligated to implement a two cent gas tax.
Not an option.
There was a bill that I believe one of our Spotsylvania delegates was going to introduce to GA that would make the 2-cent gas tax optional (meaning localities could implement a 0-cent gas tax and pay for the contribution out of the general fund), but I don't know where that bill is.
Add to the stack the fact that GA hasn't resolved the VDOT issue, and it's a real mess. Why subsidize VRE and make it easier for the state to dodge the question of fast rail, etc.
All this having been said, more taxes won't solve the problem. In fact, the whole idea of VRE was to *lessen* the cost of transportation by implementing fast rail. 11 stops and $350/mo later for a train ticket, and I'd rather slug into D.C. than ride the train.
Unlike an automobile, which can take its driver from his driveway to the parking lot next to his office, the VRE train does not complete the traveler's entire trip. People must get to the train station and find parking (if they have a car), and then they must get from the train station at the other end to their final destination -- sans car.
It is generally agreed that mass transit works best when people can walk to a station at one end and walk to their destination at the other, without the need for intermediary forms of transportation. Planners use a rule of thumb that people are willing to walk up to 1/4 mile to/from a transit stop. To attract all the riders that the VRE is theoretically capable of transporting, there MUST be density around the transit stops. If local governments refuse to permit the density, they are limiting the potential of the rail line. VRE could carry a million passengers an hour, and it wouldn't matter if people found it inconvenient to get to and from the VRE stations.
Rail stations are the critical bottleneck. Address that problem, and you've made real progress.
How do you get 15,000 people TO and THROUGH a train station each hour? 10 turnstiles, one person every 5 seconds, puts 120 people a minute, or 7200 people an hour. onto the train.
If you assume you have three train stations, and each has a parking lot with 2 entrances of 2 lanes each and the parking is free, and an average of 1.3 people are in the cars just like the freeway, you have a total of 12 lanes entering the parking lot.
but the study shows you need 17 lanes at highway speeds to move 15,000 people an hour, so the 12 slow-speed entrances to the parking won't cut it. Which is good, because you don't have 10,000 parking spaces for the first hour either. And imagine trying to drop 15,000 people off at the entrance.
We can move a lot more people with cars if we force them to ride 3 or 4 to a car. And if we built a smart highway the cars could run close together and we'd move a lot more people.
Last thing -- I'm really not sure I agree with what it takes to move 15,000 people. Don't we get 80,000+ people out of FedEx field after a football game, in less than 4 hours? And we don't have 17 lanes. In normal traffic, you can get up to 2000 cars per hour in your main lanes, with about 1500 per hour in your rightmost lane.
Anyway, the answer isn't finding better ways to move people to their jobs, it's finding ways to move the jobs to the people.
Post a Comment
Home