Randall Cutting thinks that he has made cutting comments on my post. Starting at the top:
1) I am not an opponent of transit choice, where it is the most cost effective option. But if it costs much more to provide the transit trip that YOU desire than to provide it in a bus, too bad. I will support the bus option. 2) While CM Zimmermann didn't expressly say that this would be privately funded, that's what I was told a week or so ago when I visited the Taxi2000 office where the demo segment is set up. They have a firm (Dain?) investigating placing private bond funding. 3) The ridership on lrt has recently been above the ridership prediction that was announced just before the line opened. But that prediction is usually well below the ridership prediction used to sell it to the public. Consider Salt Lake City lrt. That line took two years to get daily ridership back up to the ridership carried on the bus routes replaced by the lrt. The officials reduced that actual ridership figure to a prediction of about 3/4 for lrt. Why would you be eager to build a line where you predicted that it would carry fewer people than the existing bus routes? And even at the current figure (20,000 one-way trips a day the last time I looked), that's below the ridership of a heavily used bus route in the Twin Cities. You quote a figure of 19,300 one-way trips daily, which is probably for lrt. I was asking for the predicted prt ridership. 4) A route cut on a transit system is not running a route, like the 54 from Saint Paul to the U of M. Consult news stories on the restructuring of the various sectors. 5) You must be confusing Hiawatha lrt and the 68 station prt system proposed by CM Zimmermann. Lrt is proposed to cost $9 million a year to run. He specifically said that the prt system would more than cover its operating costs and probably cover the capital costs. 6) Farebox recovery for NYC Transit is 54%, New Jersey Transit 46%, Washington, D.C. 43%. The stated goal for Hiawatha lrt is to recover the same percentage as the overall bus system, which is far below the percentage of the best bus routes run by Metro Transit. 7) I believe that you quoted me fares for the Hiawatha lrt, not the fares that I requested for prt. Again, I talked recently to the Taxi2000 folks and they were talking distance-based fares. 8) You state, quite incorrectly, that we haven't doen our research, while continuing to confuse what I wrote about prt with your views on Hiawatha lrt. If the prt system is privately financed, then there would be issues of how to handle transfers. It is relevant to talk about how prt would be financed in a discussion about prt. Please relate to us the number of hours that you spent studying the Hiawatha lrt EIS, the Central Corridor EIS, the Northstar Corridor EIS. 9) We do understand that lrt is not for the public good. It is like ublicly funded stadiums, publicly funded convention centers and hotels, "world class cities", etc. Lrt is about paying $18 per new one-way trip. Don't understand that number? Just ask where to find it. 10) Citizens for Effective Transit would be for government funded prt before government funded lrt any day. We would be much more in favor of privately funded prt over government funded prt. 11) Of course, that's why commuter express routes have a smaller farebox recovery rate. Try talking to Metro Transit about their best bus routes and discover what the farebox recovery rate is and compare it to lrt. You will find that thesse bus routes have more than twice the rate of lrt. 12) Try this on for size. If proposing a new transit route, study all reasonable alternatives properly (not handicapping the ones that you don't want to win) and choose the one that moves the most people for the lowest incremental cost over the current system. I could quote various transit officials about how lrt isn't about moving people, etc., but I somehow feel that you would ignore that too. 13) Dallas Area Rapid Transit (the rail transit agency) projected a 50% farebox recovery. I'm sure that you seen them poiinted to as a rail success story. In 1985, the rate was 35%. In 2001, it was 12%. 14) In San Jose, the trains are sinking the entire transit system. And in true rail fervor, the agency has authorized a $53 million study of running a BART extension in a tunnel under the city. Since this would the the second of two extensions necessary to get to San Jose and the first has been vetoed, the study is just a waste of public funds that could be used to fund existing service. I can send links to news stories about San Jose to anyone interested. Visit www.EffectiveTransit.org The Independent Unsubsidized Voice of Citizens for Effective Transit in the Twin Cities * lrt isn't a potato chip, you can stop at just one * Bruce Gaarder Highland Park Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
