Re: [Mpls] RE: lack of public transit
From: Alan Shilepsky One of the very vocal supporters of lrt in Houston has written that nobody rides the bus but minorities and the servant classes, and that's why lrt is needed. By inference, he doesn't ride with those people. The reality of who uses the transit system is much different. Some statistics from the Metro Tranist ridership survey: 70% of transit riders had another way of making the trip, ie they had a car available. 20% of transit riders had family incomes of $20,000 or less. 20% of transit riders had family incomes above $70,000 or more. The average incomes for transit riders, in fact, was just right at the average for the region. A couple of statistics that I don't have at my fingertip is that somewhat more women then men use public transit and a somewhat higher percentage of elderly use it. A couple of other fun statistics: 80% of people using transit are going to or from work. Also, 70% of people surveyed said that transit got them to where they were going faster than driving. Carol Becker Longfelllow TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] RE: lack of public transit
Carol Becker responds to my quote from someone pushing for lrt in HOUSTON by citing Twin Cities survey statistics. His perception of Houston ridership has nothing to do with ridership in the Twin Cities, but there are those who share his view. Ever talked to a bus rider who has been told that they are a loser (by the bus driver) because they ride the bus? Let's see: 20% make less than $20,000 and 20% make more than $70,000. Look to San Antonio, where at about the same time, 25% of the riders made less than $10,000 and I think about half less than $20,000. That means that those who are transit-dependent are being fairly well served there. 70% have other transportation available. She suggests that they have a car, but it could mean that they could have their spouse/parent/other give them a ride. It could also mean that they work downtown (likely) and don't want to pay for parking in addition to driving. 80% go to work via the bus. Not surprising, given that there are twice as many bus runs scheduled during the rush hour. 70% say they get there faster than via car. And maybe the more than 90% of all trips that are made via auto make their trips faster than by bus. The nationwide guideline is that a transit trip takes at least 50% longer than a comparable car trip. And maybe some of the survey numbers were gained by carefully crafted questions. Bruce Gaarder Citizens for Effective Transit in the Twin Cities (no lrt) www.effectivetransit.org Highland Park Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] RE: lack of public transit
Visit the Citizens for Effective Transit in the Twin CIties web site at www.effectivetransit.org for lots of transit information, with a growing focus on our area. It's citizens at work, with no grants to support it, so additions to the site don't happen every day. Visit every week... Anne McCandless said that there was a lack of public transit service. Look to the facts: The met council's long range plans have said that $440 million would buy buses and infrastructure to double the number of buses on the street (another 900). Instead, flowing down the drain is $725 million and more for the Hiawatha toy train, which does nothing for most bus riders and will consume a lot of CMAQ (congestion mitigation and air quality) funds from the feds to run it. Then there is the DEIS for the so-called central corridor, which proposes lrt between the downtowns on University Avenue for only $840 million more. If you dig in the report, you find that with it there will be twice as many extremely congested intersections and the impact on air quality will be slight (some areas up, some down). If you believe the ridership forecasts, the two would account for about 1/4 of the total system ridership, with most of that being folks who already ride the bus. The other 3/4 of the trips will not have been improved by lrt. You could guess, as the met council and Ramsy County have done, that a doubling of the number of buses would increase ridersip by 40%. The two lrts might, by official projections, increase their ridership over plain bus by 25%. That's a 25% increase on a 25% share, or about a 7% increase for the whole system after spending around $1.5 billion (almost four times what it would cost to double the number of buses). More people ride the bus when the wait isn't as long, the schedule is more reliable, the system goes more places, and/or the fares don't go up. The Strib and the met council, among others, always blab about the public needing to provide transit choice. What the taxpayers should provide is transit, so that people can choose between walking, biking, car pooling, driving, or taking transit. If you will ride a train but not a well-run, well-maintained bus, that's your individual preference and problem, not a problem the taxpayer needs to worry about. One of the very vocal supporters of lrt in Houston has written that nobody rides the bus but minorities and the servant classes, and that's why lrt is needed. By inference, he doesn't ride with those people. Bruce Gaarder Citizens for Effective Transit in the Twin Cities www.effectivetransit.org Highland Park Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] RE: lack of public transit
Bruce Gaarder is right on in saying: --- If you will ride a train but not a well-run, well-maintained bus, that's your individual preference and problem, not a problem the taxpayer needs to worry about. One of the very vocal supporters of lrt in Houston has written that nobody rides the bus but minorities and the servant classes, and that's why lrt is needed. By inference, he doesn't ride with those people. -- I've always wondered if, leaving aside various special interest group agendas, LRT was the shiny, high-technological fix that was supposed to overcome the social factors that surpressed usage of our adaptive and quite adequate bus-based transit system. These social factors included racism, classism, and ageism. On the other hand I felt that the sometimes lack of civility in public spaces did contribute to transit avoidance. Remember the sobering Stribe article on riding the Number 5 several years ago. But since then we have advanced beyond the misplaced toleration of broken windows and the bus experience has improved. (Though even then it certainly not bad at all.) LRT's political promoters mixed up two objectives--public transist for the urban transit-dependent, and a rapid rail line for affluent commuters. Fast, long haul rides conflict with fine-grained, city block coverage! Our leaders were willing to dump hundreds of millions of dollars in a system that would not increase ridership much at all, esp. if you considered the claimed gains are achieved by forced displacement of passengers from existing bus to rail. Further, it would create a money pit that would suck financial and managerial resources away from a bus system that served people without cars or driving capability. And at budget crunch time the rail riders would have the political clout to make sure their wants were prioritized ahead of bus riders. I never could accept the refusal to test PRT, Personalized Rapid Transit, which offers potentially cheaper solutions, while at the same time speaking to the individual convenience and perceived safety concerns of people who prefer exclusive use of a vehicle. While LRT generally seems a 100 year old technology with a new paint job, PRT leverages new scientific advances in computers (for individualized dispatching) and light weight, high strength materials (for suspending four person vehicles from pylons). Instead of trail-blazing something new (and invented here in MN) we chose to chase after a speeding buckboard! :-) My transit heros Lynn Woodward and Lisa Lee had it right on LRT. Alan Shilepsky Downtown TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
