[PRCo] Re: New Systems

[John Swindler]

And how is this "filling a need" different then a lot of highway projects??

John


>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] New Systems
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:10:46 -0500
>
>I think there may have been some new systems that were honestly
>created to fill a transit need and others that were built simply
>because cities A, B and C were getting money and therefore, we too
>must get some of that green folding stuff.   Of course the planning
>documents filed with UMTA for the FTA will never honestly disclose
>the motives.   Therefore we can only go back and look with 20-20
>hindsight at whether or not the project made any sense at all.
>
>PATCO's Lindenwold line made a lot of sense in 1968 and it recovered
>initially about 95% of its operating costs.  It worked because there
>was only one congested bridge into downtown Philadelphia.   Its
>utility has declined because of politically inspired fare increases
>to support non-transit issues in Philadelphia and because of
>declining employment in the city over the last 40 years.   Ridership
>peaked at 40,000 and has declined to 32,600 causing PATCO to use
>start up riders of 20,000 to make themselves look good today!
>
>San Diego's initial line was an excellent choice.   The same goes for
>the first Houston line.   I would have trouble panning Calgary when
>you see the share of the riders in the city that use the rail
>system.   One would have a hard time proving that DC's Metro isn't a
>success when you find that they are moving nearly a million riders on
>a typical weekday and are number two in the U. S. to New York City.
>Why are they successful?  Simply because government tends to locate
>all its offices near each other where they can have meetings.  And
>Lobbyists need to be there to tell government types how they want you
>and I to be governed.  They make downtown work.    Outside of New
>York and San Francisco, it is probably the only real downtown in the
>United States.   Maybe we can include Chicago...   Maybe...
>
>For those of you who have no idea how bad DC has gotten:   my friend
>Dick Kotulak (and I think he is on this list) told me two weeks ago
>that his wife will not come home from Norfolk on weekends any longer
>to suburban Virginia.   She waits for a lull in traffic in the midday
>on Monday.   My wife scheduled a Daughters of the American Revolution
>tour from Lancaster, PA to Williamsburg VA and the bus company routed
>it northwest to Harrisburg, then southwest on US 15 through
>Gettysburg to Interstate 64 and then east through Richmond to
>Williamsburg in order to avoid traffic in Washington.   And I'm
>seriously considering the next time I have to go to western North
>Carolina, using the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-70 to Washington PA
>then I-79 to I-81 to avoid the traffic that backwashes over onto I-81
>north of Roanoke.    Why, because metropolitan Washington's
>population grew by as much as dumping a city of Pittsburgh on it
>since Metro opened.   (You knew I'd get on topic, didn't you.)   And
>they're all people dedicated to telling us how to live our lives.
>
>On the other hand, if you asked me to justify Edmonton, Tacoma, San
>Jose, or Los Angeles' Green Line without access to an airport, or
>Buffalo with passenger counts that don't match what I see with my own
>eyes, or Miami with 40,000 people on a double ended line in a Metro
>area the size of Toronto ....   I don't think I really need to
>elaborate, do I.
>
>