Slashdot Mirror

What is the mean cost per rider mile across all the systems? What is the mean price paid by the rider per rider mile across all the systems? And, of all the mass transit systems in the U.S., how many would break even without subsidies?

Try the public transportation fact book, it may help.

CItations:

http://www.pavementinteractive...

https://www.apta.com/resources...

There are many more.

The thrust of all of them is that _transit_ buses (in particular) _are_ a significant problem with axle loading often in excess of 22,000 pounds and almost always exceeding US federal highway recommendations (ESALs aren't enforced as rigorously in the USA as in the EU)

Several US cities have published engineering reports specifically calling out transit busses as being the single largest contributor to road maintenance costs and making the case that pushing for increased use of public transportation must go hand in hand with development of light rail (streetcars) and/or significant increases in roadbuilding investment. (ie, most of the cost of maintaining roads that are heavily used by high ESAL vehicles is because the roadbeds were never designed for the kinds of loads they now receive)

As for the 20 ton pointer: A modern London Double Decker weighs approximately 12 (conventional) to 14 (hybrid propulsion) tons (unladen) , with single deckers being in the 9-16 ton range. These are all short wheelbase units for operating in much narrower and more crowded streets than the average USA one. Once laden with passengers they all easily top 20 tons

The 2nd report above gives the empty and laden masses of USA/Canadian busses, which in general can carry more passengers than their european equivalents due to greater length. Pay particular attention to the fully laden weights of the buses in that report.

As for 400hp busses and 200hp cars - urban transit vehicles have engines closely matches to their working load. It's uncommon to see transit bus engines larger than 250hp - and whilst there are plenty of 200hp+ cars on sale, the vast majority of vehicles sold in the USA are well under that figure (and in any case their mass seldom goes over 2 tons). Light trucks are another matter and higher fuel prices are proving to be darwinian on those.

oops.. Here's the settlement link

$1 spent on road construction does not get you an additional $1 in economic growth;

Perhaps not, but $1 spent on public transit can get you $9 of economic growth. So yes, there is value in investing in the public good.

Ok, I've learnt not to hit "Submit" when I'm about to leave the house in a hurry.

I found an article called Britons named world's biggest emitters of CO2 from air travel. (I've already written to my MP [Member of Parliament] opposing the expansion of London Heathrow Airport, which is the busiest in terms of some statistic in the world.) At the bottom it says "But overall, US adults have the biggest annual travel carbon footprint in the world at 7.8 tonnes, more than double France's 3.7 tonnes, which comes in at number two. Third on the list, at 3.1 tonnes, is Britain." -- the USA is a big jump ahead of France there! I know you have sparse settlements (I have been to the USA, I liked some things, disliked others), but I really hope you find some solution to that. For instance, "If one in 10 Americans used public transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by more than 40 percent--the amount we import from Saudi Arabia each year." (source). This notes that public transport use in America has now got back to the level it was at 50 years ago -- I don't know how much settlement density has changed in that time, maybe people have left cities a lot (?), but if it used to be possible, why isn't it possible any more?

It isn't a problem on the Canadian praries...

http://www.apta.com/services/intnatl/intfocus/wind elec.cfm

Subsidized and run at a loss, until recently privitized--or so I understand. I'm willing to be educated on this point.

Actually, British and Australian experience tends to suggest that privatization of mass transit is actually a bad idea, for the following reasons (amongst others):

• Private companies have a nasty habit of neglecting track maintanance.
• Private monopolies are worse than government monopolies, and mass transit is a natural monopoly.
• Public transport is very infrastructure-intensive, and governments can actually borrow the money to build new infrastructure cheaper than private companies can. The actual work building the new system is better handled by the private sector, though.

But as to your point about subsidies, what you're failing to appreciate is that car transport is already being subsidised by a century of road-building and lack of appropriate pollution charges.

You might be interested to read some of the "conservative commentaries" on public transport here (PDF) that blow holes in some of the unstated assumptions of people opposed to public transport in the US.

I'll bet London to a brick you're probably some breed of Neanderthal^Wconservative, so I'll point you in the direction of these papers, many of them by a guy called Paul Weyrich who on other issues seems to be about as conservative as they come. Basically, people like yourself ignore the truly gargantuan subsidies that go to road funding.

The Green Line is a light rail transit (LRT) system. LRT systems, by definition (as least according to APTA) run at street level and are designed to move with local traffic. As a consequence, LRT trains often stop for cars and traffic lights.

You find the same thing on LRT lines in Portland, Pittsburgh, San Francisco (MUNI, not BART), St. Louis, Dallas, etc.

The Red and Orange lines in Boston (and NYC's subway system) are rapid transit lines that run on exclusive rights-of-way with minimal headways. That may be a little closer to what you were expecting.