Re: Brisbane Light Rail,Briztram - questions

[qldspeed-spamisevil@geocities.com (qldspeed)]

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:38:36 +1000, "Michael Walker"
<walker@hotkey.net.au> wrote:

>>Oh yeah?
>>
>>Read this and weep....
>>
>>"Capital projects: Experience has demonstrated that there is no more
>>expensive way to improve transit than urban rail. Virtually all new
>>rail systems have attracted so few drivers from automobiles that it
>>would have been less expensive to lease each a new automobile every
>>two years. In spending more than necessary to implement urban rail,
>>opportunities for more effective improvement are forgone, to the
>>detriment of the greater number of new riders who would be served. Too
>>often urban rail is driven by a desire to become a "world class city,"
>>a civic pride that manifests itself in construction of publicly
>>financed convention centers, domed stadia and urban rail. To put it in
>>Freudian terms, urban rail in America has more to do with
>>"infrastructure envy" than transportation. "
>>
>>from:
>>http://www.publicpurpose.com/21stcent.htm
>>
>>This is exactly what Brisbane has been sucked into.
>>
>Is that article put out by the same people whose press release made it into
>The Age a few months ago about the introduction of rail services into
>Silicon Valley because the freeways couldn't cope and it was a huge success
>because it cut hours off the car commute to the point where the train
>operators put on extra services? Or are your sources far more biased which
>other posters seem to imply?
>
>Still I suppose you can always find statistics to back up your argument.

Who knows?  All I did was quote an article I found on the web.

Having read many of the dozens of pieces put out by Wendell Cox, I
couldn't find *anything* that looked extreme or right wing, or even
biased. What I found was a lot of soundly reasoned conclusions based
on facts that are drawn from the public record and easy to verify.

I urge other readers of aus.cars aus.transport etc. to have a look and
draw their own conclusions.

Start at http://www.publicpurpose.com and you will find loads of
fascinating stuff (but of course if you are predisposed to thinking
anyone who dares knock outrageous government spending on poorly
thought out schemes - then you'll probably hate it    :-p )

Speaking of San Fransisco/San Jose

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-bart.htm  <- Check this out

Is this what the article said?  (brief exerpt)

For more than two decades governments have provided substantial and
increasing support to transit. Yet national transit ridership is at
the lowest point in 20 years, and trends in the Bay Area are little
better.
    While BART is one of the most successful rail systems in the
nation, the Bay Area transit market share continues to slip --- down
more than 15 percent since 1970 (before BART). One of the primary
factors in this less than stellar performance is escalating unit costs
(costs per mile or hour). Since 1970, the most new transit funding has
gone to support higher than inflationary cost increases, rather than
the new services and lower fares that might have attracted higher
ridership. 

http://www.publicpurpose.com/utx-sf.htm (and this)

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-sfm-ride.htm (and this)

1980 310 Million rides, 
1995 only 210 Million
 (public record bloody fact mate!)

Qldspeed
Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.....