Re: Brisbane Light Rail,Briztram - questions

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

On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:50:22 +1000, Chris Brownbill
<cbrnbill@enternet.com.au> wrote:
>qldspeed wrote:
>
>> I urge other readers of aus.cars aus.transport etc. to have a look and
>> draw their own conclusions.
>> 
>
>I also urge readers of these groups to read these stuff.  I have and I
>have drawn my conclusions about these people.  Basically it seems that
>its possible to make any case you want either for or against public or
>private transport - it all depends on your skill as a marketer of
>ideas.  how the heck do you think Clinton and Kennett got to be so
>popular - its not their great vision its their marketing of themselves.
>
>Read between the lines of these sites and ask yourselves what is the
>reason these sites exist - why have they gone to the trouble?  Who
>benefits?

Perhaps, like me, they are disturbed by the general attack on the
automobile, and also, they don't believe the enormous capital
expenditures incurred are giving sufficient return relative to other
projects that would have a greater overall benefit? (e.g. Doubling the
frequency of the bus services on existing routes)

Don't believe me? Read this...
http://www.teleport.com/~rot/autowar.html

>
>I would have to say that even without disputing a single one of the
>statistics one any of the sites mentioned (and maybe you could) - there
>is no case to support the conclusions offered

It would be better if you COULD dispute these facts, but sadly you
have not.   Let's just think about that....

> - because of a
>fundamentally false premise upon which the argument is based - that is
>that because things happen they way they do then things should continue
>to happen they way they do.  In particular because car drivership is so
>high that therefore people prefer to commute by car and it should remain
>and be increasingly so.  Wrong.  It is that way because there are SOME
>people who want it to be that way - but dont start putting opinions into
>people's minds.
>
>There is no explanation of the phenomenon of 'infrastructure envy'. 
>Perhaps this is a manifestation of what people really want.  They have
>used an unnecessarily emotive term for a desire people have for
>something with which this mob disagree.  That is not a good enough
>argument.

Let me define it.
Infrastructure Envy: The desire to build infrastructure (such as light
rail) as a monument to progress, without at any time evaluating if the
proposed project will yield societal benefits in proportion to its
cost, and at a greater rate or return than alternative projects that
would achieve the same goals. A kind of keeping up with the Jones' for
cities.

In the case of Brisbane, it was a case of "Quick, what can we spend a
heap of money on, so that we can bag the $65M from the Federal
Government" - Now they are spending $210M (initial estimates) and
rushing the project through, ignoring legitimate concerns about the
adverse effects on parking, and inner city traffic, just so the money
can be spent in time to qualify for a federal grant.  Madness!!!

There is no question that inner Brisbane needs more road space, not
less, and putting another public transport system in in parallel with
existing services, that only services two communities (West End and
Newstead - arguably communities where proportionately fewer people
drive cars at present anyway) will yield no improvement to the traffic
problems of Brisbane. The "trams" will be competing for this scarce
resource and adding to the congestion.

>
>Finally, it is possible to construct, quite easily, even on the
>simplistically narrow financial basis on which their case is made, that
>society and individuals are significantly worse off under the scenario
>espoused (again emotively) as the American Dream (I have my own emotive
>term - the Suburban Wilderness).
>
>Have a bit of a think about it and remember ask yourself - who benefits
>from such a site?

Have a bit of a think about it and remember ask yourself - who
benefits from such a gross waste of money when it could be better
spent on other services that would have far greater benefit?

Here's another interesting reference - go ahead an question their
motives all you like, but it all looks pretty reasonable (and factual)
to me.

Qldspeed


http://www.teleport.com/~rot/houston.html
(a brief exerpt follows)

Light rail in particular is a nineteenth-century technology that is
slow, inconvenient and expensive. Many cities now pouring hundreds of
millions into a light rail line that will replace two or three bus
routes could have doubled bus service on every one of their routes for
far less money.

Portland, Oregon, is often touted as a model for urban planning and
transportation. Yet its light-rail line is a failure, carrying less
than half the people originally projected by planners. Since the line
went into operation, transit's share of weekday Portland traffic has
significantly declined.

Portland planners "have stopped trying to ease traffic congestion,"
reported National Public Radio's All Things Considered recently.
"Instead, they are embracing congestion; they want to create more of
it."

They are succeeding. The Texas Transportation Institute's annual
congestion survey says that Portland congestion is increasing faster
than any other western city. Portland planners quietly predict that
their land-use plan will triple congestion over current levels.

Why would anyone want more congestion? Supporters of immobility fall
into four distinct groups: 

     Central city officials, who see immobility as a way to encourage
suburbanites to return to the cities; 
     Urban environmentalists, who wish the automobile had never been
invented; 
     Urban planners, who think that they know how people should live,
work and travel and want to impose their ideas on everyone else; and 
     Downtown businesses, who think that suburban congestion will
return offices and shopping mall customers
     to downtowns.
>**q: which category do you fit, Mr Brownbill? ***
ISTEA encourages supporters of immobility in several ways. First, it
allows the diversion of federal gasoline taxes into mass transit.
Since rail transit makes better pork barrel than buses, most of the
dollars are going into rail.

etc....