This weekly post features news from other transit agencies and planners from around the world. Did we miss a good story? Let us know in the comments.
The Center for Neighborhood Technology put together this handy infographic showing Chicago transit riders what their fares are funding.
Where do your Chicago transit fares go? The Center for Neighborhood Technology shows you
This infographic from CNT clearly and concisely captures what Chicago transit riders support with their fares; it also shows what is true of virtually every large transit agency in the developed world: Labor is by far the largest single cost of transit operations. Why? Because large transit agencies have to employ thousands of skilled and hardworking bus and train operators — not to mention mechanics and other support staff.
S.F. Market Street car ban urged by city agencies
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that city agencies are supporting the implementation of a plan called Better Market Street, a key component of which is eliminating cars from a two-plus mile stretch of the city’s commercial spine. What makes the idea feasible in this corridor is the abundance of transit: BART and Muni Metro run underground; streetcars and a slew of buses travel at street level. The key benefit of eliminating private autos, according to the executive director of the Central Market Community Benefit District, is that it would significantly improve both pedestrian safety and transit performance. The next step is for the various agencies involved to hold public workshops next month.
Vancouver unveils 30-year transportation plan: heavy on walking, light on cars
The city of Vancouver released an update of its long-range transportation plan. Already known for its emphasis on transit, biking and walking, Vancouver is doubling down on that vision. The plan sets a goal of having residents take two-thirds of all trips in the city by some means other than driving by 2040, up from 40 percent today. Canadian community blog OpenFile notes that the plan prioritizes pedestrian safety and making public spaces more “rain friendly” in the damp northwest town. In light of this focus, what does the future hold for driving? The plan calls for making the road network work more efficiently — i.e. better signal synchronization — and making parking easier to find, so drivers don’t burn fuel and slow traffic circling the block to find a spot. You can view the full plan here (PDF).
Does attendance at the NHL’s New York Islanders games suffer due to lack of transit access?
Unlike many of its counterparts in the NHL — like your L.A. Kings — the Islanders’ arena in Nassau on Long Island doesn’t have direct transit access. The place is surrounded by acres of parking lots, as seen in the screen shot below from Google Maps. Is it a coincidence, then, that the Islanders had the second-worst home attendance out of 30 teams, despite being a pretty good draw (11th) when visiting other team’s arenas? This blog post from Bleacher Report explores that question. Writer Christopher Benini points out that plans to replace the team’s aging arena involve building a new one — you guessed it — next to an existing transit station. How’s that for a clear sign that team officials think fans want to be able to take transit to the game?
New Calgary light rail line to west side also a boon for cyclists
As the city of Calgary expands its light rail network, it’s not letting the opportunity to improve other modes go to waste, reports the Calgary Herald. The city will install a number of on-street bike lanes and other safety and navigation tools for cyclists. The goal? Give travelers another comfortable way to access the new train stations and travel around their neighborhoods. The plan calls for investing about $5 million in bike facilities. It’s an impressive commitment for a city where the average daily high temperature is under 40 degrees Fahrenheit for five months a year. Roll on, hearty Calgary cyclists!
“The LA Metro primarily serves low-income, transit dependent folks and I don’t feel comfortable creating a profitable enterprise off of this demographic.”
Just because it serves low-income doesn’t mean it can’t create a profitable enterprise.
Should we then subsidize the operations of Food 4 Less and 99 Cent Only Stores to make all the food, groceries, and household sold there to be free because they cater primarily to low-income households? Should these companies be forbidden to make profit?
The real reason why it’s impossible to create businesses in LA, let alone at train stations is because of stupid laws wrapped up with red tape entagled with bureacratic paperwork that prevents businesses to be run.
Anybody can open up a newspaper stand at a station in LA. All you need is a fold up table and line up today’s newspaper and a coffee machine.
But the moment that person does that, that person will be fined and harassed by officers for not having a business license, didn’t pay bribes, show me your paperwork, or any other made up BS like being a potential fire hazard, obstructing human traffic flow, etc. etc.
In modern day America, even kids can’t open up lemonade stands without being fined $500 for not having a business license.
http://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/06/21/children%E2%80%99s-lemonade-stand-fined-500-for-operating-without-a-license/
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Girl Scouts were banned from selling cookies at train stations across LA for not filing paperwork or some vaguely written law that there might be someone with adverse peanut allergies that can be a hazard from the peanut cookies that they sell.
Pretty much, cities all over America are desperate for cash, that they will find any excuse to fine you so that they can pocket more money away from hard working Americans. And they fail to realize that all of these red tape are primarily the reasons why they drive out businesses away from their cities.
From what I’ve read (which is, I admit, not exhaustive), the reason many Asian systems run at break-even or better is because they use income from real estate holdings to subsidize their transit operations. In Japan, for example, some of the rail companies include department stores at their stations, so the agency gets landlord income. If you want Metro to get into the real estate business (or some other profit-making business) to subsidize their transit operations, that’s a conversation that might be worth having. However, you’d run up against a buzz saw of opposition about Metro “competing” with private enterprise. Plus, anytime government does something that earns a profit, the first cry heard is, “Sell it!” (see Conrail or Acela) So what will it be?
On another note: can we please stop with the hyperbole about bloated government employees all earning million dollar salaries while doing nothing but eating donuts and figuring out new ways to screw people over?
I don’t see anything wrong with Metro making a profit. If anything, if they were to become profitable, that’s one less thing that the LA can relieve their backs off of tax subsidies and make more budget available for other things like education.
As it stands now, budget is limited and whatever tax subsidies that is needed to keep transit running is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul; more tax used on transit means some other thing like education or funding for fire fighters or so get cut and so on. It’s better to make Metro profitable and sustain itself on its own so this can get spun out of government’s shoulders so taxes can then be focuses on other things like education.
If the US Post Office can compete with FedEx and UPS, I don’t see why Metro can compete with private transit on an equal playing field. This the United States of America, not Soviet Russia. Competition, profits, and service is what drove this nation to success, not socialism which makes everyone poorer.
It’s time to rethink public transit in LA. If the rest of the US doesn’t seem to be heading that way, there’s no reason why we should follow their spiral of death.
@ Metro is prejudiced.
i don’t think the Source should expend resources on covering other transit agencies. Primarily they s/b doing outreach to the communities LACMTA is supposed to be serving.
The Source should do more coverage on national transit policy making because it has a great impact on local transportation and transit.
If information about rapid transit systems in other cities or in other countries is desired, there are FAR better sources (no pun intended) on the World Wide Web. Just for starters, Wikipedia has a wealth of information about virtually every transit agency and transportation company in the world and Youtube must have thousands of user uploaded videos of virtually every transportation system and mode in the world, let alone every mass transit metro. My youtube favorites are the Mumbai Suburban Railway and the Chicago EL. Subways do not lend themselves to videography. If you have seen one subway train or subway station youtube video, you have seen them all. The only exception, IMHO, are the subway stations of Russia and the Ukraine. They are like art palaces.
Transit in East Asian Countries and transit in the United States are totally different.
A better and more relevant question is why is public transit usage higher in Canadian and Australian cities than the USA? Both countries have just as high car ownership, are just as big geographically, but have far smaller national populations. Public transit usage s/b lower. It isn’t.
Americans stay in their cars, even with gridlocked highways, and resist using or even supporting public transit (Prop R notwithstanding). I don’t consider a few light rail lines or a BRT line like in Los Angeles and other american cities to be much more than a token effort. Research on the www shows this is uniquely American.
Less taxes is better makes a good point.
If private companies in Asia can make transit profitable there’s no reason why it can’t be applied here to reduce the size of government.
For whatever millions we spend every year trying to make transit work with taxes and failing at it, we’d better off to sell it off to those that can make it work. If Japan can make transit work without taxes and purely just on profits alone, just sell it off to the Japanese private companies. Some may say that’s selling out to the Japanese, but those that did it failed to figure out how to make it work so the blame rests on themselves.
The less burden there is on government, that means more funds available for things like funding our schools and our children’s future.
Julie: Japan makes private transit work by tolling all the roads, so that roads are more expensive than transit.
If you’re ready to convert all the expressways in the country, and many of the boulevards, to tollways, we can have private transit back. Are you ready?
I would love to see newsstands or other private businesses at Metro Rail stations.
But I don’t think you need to privatize the whole Metro Rail system to do it.
And I don’t think that you have to tear apart the safety regulations or the business fee structure to do it, either. Japanese train station manga sellers obey the same rules as everyone else.
One thing to consider is that there are two ways to have retail at train stations: One is to allow space for vendors inside the gates, or on the platforms themselves. Another would be to directly link the train station with neighboring businesses.
For example, the Regional Connector stations could easily link with the basement levels of some of the downtown buildings already existing along the route. Metro wouldn’t build the shops, but they could provide passages.
Nathaneal,
If toll roads and high population densities were the almighty answer, why do transit agencies in the East Coast which has higher population densities, higher number of toll roads, and higher parking fees, still be deeply in the red, scratching their heads why they can’t make transit self-sustainable?
Both Boston’s MBTA and NY’s NYMTA faces huge budget shortfalls and are deeply in the red despite having the population densities and toll roads.
The answer is simple: Americans simply suck at making mass transit work.
Pingback: CNT Press Mentions June 2012 : Center for Neighborhood Technology