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!
Why do these “What happening at other transit agencies” articles never show us how Asia runs transit? Why is it always countries where whites are the majority? Do they assume that only white majority countries know how to run transit better?
Sorry folks, it has been shown time and time again, Asia runs mass transit better. Learn from the best folks, and start showing examples of how the ASIANS do transit!
We don’t care about articles about other failing examples of other failing public transit systems in the US. We want to know more about what other cities, notably in Asia, are doing right and see what idea can be implemented here!
Like the CTA article! $2.25 for a public transit no matter how short or far? Who the heck is going to ride that!? No wonder they’re broke! And if that’s a way Metro thinks they can convince people here that ours is cheap or dangle the sword above our heads saying “if you don’t want to have high fares like $2.25 like in Chicago, you’d better pass the tax bills we want” they must think we’re idiots or something.
It’s probably because of some lame gov’t excuse: “it’s not in our best interest to pollute taxpayers’ minds that mass transit can be run for profit with stable fares, without resorting to taxes, and under private enterprise like Asia.”
You just have to think how these gov’t bureaucrats work. They live off of your taxes. The CTA example is just that; CTA makes no money, it faces a $277 million budget deficit with no idea how to pay for itself except for the same old, “higher fares, higher taxes, service cuts” options. http://chicagoist.com/2011/11/18/cta_budget_presumes_unlikely_labor.php
These guys need us to survive because they love their cushy gov’t jobs of being paid six digit incomes from our tax dollars even though they’re doing a poor job that if they were to work in the private sector, they be fired in an instant.
So what are they going to do? They’re not going to show you anything that hurts their best interests. Asia runs their mass transit operations with minimal or no taxes, they run for profit, and they are private enterprise. The US runs their public transit are in sharp contrast, gov’t owned and relies heaviliy on tax payer support. Of course they’re not going to show how Asia runs them, because if they do, they’ll just be strangling their own necks that people don’t NEED tax payer support to make mass transit work.
Why do you think LA protects itself from private enterprise cab companies from picking up passengers at bus stops? Is it because “for passenger safety and not blocking the curb where they are reserved for buses” or is really because it’s a way to protect the Metro tax monopoly on transit?
Don’t trust gov’t people. Anything they say from their mouths has an ulterior meaning. That’s just how gov’t works.
To “Metro is prejudiced”:
If you go back through the posts in the series you’ll see plenty of articles about how transit is run in other countries, including Asia, Europe and Latin America. I make a point of featuring a variety of transit stories, including ones about capital projects, vehicle technologies, operations, financing, fare policy, advertisement, marketing, etc. In fact, in the last roundup I wrote I included a story about how Tokyo is experimenting with new smartphone-based advertising methods.
That said, any given week’s roundup of stories may not feature the stories you’re interested in reading about. After all, I’m limited by what other media sources are writing about or what interesting news I can dig up. And frankly, there aren’t a lot of stories about how everything is going fine in Tokyo, Taipei and Seoul. Perhaps that’s too bad — there’s a lot American transit agencies can learn from Asian cities. You’ll never find me claiming otherwise or trying to obfuscate that.
Carter Rubin
Contributor, The Source
@ Metro is prejudiced, many of us readers are well-travelled and have lived abroad. I’ve had wonderful experiences on Asian transit systems as well as European and North American transit systems. Even Asian systems could learn a thing or two from Moscow about how to run rail for one of the largest volumes with the shortest headways, often two minutes or less. However, a good transit system is one that serves its market; it considers pricing, connectivity, frequency, and parking versus development patterns and, most importantly, user behavior. Obviously, not all markets are the same. Compared to Singapore, where I once lived, and Hong Kong, Los Angeles is very dissimilar – with it’s numerous independent municipalities, a preponderance of single-family dwellings, extremely high vehicle ownership rates, and egalitarian tradition toward transportation costs. nUnderstandably, Metro often references other transit networks with more similar market forces and built environments. The analysis is often more well-considered than just the trite matter of skin tone.
@Metro is prejudiced,
In addition to what was previosly stated, this is an English langauge Blog. The articles being referenced are in English. That may give a natural selection bias to the articles, but not one that we can blame on the Metro staff.
My $0.02
A study on how Asian mass transit is able to make profits on their own is a good place to start. It may not cover the all of the operational costs for LA Metro, but looking to them to see what they are doing right so that we can start reducing tax dependency is something that is worth looking into.
In that regards, why isn’t Metro taking advantage of revenue earning opportunities like multi-use of their stations? Why can’t train stations themselves be revenue makers instead of big tax suckers? Why can’t Metro Rail stations, especially those dead empty cold spaces on the Red Line, themselves be a place to do business like Union Station? Is building a newspaper stand so difficult? Why don’t we have 7-11s and retail shops, and food outlets within the station like Hong Kong? Those activities bring revenue into the system but Metro does nothing like that. It is understandable that people to be increasingly frustrated that Metro’s answer to everything is more taxes instead of learning from Asia on different ways to boost their revenues.
One reason there is a lack of retail and 7-11′s inside the Red Line Station is that metro can’t use its money earmarked for transporation construction for anything else. So If retail were to show up in those stations private money has to be used to construct them just like Rush at 7th and Metro or the shops in Union Station.
As for Newspapers stands, I see them as a slowly dying business as more people start moving to smart phones, tablets for their reading needs. So there is probably not much viability in getting any significant amount of revenue for them. Plus LA does not seem to have a big newspaper stand culture like other cities, just walk around dowtown and see the conditions of the on-street newspaper stands.
I agree on the point about newspaper stands. And the cities in which they’re very common all had tabloid-form newspapers: Post, Daily News and Newsday in New York, Sun-Times in Chicago, Herald in Boston. That said, I do think there are businesses that could work and perhaps even newstands that emphasize magazines or coffee.
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
In regards to systems sustained solely with fares: I think in the LA case, public transit should be exclusively subsidized and should be free to ride. The LA Metro primarily serves low-income, transit dependent folks and I don’t feel comfortable creating a profitable enterprise off of this demographic. Each system is different, and I think maybe Metrolink could be a system that would potentially benefit from working toward complete farebox recovery.
In sharp contrast, the US also home to the world’s largest airport newsstand retailer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_News
So why would newspaper stands work at airport terminals and would not work on a smaller scale like the Red Line? They both have people waiting for transportation. And it’s not like you can access WiFi on the subway underground to read on your smartphone.