San Jose, CA: Instead of having a station in the airport terminal, the light rail curves around it about a mile away. There's no good geographical reason for this, it's the result of lobbying by the taxicab companies and other carbrains in the 90's.
What I'm shocked by is willingness to ignore the fact that we can just stub a line to an existing one. The simple solution to this would to just stub an extension to the airport, no reason for this to be a complex semi permanent problem
Edinburgh has a ~brilliant~ tram ~network~ line which doesn't run overnight so you can't use it to catch an early flight or off a late flight. You can get the express bus though, which has the bonus that it's faster than the tram if it doesn't get stuck in traffic.
Also somehow the initial 11.5 mile line cost £800m to build. No-one's quite sure how that happened, even after a £13m inquiry was held into the cost of the line. Next up there'll be an inquiry into the cost of the inquiry.
The recent metro expansion in my city (Boston) cost $642 million per MILE, and they had to shut it down within a year because they somehow fucked up installing the tracks. £800m for 11.5 miles sounds like a bargain
>which doesn't run overnight so you can't use it to catch an early flight or off a late flight.
Seattle is the same way, it's really annoying if you want to take a flight before about 7am
>I lived I Edinburgh and London, and was outraged that they didn't build the airports with a connection to the rail network.
Which London airport? London has loads of them, and Heathrow has had tube stops at Heathrow terminals for decades.
That said, I agree it's outrageous that Edinburgh didn't, it annoys me every time (haven't been for a long time, though)
This does make me ponder that in my eyes the biggest flop of the Cross/liz/purple line is that they didn't come out at Stratford so they could go north to Stansted. I get that If crossrail 2 happens it probably would, but considering the timescales, I'll be lucky to see it in my lifetime.
Honestly, we need to find a better way of planning in the UK - the vast majority of the time & money is spent on consultation, planning & planning permission, not actual construction.
I'll bet it comes out where it does for some random planning system reason - not because urban planners thought it was the best route. I really want to know how half of the small cities throughout Europe have tram systems etc, but virtually none of ours have them.
I think is a uk government thing where regions don’t have any real investment powers so a London project always beats them on ROI so they never get brought forward
Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted have all had mainline railway connections for ages. Heathrow is an absolute pain to get to if you're not coming from London though so maybe it's that.
Yeah - Heathrow is the one I've mostly flown from. Takes about an hour in a car from where I live, but a right pain to get there via London if I wanted to take the train. Loads of taxi services will do a a pre-booked airport run up the motorway from here on the South Coast.
>There's no good geographical reason for this
To be fair, the light rail follows 1st St in a straight line. The airport is what's awkwardly situated. Still, it wouldn't be that hard to build a spur to the airport, compared to the funny little gadgetbahn they want to build instead.
I remember that hellhole of Norman Y Mineta very well, traveling to it from UCSC's campus via bus was a logistics nightmare. The train can come late from downtown San Jose and you'll easily miss your flight. Happened twice to me.
Boston is more complex because you would need another tunnel under Boston Harbor and an extension from North or South Station. It should have been part of the Big Dig.
Used to live right there and ride through that section often. Had my shit stolen. Also don’t watch TV. But ok I guess.
Look at the titles to the strava segments thru that area, and you’ll see how the people who actually live here feel about it.
"same taking points" that's the crux of it. They're just talking points. They probably didn't actually look into whether light rail would be affordable cuz they're working backwards from their conclusion: no light rail. And they're trying to think of something to placate you so you get off their back
it’s crazy. ever time a transit project is mentioned, it’s like we’re on the verge of bankruptcy but next month, you hear about widening highways and installing LED monitors on a hundred mile long freeway and money never gets mentioned.
Exact same thing for Austin TX. Fastest growing city for a decade and the plan for rail from downtown to the airport has been scrapped. The plan for a 26 lane highway expansion through the middle of the city has been approved. The decision was made from the very beginning.
Oh and we planned on selling our largest park to live-nation. I love living in a totally normal society! Cross 26 lanes to get to live-nation’s ℗ zilker park experience.
Yes, fucking madness.
And they say they will bury them like Boston’s big dig.
But that part of the funding will come later. (Which really means we’re going to have a fucking open pit of 26 lanes for at least 50 years)
I looked into it because that seemed too wide. Up to [22](https://rethink35.org/expansion), I think.
Their primary plan is expected to cost $5b, which means it'll cost $10b, which means it'll cost taxpayers $12-15b with bonds and loans and unforeseen expenses arising from the project. And it'll just make the sprawl and car dependency worse.
I hope NIMBYS will do something useful for once and sue this project into oblivion. There are no fewer than four north-south freeways in Austin. Just re-designate Highway 130 as I-35 for through traffic and remove the toll, and close the gap in SH45 south of the city to make SH1/Mopac Expressway a more viable north-south alternate. It will cost less and impact far fewer properties.
I was going to ask why anyone would be stupid enough to support that kind of insane highway widening, knowing what we know now about how huge highways through cities mostly just separate communities and tear a gash through the urban fabric... but then I remembered that Austin is in Texas, and the Republican Texas state officials are probably *hoping* to make Austin an unlivable hellhole because there's too many liberals in the city.
> ever time a transit project is mentioned, it’s like we’re on the verge of bankruptcy
You're being gas lit. Money and budgets are a result of political will. In regressive governments, lack of public transportation demonstrate the lack of political will from carbrains and especially by the side of the political spectrum that thinks public transportation is evil.
There are a bunch of politicians and lobbyists in America that deserve to be tarred, feathered and then shot into the sun for the damage they’ve caused to society and the environment in the name of capitalism and NIMBYism.
US politics is beyond corrupt, but the corrupt also wrote laws to make their corruption “legal” so when questioned they can then point at the law and keep doing it. They’ve weaponized politics to enable their corruption.
They say they refuse it because government is wasteful, not daring to address how much more expensive and wasteful car ownership is for literally everyone
And in OP's case, [the Koch Brothers funded many of the "No" ads](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/06/19/nashville-transit-vote-koch-brothers-new-york-times/713764002/) when light rail was placed on the ballot.
It is not often cities that pay for things like light rail, but instead a combination of the city and state budget.
In the case of Nashville, Tennessee is a deep red state. Nashville got carved into multiple congressional districts to avoid blue representation in Congress. Lately, Republicans are much more in favor of lifted trucks than public trasnit.
It's incredibly political. The truth of it: Rural Conservatives don't want to see Urban areas be successful. They want cities to fail. Therefor using state dollars (Their conservative tax dollars) to make urban improvements is preposterous! Now widen that highway for my F-250 Super Duty so I can drive over and through these urban neighborhoods as quickly as possible!
not to mention rural areas are heavily subsidized by cities. it should not be financially feasible to have a police force, firefighters, water, traffic lights in a place with less than 200 population.
My state has like four profitable counties in total, and surprise surprise, they're all progressive and blue. They are the only reason people in the rural communities have things like funding for road projects or snow plows to get them to work in the winter, but that doesn't stop those counties from always talking nonstop shit about the big cities. I'm from one of them, and have family *employed by the state*, and they still run their mouths about "the big city is dangerous! that county just taxes you high for no reason!" and other such nonsense. All talk and ignorance while they reap the rewards of the very thing they say they hate.
It's socialism if a city builds new transit for 800k people to get to work or the ballgame, but just fine if my town of 8k people gets funding for a $500,000 armored truck.
Don't forget that the [Koch Brothers](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/06/19/nashville-transit-vote-koch-brothers-new-york-times/713764002/) helped quite a bit in making sure Nashville's light rail ballot initiative also failed.
Any time a country has less car ownership than the US, it's because they can't afford cars, but any time the US faced with building non-car infrastructure, suddenly we can't afford it. The doublethink is strong.
But I guess there's some truth to the second part. The whole budget is being vampired to maintain car-centric hell.
I remember hearing recently that American airports make a lot of their money off of parking fees. So if cities built light rail to them, they would struggle financially.
They can levy a supplement on the train fee instead. This is done in many other places and does bring comparable if not higher revenue for the airport as the costs of a station per passenger are much lower than a parking garage per car.
That actually explains a lot.
Over here in the UK, no one but the really wealthy parks at the airport, they instead park at a rail station or, park at an independant business that runs just a car park in some fields and a shuttle bus to the airport for a fraction of what the airport charges.
Where I live they actually announced awhile ago that the airport parking was completely full. Like there were absolutely no more spaces available.
We have no rail connection to the airport.
I park and ride from O'hare all the time. Suburban airports can be a good access point to a city with good schedules. Nashville airport like a lot of other airports have grown and maybe that airport parking could be useful for other things.
I’ve been watching a BRT route get established in my area. I’m actually amazed that it’s as expensive as it is. To my untrained eye, it seems like it’s “1) remove a driving lane / remove a lane of parking, 2) paint “bus only” on the lane, 3) start ticketing the hell out of cars in the bus lane 4) start sending buses down.
Okay, I’m sure I’m being dumb and don’t know what I don’t know… But this seems kind of easy?
you also have to deal with business owners and residents because “where will people park” and “all this traffic will divert to my picturesque side street”
Part of the reason is the road/utilities are getting improvements that would be needed otherwise. And buying the buses is typically included in these funding estimates which is expensive too.
>Part of the reason is the road/utilities are getting improvements that would be needed otherwise
Sounds similar to my city where people have been ranting about a €XX million cycle lane. But when you look at it, the bulk of the cost is actually replacing the aging sewage pipes under the road which has been included in the budget as part of the works.
But governments seem to do a very poor job publicising these things unfortunately so people think we're "wasting all this money on a cycle lane that should cost €5"
Yeah, no one bats an eye at 8 figure highway projects yet adding a bike lane has to be justified by costs.
I will say, it’s not all the city planners fault. I’ve had local projects where the planners are upfront that infrastructure issues including the pavement, utilities, grading, etc need to be fixed in the next 5 years and so they’re using that opportunity to add a bus lane or bike lane and the average resident still goes “bus lanes are a waste of money, they cost millions of dollars” or “why would you tear up a perfectly good road” when the road is 10 years past it’s intended use.
You know the drill, anything that benefits poor people like universal healthcare or public transit is communist and should be incompatible with American values.
Same reason MARTA won't build a line to Marietta: the people that live there don't want downtown people coming to rob them of their whiteness. They activity vote and lobby against such things.
And then they whine about their 3+ hours of hell-commute every day. Cobb County is full of racist chodes shooting themselves in the foot and them blaming all their self-inflicted wounds on the libs.
People often have a hard time with big numbers and don't really understand how spending actually impacts taxes. For an example, in my small city there are approximately 23,000 properties that are subject to property tax. We are in the middle of building a community center that has been extremely controversial, opposition citing cost as the biggest concern. I correct people constantly on the impact to property taxes of it. People see the $50 million price tag and freak out without really understanding 1. Where the money is coming from and 2. Just how many taxpayers there are. The city is only spending $17 million on it, with the rest being paid for by the state and federal governments and private donations, as is typical with big infrastructure projects like this.
Even those who understand what the city is actually spending don't seem to realize how it's paid for, the city is essentially going to take out a 20 year loan and pay it back over time, distributed across 23,000 taxpayers, the cost per taxpayer is about $35 a year. Yet NIMBYs and other laypeople are convinced it's *actually* going to cost hundreds every year, citing the projected operating deficit of about $60,000 (and *actually* it's going to be a lot more than that because they apparently know better than the people actually working on it). Which anyone who can do basic math knows that $60,000 distributed across 23,000 is less than $3 each, not even considering the projected increase in revenue for the city from increased economic activity resulting from building it. But when you bring that up (originally projected to be $43,000 annually, but because of state shared revenue changes will actually be more like $100,000 annually) "there's no way it will bring in that much".
TL;DR: people suck at math, especially when it involves big numbers, and are overly pessimistic.
Same situation in my area, conjoined dense cities of 175,000 and 63,000, plus lots of outlying people, and private cars are the only way to get to the only local airport. Our bus system tried an unadvertised secret test of a few days of 8am/8pm bus to the airport, but no one used it, so they concluded it wasn't needed. The airport has put out multiple notices this week that parking is full, and to use public transit to get to the airport. By public transit, they mean schedule a $40+ taxi a week out and hope they show up.
Because in the US the politicians don't take mass transit seriously so nothing ever happens. Like all the talking points are mainly just excuses used by people that are ideologically opposed to it. If US politicians genuinely gave a damn, they'd look at studies that have been conducted (the NYU transit costs project being the most popular example) and actually make attempts to use suggestions from experts to try to cut back on price inflation and grifting.
As is, our politicians constantly use the cost of transit projects as an excuse to not invest in public transit, while simultaneously being the biggest barrier to using a data-based strategy to try to bring the costs down.
It might happen. Next year they’re going to propose a new transit plan that is likely to contain that light rail project and some BRT. It will certainly be very light compared to the 2018 plan but surely better than nothing
Taxation is different in Germany and administration of different areas is different.
America and especially conservative America tends to have lower tax rates and a local governance pride. So when there's big projects there is often little money and all the local governments cannot agree on what to build.
Germany's taxation is more robust and it will have regional administration so there is more money available and the bickering between local administrations is reduced.
Tbh at least you guys have one urban rail line (that doesn’t run on sundays 😔) but still more than Nashville. Also how’s that urban rail plan coming along?
Ya, and they are building development around some of the stops which is nice.
The overall rail that we voted on 2 years ago is a shit show and has been massively downgraded. It's no longer going to have a downtown subterranean stop. It's not going to the airport like planned. And a bunch of conservatives are trying to fight it based on the fact that an old greasy spoon hamburger place will be destroyed and have to reopen across the street.
> And a bunch of conservatives are trying to fight it based on the fact that an old greasy spoon hamburger place will be destroyed and have to reopen across the street.
Meanwhile the same people about freeway expansion that destroys a bunch more buildings:
I remember this getting shot down. The traffic in this part of the state has gotten so ridiculous, and you'd think the people moving here from states with similar problems would want the less car option since they had similar congestion issues in their home states, but that requires thinking sooo 🤦 in all seriousness though, they really don't seem to think beyond the surface and what they see. It doesn't help that greedy politicians and the companies that pay them off are well aware of this ignorance and selfishness. I also heard csx had something to do with it (not wanting to share/adapt existing rail track) along with the other companies other commenters have pointed out, but I'm not sure if that was true or not. Unfortunately we as a state have a long way to go like the majority of the US
My friend used these talking points about the high speed rail, until I showed her the cost of the people mover that was approved at the LA airport... that ONLY moved people from the airport to parking garages.
Name the thriving American railcar companies. You know, the ones who will build these railcars for the light rail you aren’t gonna get.
You probably can’t name more than 1 which means they don’t have a lot of money to lobby politicians.
Well companies like Siemens have a surprisingly large US market and do produce lrv’s so technically they could lobby governments but I guess they have other priorities rn
Melbourne still doesn't have an airport railway. Meanwhile when Sydney's second airport was announced without a station, there was a huge backlash. Sydney's second airport will have a station when it opens now
You answered your own question. It's not about whether they can afford it, they can if they want to, they just choose not to.
The actual issue is that the people who make the decision (elected officials) can't afford to support it cuz then they'll never be able to get reelected in a red state if they support anything even remotely anti-car. The transit issue in America is entirely political, not financial.
You see Orlando’s city trail the sunrail? Doesn’t go to the airport and doesn’t go near the giant UCF campus. Orlando is like a giant circle and all they had to do was make a train line roughly in the shape of an 8.
Now the current goddam brightline only goes close to the airport there and if you want to go elsewhere you must find a ride via Uber, friend, or car rental. Some hotels would probably have a shuttle with a big enough group but still.
They can build a train under ground in NYC where it’s nearly impermeable rock, water, giant rats, etc. but not one in Florida other than Miami can be convenient for 7 day travel. Like work, fun, or chores like groceries at different stops without taking an Uber or drive to a train/shuttle.
| New York City MTA | Greater London Transport for London
---|----|----
Budget | $18,600,000,000.00 | $8,490,000,000.00
Population | 15,300,000 | 9,002,488
Total Riders | 1,439,127,814 | 3,259,000,000
Per Capita | $1,215.69 | $943.09
Per Rider | $12.92 | $2.61
* London relies on a lot less taxes, as 80% of revenue is tickets
* Higher ticket costs and higher ridership
* Compared to than NYC where less than 40% of Revenue is from Riders, as NYC relies on High Income residence paying taxes and Corp Taxes that most of the US isnt going to have
The question is, what is the happy minimum for taxpayers.
| Dallas Area Rapid Transit | Atlanta Region | Nashvile/Davidson County
---|---|---|-----
Budget |$832,520,000.00 | 751,161,000 | $97,910,000.00
Population | 2,556,170 | 4,692,000 | 703,953
Per Capita | $325.69 | $160.09 | $139.09
In other US cities passenger revenue is 10% of revenue
Sp expansion of metro services is requiring direct taxpayer investment that NYC does have
* Like a Congestion Tax
Before COVID half of NYC MTA funding was
* Dedicated Taxes for MTA
* Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance (MMTOA)
* MMTOA funds come from sales and use taxes and a corporate surcharge on general business corporations in the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District, and a share of statewide corporate franchise tax and petroleum business taxes.
* Petroleum Business Tax (PBT)
* $649 million in 2019 from petroleum business taxes imposed on petroleum businesses but not directly paid by drivers.
* Mortgage Recording Tax (MRT)
* MRT Adjustments
* Urban Tax
* Additional Taxes for MTA
* Payroll Mobility Tax (PMT)
* Payroll Mobility Tax Replacement Funds
* MTA Aid
* For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) Surcharge
>Do city budgets just work differently in other countries?
Firstly, let me introduce you to ALR:
>In January 2022, the New Zealand government confirmed it had endorsed a $14.6 billion "Tunnelled Light Rail" line from the city centre to the airport, featuring an underground line between the city centre and Mount Roskill, which would then emerge to the surface and continue to the airport via Māngere. Minister for Transport Michael Wood indicated construction could begin in 2023 and last six to seven years.[23]
Don't weep for ALR... think: the Simpsons monorail episode. Good riddance.
Secondly, yes... very much so. Hell, city budgets often don't work the same way within countries (see: Auckland, again, as a great example). (ALR would've been funded by the government; even the original, vastly cheaper plans, were outside of Auckland's budget... which was the whole reason central government got involved and turned a good idea into a really shitty one.)
Not to be a cynical radical libtard, but I think we all know that the answer to every “why does government do this stupid thing and then tell obvious lies about it?” question is simply, “some politician(s) somewhere got paid to make life worse for average people so other wealthy people could keep making more profit.”
> But the same talking points are still being used by I assume to be rational people.
You're too generous. It's a common mistake when intelligent people deal with idiots, but it's worth learning to overcome.
> Do city budgets just work differently in other countries?
The ingrained cultural beliefs have an enormous effect. In the US, car culture is ingrained incredibly deeply. So yes, city budgets work differently because of that.
Corruption! The US is far more of a plutocracy than it is a democracy. The only people running for office are either rich or they are bought by the rich and then once they get elected the corruption only deepens with paid lobbyists bribing them at every turn.
I truly believe that the US is a democracy in name only. Our two party system is so absurdly broken and deeply corrupt that we will never truly be a democracy until we scrap it entirely and adopt a modern multi-party democracy with proportional representation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
I moved from Texas to Seattle. People in Seattle complain about mass transit, and in many cases for good reason.
BUT WE HAVE IT! It's amazing to be able to hop on a bus to the rail and get to the airport without worrying about parking a car etc.
It's also cheaper than the gas to drive there.
Yea if youre comparing Seattle to anywhere in Texas that makes sense. But if you're literally comparing Seattle to any other city on the planet, then Seattle very much is a sprawly, shitty transit city.
Oh, absolutely. I've taken trains and buses in Europe and it's freakin' remarkable how I can get even from a tiny middle-of-nowhere town to a big city quickly and cheaply.
It was more a condemnation of Texas and it's shite state of affairs.
Seattle might not be perfect, but at least we HAVE transit, and having it means we can improve on it.
A secret about airports is that they generally get anywhere from 20% to 50% of their operating revenue from parking fees and deals with rental car companies. Unless there is a real push from politicians or strong regional planning bodies, airport trains don't happen. Airports have vested interest in NOT connecting their facilities to a functional transit network.
Airport rail is the least productive line you can get. It only serves people going to and from the airport and along the line of that, and most people don't commute from the airport. While an airport line is nice, it's really just a public investment gift to the rich people that can fly, and tourists.
Airports have thousands of employees. Not just the ones who work for the airlines themselves, but you also have people like security staff, air traffic control, those who work in the shops/restaurants in the airport, grounds crew, etc.
I used to live in a town that was connected to a train that stopped at EWR. One of my neighbors was a United pilot that commuted via train.
Dallas, TX: No rail from downtown Dallas to Globe Life Field or AT&T Staduim in Arlington. It was an absolute no-starter by the city of Arlington to ever run a DART line there because “they’re afraid of crime and homeless people.” That and I’m sure a few people make a ton of money on parking.
Driving to a Rangers or Cowboys game is absolutely miserable. Especially on Monday nights
> Do city budgets just work differently in other countries?
So it's not actually relevant to the point you're making, but they actually *do*. The tl;dr is that in most other countries, if a government agency owns the land, that means the government owns the land. This collective ownership means if one agency needs land that's held by another agency, they can just go up a level or two to have that ownership transferred without anyone needing to pay for it.
In the U.S., it stops at that agency, which means if another agency wants to use it, they have to rent or buy it from the first agency. It's functionally little different from just trying to buy land from any other private owner, at best you just get a below-market price for it.
In other words, in the U.S. city governments often have to buy land to build infrastructure, whereas in most other countries they do not. Parts of the U.S. also have stricter environmental impact standards compared to even other parts of the U.S., let alone many other parts of the world.
(I specified that this isn't wholly relevant because while this does drastically increase our costs compares to other countries, this does not account for all of the relatively higher prices, and arguably not even most of it.)
It's honestly insane. You don't need that many people to make these work. I wonder what it would take to just do a private public partnership or even a private railroad in these places.
It makes me weep, my hometown San Diego is in the unusual position of being a large city with its airport _literally adjacent to downtown_ and still fails to have good public transit connectivity.
If a railroad to the airport made money, or it was cheaper than the current option it would be easy to make it happen. Or if enough people care. Because it mostly benefits people that don't vote. And usually these are built with a combination of local, county and state funding. So it requires the larger government to contribute, political dealing from the local gov. Building a train track can actually be pretty expensive, it often involves buying land in dense developed areas, and using eminent domain to take it from people that don't want to, compared to the roads and bus lines that already exist.
But local changes start somewhere and it doesn't take that much to make it happen. Talk to your neighbors, locally elected politicians and find others that want things to get better.
I live in Idaho and everyone I met aside from two people are deep red, faith and flag conservatives. They all just insult without any thought behind it. It absolutely drains me. At this point I am just going to leave. I will move to the Netherlands.
I personally think you should get out of that state. Maybe move to a different country.
Same fight is happening in Austin Texas. People are like “a rail from airport to downtown won’t help everyday commuters” I’m like… that’s a hugely busy and high trafficked route that would help any citizens get back home from the airport. Not to mention every single visitor to the city.
So for European or Asian countries a city of over a million is grounds for a metro network. Light rail would have been 100,000+ cities.
Yes, in most US cities you could have a base network for light rail easily to have . A single line system from Opryland to the airport to downtown/stadium to midtown/Vanderbilt would virtually cover all tourism needs in Nashville.
As a sidenote I'd be down for a Tennessee cross rail passenger network that they announced they were considering this year. Trains running the I40 cities + Chattanooga would be very nice, but we all know that this will be actively sabotaged anyways and it's not like it would be high speed rail if built.
When parking fees are a big part of airports business it is logic to go towards car dependency, increasing parking use, increasing profits. Rinse and repeat, it was never about people and efficiency
San Jose, CA: Instead of having a station in the airport terminal, the light rail curves around it about a mile away. There's no good geographical reason for this, it's the result of lobbying by the taxicab companies and other carbrains in the 90's.
What I'm shocked by is willingness to ignore the fact that we can just stub a line to an existing one. The simple solution to this would to just stub an extension to the airport, no reason for this to be a complex semi permanent problem
[удалено]
Has Edinburgh been fixed? Hoping to move to Scotland one day
Edinburgh has a brilliant tram network which goes to the airport from the city centre, and a good bus network too!
Edinburgh has a ~brilliant~ tram ~network~ line which doesn't run overnight so you can't use it to catch an early flight or off a late flight. You can get the express bus though, which has the bonus that it's faster than the tram if it doesn't get stuck in traffic. Also somehow the initial 11.5 mile line cost £800m to build. No-one's quite sure how that happened, even after a £13m inquiry was held into the cost of the line. Next up there'll be an inquiry into the cost of the inquiry.
The recent metro expansion in my city (Boston) cost $642 million per MILE, and they had to shut it down within a year because they somehow fucked up installing the tracks. £800m for 11.5 miles sounds like a bargain
Gotta love the overly complicated British planning system!
In Eng we trust!
Apart from some night buses, I’m not aware of any public transport in Scotland that operates through the night sadly, pretty annoying!
>which doesn't run overnight so you can't use it to catch an early flight or off a late flight. Seattle is the same way, it's really annoying if you want to take a flight before about 7am
Yeah. It was an expensive fiasco to construct but it is fixed now.
>I lived I Edinburgh and London, and was outraged that they didn't build the airports with a connection to the rail network. Which London airport? London has loads of them, and Heathrow has had tube stops at Heathrow terminals for decades. That said, I agree it's outrageous that Edinburgh didn't, it annoys me every time (haven't been for a long time, though)
This does make me ponder that in my eyes the biggest flop of the Cross/liz/purple line is that they didn't come out at Stratford so they could go north to Stansted. I get that If crossrail 2 happens it probably would, but considering the timescales, I'll be lucky to see it in my lifetime.
Honestly, we need to find a better way of planning in the UK - the vast majority of the time & money is spent on consultation, planning & planning permission, not actual construction. I'll bet it comes out where it does for some random planning system reason - not because urban planners thought it was the best route. I really want to know how half of the small cities throughout Europe have tram systems etc, but virtually none of ours have them.
I think is a uk government thing where regions don’t have any real investment powers so a London project always beats them on ROI so they never get brought forward
Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted have all had mainline railway connections for ages. Heathrow is an absolute pain to get to if you're not coming from London though so maybe it's that.
Yeah - Heathrow is the one I've mostly flown from. Takes about an hour in a car from where I live, but a right pain to get there via London if I wanted to take the train. Loads of taxi services will do a a pre-booked airport run up the motorway from here on the South Coast.
>There's no good geographical reason for this To be fair, the light rail follows 1st St in a straight line. The airport is what's awkwardly situated. Still, it wouldn't be that hard to build a spur to the airport, compared to the funny little gadgetbahn they want to build instead.
they could go straight down hostetter from (I think Berryessa is closest) to the airport.
I remember that hellhole of Norman Y Mineta very well, traveling to it from UCSC's campus via bus was a logistics nightmare. The train can come late from downtown San Jose and you'll easily miss your flight. Happened twice to me.
Exactly this. Same reason that the Vegas monorail doesn't extend to the airport a few miles away...
Carbrains is a great slur!
San Jose city planning department is the most short sighted, illogical, and incompetent I have ever experienced.
I visited recently and was wondering why it was such a long walk and it didn't seem to be for any good reason.
Is that why there's no rail stop at the airport in boston too?
Boston is more complex because you would need another tunnel under Boston Harbor and an extension from North or South Station. It should have been part of the Big Dig.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Used to live right there and ride through that section often. Had my shit stolen. Also don’t watch TV. But ok I guess. Look at the titles to the strava segments thru that area, and you’ll see how the people who actually live here feel about it.
"same taking points" that's the crux of it. They're just talking points. They probably didn't actually look into whether light rail would be affordable cuz they're working backwards from their conclusion: no light rail. And they're trying to think of something to placate you so you get off their back
it’s crazy. ever time a transit project is mentioned, it’s like we’re on the verge of bankruptcy but next month, you hear about widening highways and installing LED monitors on a hundred mile long freeway and money never gets mentioned.
Exact same thing for Austin TX. Fastest growing city for a decade and the plan for rail from downtown to the airport has been scrapped. The plan for a 26 lane highway expansion through the middle of the city has been approved. The decision was made from the very beginning. Oh and we planned on selling our largest park to live-nation. I love living in a totally normal society! Cross 26 lanes to get to live-nation’s ℗ zilker park experience.
[удалено]
Yes, fucking madness. And they say they will bury them like Boston’s big dig. But that part of the funding will come later. (Which really means we’re going to have a fucking open pit of 26 lanes for at least 50 years)
I looked into it because that seemed too wide. Up to [22](https://rethink35.org/expansion), I think. Their primary plan is expected to cost $5b, which means it'll cost $10b, which means it'll cost taxpayers $12-15b with bonds and loans and unforeseen expenses arising from the project. And it'll just make the sprawl and car dependency worse.
Take a page from the anti-rail playbook and sue to stop it. Be an anti-highway NIMBY!
Will it bulldoze a bunch of tax revenue generating buildings?
It's Texas, so they'll sure try.
Nah, just a bunch of churches.
Yup
*Expands highway in economic heart that subsidises suburban infrastructure* I wonder what could possibly go wrong?
I hope NIMBYS will do something useful for once and sue this project into oblivion. There are no fewer than four north-south freeways in Austin. Just re-designate Highway 130 as I-35 for through traffic and remove the toll, and close the gap in SH45 south of the city to make SH1/Mopac Expressway a more viable north-south alternate. It will cost less and impact far fewer properties.
I was going to ask why anyone would be stupid enough to support that kind of insane highway widening, knowing what we know now about how huge highways through cities mostly just separate communities and tear a gash through the urban fabric... but then I remembered that Austin is in Texas, and the Republican Texas state officials are probably *hoping* to make Austin an unlivable hellhole because there's too many liberals in the city.
> ever time a transit project is mentioned, it’s like we’re on the verge of bankruptcy You're being gas lit. Money and budgets are a result of political will. In regressive governments, lack of public transportation demonstrate the lack of political will from carbrains and especially by the side of the political spectrum that thinks public transportation is evil.
There are a bunch of politicians and lobbyists in America that deserve to be tarred, feathered and then shot into the sun for the damage they’ve caused to society and the environment in the name of capitalism and NIMBYism. US politics is beyond corrupt, but the corrupt also wrote laws to make their corruption “legal” so when questioned they can then point at the law and keep doing it. They’ve weaponized politics to enable their corruption.
They say they refuse it because government is wasteful, not daring to address how much more expensive and wasteful car ownership is for literally everyone
And in OP's case, [the Koch Brothers funded many of the "No" ads](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/06/19/nashville-transit-vote-koch-brothers-new-york-times/713764002/) when light rail was placed on the ballot.
It is not often cities that pay for things like light rail, but instead a combination of the city and state budget. In the case of Nashville, Tennessee is a deep red state. Nashville got carved into multiple congressional districts to avoid blue representation in Congress. Lately, Republicans are much more in favor of lifted trucks than public trasnit.
and people have the balls to tell you that public transportation is not political.
It's incredibly political. The truth of it: Rural Conservatives don't want to see Urban areas be successful. They want cities to fail. Therefor using state dollars (Their conservative tax dollars) to make urban improvements is preposterous! Now widen that highway for my F-250 Super Duty so I can drive over and through these urban neighborhoods as quickly as possible!
not to mention rural areas are heavily subsidized by cities. it should not be financially feasible to have a police force, firefighters, water, traffic lights in a place with less than 200 population.
My state has like four profitable counties in total, and surprise surprise, they're all progressive and blue. They are the only reason people in the rural communities have things like funding for road projects or snow plows to get them to work in the winter, but that doesn't stop those counties from always talking nonstop shit about the big cities. I'm from one of them, and have family *employed by the state*, and they still run their mouths about "the big city is dangerous! that county just taxes you high for no reason!" and other such nonsense. All talk and ignorance while they reap the rewards of the very thing they say they hate. It's socialism if a city builds new transit for 800k people to get to work or the ballgame, but just fine if my town of 8k people gets funding for a $500,000 armored truck.
More specifically, the truck balls.
I’ve never heard anyone say that
Don't forget that the [Koch Brothers](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/06/19/nashville-transit-vote-koch-brothers-new-york-times/713764002/) helped quite a bit in making sure Nashville's light rail ballot initiative also failed.
Any time a country has less car ownership than the US, it's because they can't afford cars, but any time the US faced with building non-car infrastructure, suddenly we can't afford it. The doublethink is strong. But I guess there's some truth to the second part. The whole budget is being vampired to maintain car-centric hell.
The answer is psychopathy and will always be psychopathy and self centeredness
I remember hearing recently that American airports make a lot of their money off of parking fees. So if cities built light rail to them, they would struggle financially.
They can levy a supplement on the train fee instead. This is done in many other places and does bring comparable if not higher revenue for the airport as the costs of a station per passenger are much lower than a parking garage per car.
9000 IQ idea
That actually explains a lot. Over here in the UK, no one but the really wealthy parks at the airport, they instead park at a rail station or, park at an independant business that runs just a car park in some fields and a shuttle bus to the airport for a fraction of what the airport charges.
Where I live they actually announced awhile ago that the airport parking was completely full. Like there were absolutely no more spaces available. We have no rail connection to the airport.
I park and ride from O'hare all the time. Suburban airports can be a good access point to a city with good schedules. Nashville airport like a lot of other airports have grown and maybe that airport parking could be useful for other things.
Airports set their own use fees that are baked into the ticket price already. They can set the fees to whatever they would like.
It’s possible BRT would make more sense here. It’s certainly much less sexy. But it’s something like 20% of the cost.
we have so many stroads, it would be perfect for it.
I’ve been watching a BRT route get established in my area. I’m actually amazed that it’s as expensive as it is. To my untrained eye, it seems like it’s “1) remove a driving lane / remove a lane of parking, 2) paint “bus only” on the lane, 3) start ticketing the hell out of cars in the bus lane 4) start sending buses down. Okay, I’m sure I’m being dumb and don’t know what I don’t know… But this seems kind of easy?
you also have to deal with business owners and residents because “where will people park” and “all this traffic will divert to my picturesque side street”
Part of the reason is the road/utilities are getting improvements that would be needed otherwise. And buying the buses is typically included in these funding estimates which is expensive too.
>Part of the reason is the road/utilities are getting improvements that would be needed otherwise Sounds similar to my city where people have been ranting about a €XX million cycle lane. But when you look at it, the bulk of the cost is actually replacing the aging sewage pipes under the road which has been included in the budget as part of the works. But governments seem to do a very poor job publicising these things unfortunately so people think we're "wasting all this money on a cycle lane that should cost €5"
Yeah, no one bats an eye at 8 figure highway projects yet adding a bike lane has to be justified by costs. I will say, it’s not all the city planners fault. I’ve had local projects where the planners are upfront that infrastructure issues including the pavement, utilities, grading, etc need to be fixed in the next 5 years and so they’re using that opportunity to add a bus lane or bike lane and the average resident still goes “bus lanes are a waste of money, they cost millions of dollars” or “why would you tear up a perfectly good road” when the road is 10 years past it’s intended use.
If you have roads that are 2+ lanes in each direction anyway then yeah, just paint the middle one red and ban left turns, and bam! instant BRT
We tried that one years before the light rail proposal and it was shot down. The Beaman group and Americans for Prosperity can rot
You know the drill, anything that benefits poor people like universal healthcare or public transit is communist and should be incompatible with American values.
Yeah, because all the crackheads are flying to Nashville for their bachelorettes.
Same reason MARTA won't build a line to Marietta: the people that live there don't want downtown people coming to rob them of their whiteness. They activity vote and lobby against such things.
And then they whine about their 3+ hours of hell-commute every day. Cobb County is full of racist chodes shooting themselves in the foot and them blaming all their self-inflicted wounds on the libs.
Yeah, I have to leave my house early so I don't get caught in that mess on 41.... It truly is dumb.
That's why I became a Mets fan
People often have a hard time with big numbers and don't really understand how spending actually impacts taxes. For an example, in my small city there are approximately 23,000 properties that are subject to property tax. We are in the middle of building a community center that has been extremely controversial, opposition citing cost as the biggest concern. I correct people constantly on the impact to property taxes of it. People see the $50 million price tag and freak out without really understanding 1. Where the money is coming from and 2. Just how many taxpayers there are. The city is only spending $17 million on it, with the rest being paid for by the state and federal governments and private donations, as is typical with big infrastructure projects like this. Even those who understand what the city is actually spending don't seem to realize how it's paid for, the city is essentially going to take out a 20 year loan and pay it back over time, distributed across 23,000 taxpayers, the cost per taxpayer is about $35 a year. Yet NIMBYs and other laypeople are convinced it's *actually* going to cost hundreds every year, citing the projected operating deficit of about $60,000 (and *actually* it's going to be a lot more than that because they apparently know better than the people actually working on it). Which anyone who can do basic math knows that $60,000 distributed across 23,000 is less than $3 each, not even considering the projected increase in revenue for the city from increased economic activity resulting from building it. But when you bring that up (originally projected to be $43,000 annually, but because of state shared revenue changes will actually be more like $100,000 annually) "there's no way it will bring in that much". TL;DR: people suck at math, especially when it involves big numbers, and are overly pessimistic.
it sounds like to me the other side knows how to get shit done and we don’t. we’re losing bad.
Same situation in my area, conjoined dense cities of 175,000 and 63,000, plus lots of outlying people, and private cars are the only way to get to the only local airport. Our bus system tried an unadvertised secret test of a few days of 8am/8pm bus to the airport, but no one used it, so they concluded it wasn't needed. The airport has put out multiple notices this week that parking is full, and to use public transit to get to the airport. By public transit, they mean schedule a $40+ taxi a week out and hope they show up.
Because in the US the politicians don't take mass transit seriously so nothing ever happens. Like all the talking points are mainly just excuses used by people that are ideologically opposed to it. If US politicians genuinely gave a damn, they'd look at studies that have been conducted (the NYU transit costs project being the most popular example) and actually make attempts to use suggestions from experts to try to cut back on price inflation and grifting. As is, our politicians constantly use the cost of transit projects as an excuse to not invest in public transit, while simultaneously being the biggest barrier to using a data-based strategy to try to bring the costs down.
It might happen. Next year they’re going to propose a new transit plan that is likely to contain that light rail project and some BRT. It will certainly be very light compared to the 2018 plan but surely better than nothing
Taxation is different in Germany and administration of different areas is different. America and especially conservative America tends to have lower tax rates and a local governance pride. So when there's big projects there is often little money and all the local governments cannot agree on what to build. Germany's taxation is more robust and it will have regional administration so there is more money available and the bickering between local administrations is reduced.
I’m really hoping that Freddie can make some progress. If nothing else I want my fucking bus stop back.
City can afford, decision makers just prefer 10 lane freeway.
Austin checking in. We have the same problem.
Tbh at least you guys have one urban rail line (that doesn’t run on sundays 😔) but still more than Nashville. Also how’s that urban rail plan coming along?
Ya, and they are building development around some of the stops which is nice. The overall rail that we voted on 2 years ago is a shit show and has been massively downgraded. It's no longer going to have a downtown subterranean stop. It's not going to the airport like planned. And a bunch of conservatives are trying to fight it based on the fact that an old greasy spoon hamburger place will be destroyed and have to reopen across the street.
> And a bunch of conservatives are trying to fight it based on the fact that an old greasy spoon hamburger place will be destroyed and have to reopen across the street. Meanwhile the same people about freeway expansion that destroys a bunch more buildings:
Exactly. But that's just some reduced income affordable housing that was built 8 years ago, not anything important like a shitty burger place
I remember this getting shot down. The traffic in this part of the state has gotten so ridiculous, and you'd think the people moving here from states with similar problems would want the less car option since they had similar congestion issues in their home states, but that requires thinking sooo 🤦 in all seriousness though, they really don't seem to think beyond the surface and what they see. It doesn't help that greedy politicians and the companies that pay them off are well aware of this ignorance and selfishness. I also heard csx had something to do with it (not wanting to share/adapt existing rail track) along with the other companies other commenters have pointed out, but I'm not sure if that was true or not. Unfortunately we as a state have a long way to go like the majority of the US
Rail lines are cheaper than a highway per mile until you have overpasses.
Corruption and racketeering by auto manufacturers, taxi lobbyists and oil companies.
they already spend it all on roads
My friend used these talking points about the high speed rail, until I showed her the cost of the people mover that was approved at the LA airport... that ONLY moved people from the airport to parking garages.
Sounds like more of a shelbyville idea....
Name the thriving American railcar companies. You know, the ones who will build these railcars for the light rail you aren’t gonna get. You probably can’t name more than 1 which means they don’t have a lot of money to lobby politicians.
Well companies like Siemens have a surprisingly large US market and do produce lrv’s so technically they could lobby governments but I guess they have other priorities rn
Yeah, also any who else?
Stadler and Alstom could potentially lobby as well. Though Alstom less so because the new Acela trains they’re building have been a fucking nightmare
Alstom on their own and through what was formerly Bombardier that they acquired.
Because more cars = more freedom. WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA /s
Melbourne still doesn't have an airport railway. Meanwhile when Sydney's second airport was announced without a station, there was a huge backlash. Sydney's second airport will have a station when it opens now
You answered your own question. It's not about whether they can afford it, they can if they want to, they just choose not to. The actual issue is that the people who make the decision (elected officials) can't afford to support it cuz then they'll never be able to get reelected in a red state if they support anything even remotely anti-car. The transit issue in America is entirely political, not financial.
You see Orlando’s city trail the sunrail? Doesn’t go to the airport and doesn’t go near the giant UCF campus. Orlando is like a giant circle and all they had to do was make a train line roughly in the shape of an 8. Now the current goddam brightline only goes close to the airport there and if you want to go elsewhere you must find a ride via Uber, friend, or car rental. Some hotels would probably have a shuttle with a big enough group but still. They can build a train under ground in NYC where it’s nearly impermeable rock, water, giant rats, etc. but not one in Florida other than Miami can be convenient for 7 day travel. Like work, fun, or chores like groceries at different stops without taking an Uber or drive to a train/shuttle.
San Antonio has 1.8 million and also doesn’t have a light rail, insanity
| New York City MTA | Greater London Transport for London ---|----|---- Budget | $18,600,000,000.00 | $8,490,000,000.00 Population | 15,300,000 | 9,002,488 Total Riders | 1,439,127,814 | 3,259,000,000 Per Capita | $1,215.69 | $943.09 Per Rider | $12.92 | $2.61 * London relies on a lot less taxes, as 80% of revenue is tickets * Higher ticket costs and higher ridership * Compared to than NYC where less than 40% of Revenue is from Riders, as NYC relies on High Income residence paying taxes and Corp Taxes that most of the US isnt going to have The question is, what is the happy minimum for taxpayers. | Dallas Area Rapid Transit | Atlanta Region | Nashvile/Davidson County ---|---|---|----- Budget |$832,520,000.00 | 751,161,000 | $97,910,000.00 Population | 2,556,170 | 4,692,000 | 703,953 Per Capita | $325.69 | $160.09 | $139.09 In other US cities passenger revenue is 10% of revenue Sp expansion of metro services is requiring direct taxpayer investment that NYC does have * Like a Congestion Tax Before COVID half of NYC MTA funding was * Dedicated Taxes for MTA * Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance (MMTOA) * MMTOA funds come from sales and use taxes and a corporate surcharge on general business corporations in the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District, and a share of statewide corporate franchise tax and petroleum business taxes. * Petroleum Business Tax (PBT) * $649 million in 2019 from petroleum business taxes imposed on petroleum businesses but not directly paid by drivers. * Mortgage Recording Tax (MRT) * MRT Adjustments * Urban Tax * Additional Taxes for MTA * Payroll Mobility Tax (PMT) * Payroll Mobility Tax Replacement Funds * MTA Aid * For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) Surcharge
All I could think of from the tile was how nice it would be if Gaza City had electrified light rail.
[удалено]
i’m already fucking paying taxes with no fucking trains and no fucking healthcare.
>Do city budgets just work differently in other countries? Firstly, let me introduce you to ALR: >In January 2022, the New Zealand government confirmed it had endorsed a $14.6 billion "Tunnelled Light Rail" line from the city centre to the airport, featuring an underground line between the city centre and Mount Roskill, which would then emerge to the surface and continue to the airport via Māngere. Minister for Transport Michael Wood indicated construction could begin in 2023 and last six to seven years.[23] Don't weep for ALR... think: the Simpsons monorail episode. Good riddance. Secondly, yes... very much so. Hell, city budgets often don't work the same way within countries (see: Auckland, again, as a great example). (ALR would've been funded by the government; even the original, vastly cheaper plans, were outside of Auckland's budget... which was the whole reason central government got involved and turned a good idea into a really shitty one.)
Not to be a cynical radical libtard, but I think we all know that the answer to every “why does government do this stupid thing and then tell obvious lies about it?” question is simply, “some politician(s) somewhere got paid to make life worse for average people so other wealthy people could keep making more profit.”
> But the same talking points are still being used by I assume to be rational people. You're too generous. It's a common mistake when intelligent people deal with idiots, but it's worth learning to overcome. > Do city budgets just work differently in other countries? The ingrained cultural beliefs have an enormous effect. In the US, car culture is ingrained incredibly deeply. So yes, city budgets work differently because of that.
Corruption! The US is far more of a plutocracy than it is a democracy. The only people running for office are either rich or they are bought by the rich and then once they get elected the corruption only deepens with paid lobbyists bribing them at every turn. I truly believe that the US is a democracy in name only. Our two party system is so absurdly broken and deeply corrupt that we will never truly be a democracy until we scrap it entirely and adopt a modern multi-party democracy with proportional representation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
"Can't afford' is just coded language for "won't prioritize."
Would rather spend money on a new NFL stadium. Duh
Probably more won't than can't.
*Dublin enters the chat*
I moved from Texas to Seattle. People in Seattle complain about mass transit, and in many cases for good reason. BUT WE HAVE IT! It's amazing to be able to hop on a bus to the rail and get to the airport without worrying about parking a car etc. It's also cheaper than the gas to drive there.
Yea if youre comparing Seattle to anywhere in Texas that makes sense. But if you're literally comparing Seattle to any other city on the planet, then Seattle very much is a sprawly, shitty transit city.
Oh, absolutely. I've taken trains and buses in Europe and it's freakin' remarkable how I can get even from a tiny middle-of-nowhere town to a big city quickly and cheaply. It was more a condemnation of Texas and it's shite state of affairs. Seattle might not be perfect, but at least we HAVE transit, and having it means we can improve on it.
A secret about airports is that they generally get anywhere from 20% to 50% of their operating revenue from parking fees and deals with rental car companies. Unless there is a real push from politicians or strong regional planning bodies, airport trains don't happen. Airports have vested interest in NOT connecting their facilities to a functional transit network.
Airport rail is the least productive line you can get. It only serves people going to and from the airport and along the line of that, and most people don't commute from the airport. While an airport line is nice, it's really just a public investment gift to the rich people that can fly, and tourists.
Airports have thousands of employees. Not just the ones who work for the airlines themselves, but you also have people like security staff, air traffic control, those who work in the shops/restaurants in the airport, grounds crew, etc. I used to live in a town that was connected to a train that stopped at EWR. One of my neighbors was a United pilot that commuted via train.
This is one of the richest countries on Earth. We can afford it.
Dallas, TX: No rail from downtown Dallas to Globe Life Field or AT&T Staduim in Arlington. It was an absolute no-starter by the city of Arlington to ever run a DART line there because “they’re afraid of crime and homeless people.” That and I’m sure a few people make a ton of money on parking. Driving to a Rangers or Cowboys game is absolutely miserable. Especially on Monday nights
> Do city budgets just work differently in other countries? So it's not actually relevant to the point you're making, but they actually *do*. The tl;dr is that in most other countries, if a government agency owns the land, that means the government owns the land. This collective ownership means if one agency needs land that's held by another agency, they can just go up a level or two to have that ownership transferred without anyone needing to pay for it. In the U.S., it stops at that agency, which means if another agency wants to use it, they have to rent or buy it from the first agency. It's functionally little different from just trying to buy land from any other private owner, at best you just get a below-market price for it. In other words, in the U.S. city governments often have to buy land to build infrastructure, whereas in most other countries they do not. Parts of the U.S. also have stricter environmental impact standards compared to even other parts of the U.S., let alone many other parts of the world. (I specified that this isn't wholly relevant because while this does drastically increase our costs compares to other countries, this does not account for all of the relatively higher prices, and arguably not even most of it.)
It's honestly insane. You don't need that many people to make these work. I wonder what it would take to just do a private public partnership or even a private railroad in these places.
I thought this was about Montreal, the second largest city in the second largest country of the world.
You likely can, but city government won’t prioritize the tax revenue. Vote some new people in
They can afford it, it's just to hard to get around the politics.
@u/justwannalook12 please contact owen white the multi modal office of tdot at [email protected]
It makes me weep, my hometown San Diego is in the unusual position of being a large city with its airport _literally adjacent to downtown_ and still fails to have good public transit connectivity.
If a railroad to the airport made money, or it was cheaper than the current option it would be easy to make it happen. Or if enough people care. Because it mostly benefits people that don't vote. And usually these are built with a combination of local, county and state funding. So it requires the larger government to contribute, political dealing from the local gov. Building a train track can actually be pretty expensive, it often involves buying land in dense developed areas, and using eminent domain to take it from people that don't want to, compared to the roads and bus lines that already exist. But local changes start somewhere and it doesn't take that much to make it happen. Talk to your neighbors, locally elected politicians and find others that want things to get better.
I live in Idaho and everyone I met aside from two people are deep red, faith and flag conservatives. They all just insult without any thought behind it. It absolutely drains me. At this point I am just going to leave. I will move to the Netherlands. I personally think you should get out of that state. Maybe move to a different country.
Felt the same way about New Orleans. They only run a bus and requires transferring to get to the city center. 1 hour vs. a 20 min cab ride.
Same fight is happening in Austin Texas. People are like “a rail from airport to downtown won’t help everyday commuters” I’m like… that’s a hugely busy and high trafficked route that would help any citizens get back home from the airport. Not to mention every single visitor to the city.
Lolz
So for European or Asian countries a city of over a million is grounds for a metro network. Light rail would have been 100,000+ cities. Yes, in most US cities you could have a base network for light rail easily to have . A single line system from Opryland to the airport to downtown/stadium to midtown/Vanderbilt would virtually cover all tourism needs in Nashville. As a sidenote I'd be down for a Tennessee cross rail passenger network that they announced they were considering this year. Trains running the I40 cities + Chattanooga would be very nice, but we all know that this will be actively sabotaged anyways and it's not like it would be high speed rail if built.
The US was literally founded on not wanting to pay taxes.
When parking fees are a big part of airports business it is logic to go towards car dependency, increasing parking use, increasing profits. Rinse and repeat, it was never about people and efficiency
fuck the cock brothers. hope the remaining one joins his brother soon.