Already, VTA in San Jose, CA has permanently closed an ill-conceived two-station branch on their light rail system, replacing it with buses. We may see more of this soon in the US. 2/
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
But when you build public transit infrastructure, like a rail line, it just sits there until you fund the operations. And if you ever stop funding the operations, it turns back into a brick.
Rail is an essential tool in many situations, especially where you need high capacity. But the association of rail with permanence needs to be broken in the mind of urban elites. It’s wrong, it’s harmful, and it’s wasted a lot of public money on projects that may not justify their operations. 8/8
I do think it's important to note that most rail projects require federal grants money to get built and if you ever drop below the service level specified in the FFGA you have to pay the money back to the feds.
It's a pretty big stick to convince states to continue funding operations.
Comments
Because they are used to thinking about buildings and streets, which are relatively permanent because most of their cost is construction cost.
Build a building or road, and you can use it …
3/
4/
The question is always how to eternally fund the operations.
And if the line was built based on various fantasies, including this one, that may be hard.
5/
Both depend on ridership. Ridership pays fares but also increases political support.
6/
1). Their ridership base was destroyed by work from home (some but not all commuter rail) or
2) They were designed for a non-ridership reason, such as economic development or even confused concepts of “equity”.
7/
It’s a cautionary tail about breaking projects up into phases for funding purposes. Your first segment needs to be self-sustainable.
It's a pretty big stick to convince states to continue funding operations.
The Bay Area has to be the worst allocation of transit money anywhere in the US. Now we are building BART to San Jose