Metro Jacksonville

QuoteThe real tragedy of the high speed rail boondoggle is that it prohibits private enterprise from maintaining and improving economical mass transportation for Florida's aging population.

In the Dec. 18 Democrat article about lawmakers reaching an agreement on the $2.6 billion in federal funds, nothing was said about taxpayers being saddled with the obligation of operating train service, which privately owned railroads abandoned years ago because of labor union demands.

On the same date as the Democrat article, the Wall Street Journal reported how the New York area must slash transit serve and student passes in order to pay $541 million to unionized workers.

Luxury bus service exists between Boston and New York City and is named the LimoLiner. The LimoLiner has the following amenities: onboard attendant, mini-workstations, cell-free zones, TV access, seat-side power outlets, personal pillows and blankets, sparkling clean rest rooms, leather reclining seats.

Greyhound has introduced new bus service in the New York area to compete with the LimoLiner, and its new service has some of the same amenities.

A study at the University of California in Berkeley found the grams of C02 emitted per passenger mile were less on a fully loaded bus than any other travel mode, including trains. The distance between Miami and Tampa is about the same as the distance between New York City and Boston, but there would be no incentive for the introduction of luxurious bus service because high speed rail would be operating at taxpayer expense.

Both Greyhound and the LimoLiner accommodate wheelchair passengers. Greyhound service allows passengers to travel on personal scooters.

Boarding of wheelchair passengers is cumbersome on Amtrak and travel on their own personal scooter is prohibited. High speed rail would probably have the same restrictions.

Baggage handling is another problem. When railroads had passenger service there was a baggage car on every train. There have been no innovations that eliminate baggage check and claim; therefore some of the time savings attributed to high speed rail aren't true because of baggage handling.

Baggage handling is a huge problem for the aged and handicapped, so they drive their cars and will continue to do so after the billions spent on high speed rail.

Unionization should be a private industry problem, but its usage in government labor relations results in taxpayers footing the bill because vote-hungry politicians yield easily to union demands.

The recent airline terrorist attack and airport delays due to runway capacity limitations should make travel by bus the preferred mode for distances up to 300 miles.

# Robert G. Frye of Tallahassee is a retired professional engineer who previously worked for Eastern Airlines, National Airlines and the Florida Department of Transportation. He can be contacted by e-mail at BobaLu12@comcast.net.

Quotehttp://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-11-19/article/34120?headline=Bus-Rapid-Transit-Feel-Good-Environmentalism-
Bus Rapid Transit: Feel-Good Environmentalism?
By Professor: Matt Kondolf  

Moreover, the proposals for Berkeley and San Francisco are better described as “BRT-lite.” While the Telegraph Avenue line would have its own lane (impacting vehicular traffic), it would not have grade separation at intersections, so travel times will not be that different from those of the existing buses.

Looked at objectively, it’s not at all clear that our Bus Rapid Transit would deliver the promised benefits if implemented as proposed. And the costs will be substantial. The Telegraph Avenue BRT project is projected to $250 million, and generally the costs will result in a public subsidy of around $8 per ride. And it will create worse traffic problems on Telegraph Avenue.

Prior to the November 2008 election, Berkeley residents received a glossy flyer in the mailâ€"the flyer featured a polar bear and intoned “We can’t afford to wait…” The flyer argued that we must implement transit projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we should oppose a citizen initiative to require voter approval of BRT.

But to really reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to get people out of their single-person cars and into mass transit. It’s not at all clear that the BRT-lite proposed for Berkeley would accomplish this. There would be other benefits for the politicians involved: federal grants, a big construction project, jobs, and the favorable “buzz” that we are progressive because we have BRT. But the costs would be high. Moreover, once you factor in the energy and resources involved in the construction, and the effect of poaching riders from BART, the net greenhouse gas emissions are more likely to increase as a result of BRT as proposed. It may make us feel good, it may benefit politicians, but the BRT proposed for Berkeley is unlikely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.