From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:35:56 GMT

In article <p47ipfk@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> My main concern is that of operational characteristics.  With its partially
|> exclusive ROW, and the operational cost savings that entails, the Guadalupe
|> LRT should do better than the 13% recovery it is getting. 

Yup.  LRT charges lower fares than CalTrain or BART--only $1, no matter
how far you ride.  For flash pass holders, it's even cheaper if they ride
even a modest amount.  Also, depending on how they calculate the cost
recovery for LRT, there may be some pretty big costs that help pull it
down because the system is so new.  Lastly, I don't have any figures, but
I've repeatedly heard that SCCTD labor & benefits costs are soaring out
of control and that they are out line with industry averages/norms.  I've
heard it's got something to do with the SC Board of Supes being very labor
friendly/fearful and not wanting/able to say no to anything.


|> shared ROW.  The low farebox recovery of the LRT can be attributed to its
|> greater per unit operating cost compared to bus and its high frequency.

Sounds reasonable.  Isn't the idea that more people are expected to (and do)
ride light rail and make up for these factors?  Isn't that why SC LRT has a
slightly better farebox recovery than SC buses?


|> Also, don't you see the low speed of LRT as a problem?  Don't you think it
|> would be nice if some LRT's could speed past downtown in the 87 median in
|> a 5 minute run around the downtown area to the N. First area?

Yes.  The issue of an 87 (aka Guadalupe Expy) bypass is tricky because
I think you still need to and should hit downtown.  To do it "right",
you'd need either a faster tunnel under the downtown, OR both a slow
downtown line (what exists today) and an express bypass on 87.

The faster tunnel under downtown idea is nice in that you don't have
two lines and you avoid running along a stretch of 87 that is useless
from a passenger point of view (other than to go fast).  The downside
of it is that you lose the open, friendly, relaxed, accessible feel of
street-level LRT in the transit pedestrian mall.  This may not be too
bad, but there are those that for various reasons prefer street-level
to underground LRT.  (Witness San Franciso's plan to put a regularly
scheduled surface-running LRT service back on Market Street.)

Probably one of the biggest obstacles to making SC's LRT faster through
the downtown area is money.  The current configuration is the cheapest
and gets you the most for your money.

Other glaring errors and omissions in SC's LRT include lack of full
traffic signal pre-emption (i.e. LRT always gets a "green light" over
cross vehicle traffic), artificially low speed limit (35 mph) north
of SJ downtown on North 1st and subsequent streets, and not having
a loop going to/thru/near the airport.


|> Your response has been that no matter the operational limitations
|> of rail, it is cooler, and therefore better, even if it is slower,
|> requires more transfers, is more expensive, etc.

I didn't mean to leave you (or anyone) with that impression.  Rail
has its place, buses have theirs, and there's a fuzzy area where
either is okay.  We generally don't use rail lines to feed a bus
line.  Just as you point out buses are unfairly being maligned due
to poorly-done studies and/or bad implementations and/or unjustified
perceptions or stigmas, the same can be--and often is--true of rail
and mass transit in general.



|> A question for you.  Why is the operating cost for LRT so high (over $150
|> per revenue hour in Santa Clara county)?

The cost of labor & associated benefits would be my guess.  What else
can it be?  Other things like maintenance and cost of electricity ought
to be in line with industry norms.  This is a worthwhile question, and
the answer to it would be interesting.


|> And why do LRT's weigh so much?

Because they are rail equipment which has traditionally been built using
many heavy duty (and heavy weight) components to be long-lasting, and
very durable.  Railroading equipment can afford to use such heavy stuff
because it isn't going to roll over (relatively) fragile pavement, but
rather on steel rail that can easily handle very heavy loads with minimal
wear. 


|> Even the overweight ADB's that we have today are about 27000 lbs. for 40'.
|> The LRT is 90000+ lbs for 88'.  Canadian buses are only about 23000 lbs.
|> for a 40' bus, and the 60' articulated coaches are about 35000 or 36000 lbs.

Comparing the weight per foot of road vs. rail equipment is rather
pointless: who cares why trains/boats/planes/cars/motorbikes/rockets
weigh so much/little per foot when compared with a bus?  Yeah, so there
are reasons, but what's the point?  Apples and oranges.


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov