Martin Edwards wrote:
Martin Rich wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:42:03 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


Your irrationality is that you think all the passengers get out of
their cars to use the LA rail system. Transportation people,
especially in LA have found that people are not getting out of their
cars to ride rail transit.

Instead they find that a very high percentage of the people are
already using transit and just switch to other transit systems when
they open because of an advantage in getting to work cheaper, faster,
better than the transit system they were using. So building new
transit systems tends to not decrease car traffic.


Wading into this late but still...

The statement above presupposes that the only measure of success of
public transport investment is whether it gets people to switch out of
their cars. In practice, in a place where cars account for quite a
small minority of travel (such as Inner London) investing so that
people switch from one mode of public transport to another cheaper,
faster mode, sounds a good deal, especially if it results in
alleviating congestion. As I understand it, a lot of the cost-benefit
analysis for transport investment in London, going right back to the
Victoria Line in the 1960s, recognises this, though I'm very happy to
be corrected on the specific point.

In the same way, the Midland Metro has not reduced car use,

Croydon Tramlink has....

but it goes
through a lot of low income neighbourhoods, giving more journey
opportunities to poor people. Both the Duke of Wellington and many
stateside wingnuuts are agains this, of course.


.... though travelling on it last week, I began to have some sympathy for
the late Duke's point of view!


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK