are you in the charleston area? while a public forum may be a good idea, a case for commuter rail could not be made in a brief time.. the important issues could not be addressed so quickly that would attract great interest for additional consideration.. yes, rail is very expensive; i estimate it could cost up to $300 M over 20 years.. what is the alternative? total gridlock? there is more negativity in NOT instituting a rail line than starting one.. consider the economic impact: gridlocks not only discourage commuters, but will turn new companies away from locating here, if they see little progress in traffic flow.. tourists will turn away if they cannot move about freely between tourist stops and their hotels.. retirees will not locate here if they see difficulty in traveling between their homes and dr. offices, hospitals, ers and other facilities.. people traveling between other locations who are just "passing thru" will not report good impressions of our region if they are delayed in making highway contact with interchanges, etc. to travel beyond charleston; this can escalate into further negative reports in travel magazines, booking agents and comments on internet traveler sites.. as to commuter rail falling out of favor, i disagree.. where the population increases, and the resources are overwhelmed for street travel (car, bus, taxi, limo), there are predictable outcomes in traffic congestion.. this will expand into traveler dissatisfaction and complaints to transit authorities and govt. agencies.. delays in response by fire, police, ems and other emergency traffic will result in extensive damage to property and loss of life due to the delay in reaching the location where help is needed.. in charleston, ems has complained that "calming bumps" (speed bumps) which might cause serious injury to those being transported in ambulances; also, slowing down to negotiate speed bumps might cost lives, as they cannot move at a necessary speed to arrive before the injured die or suffer exacerbating wounds which are beyond the ems crew of saving or getting the injured to an er.. since the 60s, commuter rail has expanded into many major cities: atlanta, chicago, los angeles, seattle, san diego.. there may be differences between these systems: some may be more "l-r" than "c-r".. it doesnt matter what the designation is.. street rail is becoming more a more advantageous option, even if only in areas with large populations, whether due to congestion or other issues..
although not "commuter rail", subway lines in los angeles and new york have opened.. if authorities were not encouraged by the prospect of success in ridership, would these lines have been built or completed? although not "commuter rail", there has begun a movement to further enhance "acela" high-speed rail service between its current stations.. the plan is to secure rail trackage and restrict usage only to high-speed passenger traffic.. as for charleston, carta has begun to add express buses to stop only at suburb points.. i-26 will have a "bus-only" lane to expedite movements for carta.. this will show some improvement in the short-term, but cannot sustain an advantage over time.. the need for traffic improvement in charleston will not be alleviated by merely adding buses.. there could be buses lined up from charleston to summerville, and it wouldnt help.. "economy of scale" does not function in this scenario.. more buses mean more traffic, regardless of a restricted lane; more buses mean more drivers, more vehicles to be maintained, more room needed for storage and repair.. the only way the concept can be achieved is by commuter rail.. buses carry approx. 40 riders; rail cars carry 80 riders.. ten commuter cars can carry riders that would fill 20 buses.. adding rail cars to handle more riders would be much cheaper than adding buses, which require more drivers, more cost, more maintenance.. commuter rail can easily schedule more frequent trains at less cost.. commuter rail can reduce highway by a significant margin, as opposed to buses, which add more vehicles at a slower rate..
commuter riders will avoid highway congestion.. while highway traffic may be blocked by more vehicles, accidents, construction, etc., commuter riders will move along on schedule, arriving at their on-time destinations and absent the stress of sitting in highway traffic, wondering if they will arrive home in time for dinner.. yes, the costs in funding and time are significant, but what is the cost of doing nothing, or allowing short-term improvements? in 20 years, what will charleston be like without commuter rail? will it be supported by buses? buses have flexibility in routing, but they cannot match commuter rail in rider capacity and cost-per-mile, when considering hundreds and thousands of riders.. while govt. agencies are known to be reluctant in asking for more money, riders who must cope with gridlock on a daily basis, as just a part of their lives, would not be reluctant in demanding solutions that will reduce traffic and bring them home on-time.. consider a worker in charleston who has driven his car and parked it in a city garage.. during his workday, he hears of a traffic accident blocking all lanes of his route homeward.. no telling when the lanes will be cleared.. what can he do? if he drives home on a route served by a commuter rail line, the solution is simple.. he takes a taxi (or bus) to the commuter rail station.. he boards the train and arrives home on-time (needing a bus connection, or taxi, or being met by his family), possibly earlier than what would be expected if traveling by car.. the car is safely parked in a garage.. the next workday, he returns to the commuter rail station, travels to town, takes a short ride to work.. at some point he might ask a city garage employee to verify the safety of his car for the next time he needs it.. and there you are.. this is a benefit of commuter rail: moving people to/from work faster, safer, more efficiently and at much lower stress than anything that could be used on a highway..
after wwii, the "big 3" automakers actually bought up "traction companies" and disbanded them to encourage people to buy cars after the war.. automakers made no profit in helping to win the war.. they needed make up their losses fast and soon.. this was a way (although not favored by people like me, who have always adored anything that moves on rails) to make money, put people back to work and satisfy the public's need to forget the war by buying something that moves fast and is available in a variety of colors.. that was the solution that worked then; not-so-much now.. today, charleston is in the midst of exponential growth: the economy is accelerating, tourism is growing, companies are moving into the "tri-county" area at the rate of several each month, resulting in hundreds of families relocating each month.. people need homes, schools, shopping centers, etc.. but, what do they need most of all? roads, especially to/from work.. but, if the roads are at near capacity 5 hours each day, what then? where do you go when the roads are filled, when accidents block all the lanes, when construction improvements never end because there is no catching up to something that outpaces your community's ability to absorb it? what is the solution then? more highway lanes? more buses? really?
yes, i will attend a board meeting and bring copies of my posts.. i hope to post positive results, even if minimal..