Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
My 2030 Projections based on future development around lines and extensions...
1. Boston - 233,300 > 290,000 (2030)
2. San Francisco - 162,400 > 215,000 (2030)
3. Los Angeles - 154,500 > 630,000 (2030)
4. Portland - 126,500 > 175,000 (2030)
5. Philadelphia - 110,100 > 190,000 (2030)
6. San Diego - 103,400 (150,000 (2030)
7. Dallas - 83,400 > 110,000 (2030)
8. Denver - 66,800 > 132,000 (2030)
9. Newark - 65,000 * > 205,000 (2030)
10. Salt Lake City - 59,100 > 102,000 (2030)
11. St. Louis - 52,300 > 147,000 (2030)
12. Phoenix - 41,300 > 115,000 (2030)
13. Houston - 36,100 > 147,000 (2030)
14. San Jose - 32,900 > 72,000 (2030)
15. Minneapolis - 30,300 > 139,000 (2030)
16. Seattle - 27,800 > 163,000 (2030)
17. Baltimore - 27,200 > 87,000 (2030)
18. Buffalo - 24,500 > 45,000 (2030)
19. Pittsburgh - 24,200 > 125,000 (2030)
20. New Orleans - 19,700 > 25,000 (2030)
|
This projection is, of course, linear in the sense of users per kilometer of track.
Widely differing scenarios are possible which would, IMO, affect the estimation. For example,
A) let's we experience a real increase in income which might effectively finance a fast upgrade of the electric power grid and a real decrease in the price of an electric/hybrid/diesel car. The figures might drop,
I do not happen to believe this possibility is likely- so I'll give it a 10% chance of materializing.
Then we have 3 scenarios-
B) Constant real income of the upper 70% over 18 or 20 years. In this case, IMO, the increase in usage will reflect a constant slope. To calculate, take the increase in the rate of riders per kilometer of right-of-way between 2000-2010 and expand that rate of increase- say 3% per year, as an example- between 2010 and 2030. I have some confidence in this scenario, so I'll give it a 20% chance (in order for this growth to occurr, the economy has to grow, real GNP, equal to the increase in population. User ridership would double in about 24 years, so, take the base line figures and multiply them by 1.8 or so. IMO, the odds of this scenario might be 20%
This figure jives rather well with projected light rail usage in cities like #20 Buffalo, where the projected figures likely do not include additional lines.
C) No growth in the GNP between now and 2030 (not in inflated dollars but in accurately computed real dollars) The economy, bottom line, would stay where it is now while the population would grow 15-20%. In this scenario, increased cost of transportation as a proportion of income will rise significantly, as for many, lower transportation costs is easier than, say, reducing food costs. IMO, the rate of increase in per kilometer passengers would itself increase, at a rate faster than the rate of the increase of the population. However, at this level, a significant majority would still be able to use private automobiles on a daily basis, so the rate of passenger/kilometer increase might be say 5% per year. Using the '72' rule, 5% doubles every 14.4years.
Look at #18, Buffalo, NY. I suspect the calculations presented are assuming no new lines. 27K>45K. A 5% growth rate over 20 years would push the 45K figure to about 61K.
The problem, of course, is that metro-areas, as they have since the 1800s, will grow at differing rates, and, have different sets of median income that can be spent on population. Dallas, #7 on the chart, particularly stands out.
Dallas is has had the fastest growth in population of the all the major metro areas in the US (top 10). Looking at Dallas in 2030, what income levels will various percentiles have to spend on auto transportation? IMO, the decline in income of the bottom 70% of the population of Dallas will be significantly greater than Washington DC or New York, and the rate of increase of light rail per kilometer will likely increase at 50-75%% faster than the model average of 5% per year. Say 9%.
Using the 72 rule again, usage will double per kilometer every 8 years, and, quadruple in 16 years. Excluding the yet to built lines, then, by 2028, Dallas light rail might 325,000 to 330,000 or so riders per day.
I put the odds of this scenario at 60%
D) A real decline of our true GNP of 5-10% between now and 2030. I think that this is very possible. In this model, the US population would grow from 315meg to somewhere between 360 million and 375 million, while our per capita income would drop between 15% and 20%.
Public transportation would a national priority. Public transportation of all kinds would be flooded by new riders. Looking at Dallas, again, this growth on per kilometer riders (not including new lines) might really grow: say to an average growth rate of 10% spread over 20 years. Using the 72 rule, again, the riders per kilometer would increase 7 or 8 times, say 580k to 660K per day.
I put odds at this at 10%
My point is that these figures discussed above, reflect assumptions based on economic projections that are no longer valid. Call them "Old School", where public transportation is a small player in most metropolitan areas, carrying 3-7 or 8% of the transportation trips.
The new reality, while, of course, at best is seen "through a glass darkly", reflects a South and Southeast Asia whose net growth will continue, a vibrant Brazil, and a wealthy resource dominant Russia. Wealth will continue to accumulate in the petro-rich states.
We will be wrestling with vast amounts of worthless dollars, or will have taken a severe downward adjustment to mark to market. But, people will still have to work, if only to work for food, heat, and, very rudimentary shelter.
This type of thinking must, IMO, reflect light rail, commuter line, bus line, etc., in a probabilitic fashion: as I have said many times here before, plan for over use (which has not been done in US steel rail since the Pennsylvania Railroad electricfied the New York to Washington corridor in the 1930s.)
Prev
Linear Mode
