It'll make you wonder why we want to spend $2 billion on it>

From an MIT collaborative study, Nov 1, 1999: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubman/pub/wholesys.pdf

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 31, 2000

Answers

Before I read any such lengthy report that calls itself "objective," I always first want to find out if the author is indeed such so that I don't waste my time reading a biased report that's wrongly labled.

Therefore, before I read the study I intened to find out more about the author than what is written in his bio. I'll also check out his credentials, the authenticity of his report, and why the report was commissioned in the first place (and who paid for it!).

Only then will I know if this report is worth reading. Wouldn't you do the same?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.

The conclusion that I got out of this report is that we should NOT look at a light rail solution, but should LOOK FOR IMPROVED BUS SERVICES. Is that what you are advocating?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.cpm), February 01, 2000.

to Questioning: But based on discussions I've had with Craig in the past, vanpooling is much more cost-effective than buses. I estimate that for a recurring capitalization cost of 50 million dollars (1999 dollars), you can mitigate congestion in the Puget Sound region by up to 100,000 cars. That's a lot of bang for the buck.

Of course, after 30-40 years, you will have spent billions of dollars with no roads to show for it. But you will also have avoided a lot of congestion while sticking it to the oil companies.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 01, 2000.

Questioning-

What I am looking for is for people to make FACT based judgements rather than emotion based judgements. I have already made it abundantly clear that I think we are over subsidizing transit. I believe that transit has a niche in which it can be reasonably cost- effective. Outside that niche, you get little bang for the buck. But within the types of transit, some are clearly more cost-effective than others. Light-rail is promoted with almost religious fervor, in part because it is a huge public works job that will (short term) provide lots of jobs. What this article indicates, and this is consistent with what I've found from other sources, is that there is little that light rail can do that can't be done more cost- effectively by buses, and that running a mixture of light rail and buses tends to make the whole system less efficient than running just buses. To that extent, I'd agree with your assessment.

"Therefore, before I read the study I intened to find out more about the author than what is written in his bio. I'll also check out his credentials, the authenticity of his report, and why the report was commissioned in the first place (and who paid for it!). " Got no problem with you digging up any FACTS. But regardless of this individuals credentials and motivations, if the report is well documented with FACTS that can be independently assessed, I believe it is worth reading. I frequently read opinions that I don't agree with, to be prepared to quickly come up with FACT based responses to what I believe are errors in their assessment. Sometimes I even find that they were right and I was wrong. If you are going to go with FACT based assessment and objectivity, you're going to be surprised by non-intuitive things sometimes. It's called having an open mind. You ought to try it some time, CS.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.

To Craig a.k.a. Ph.D. Basket Weaver:

You just couldn't let good enough alone, could you? Your arrogant streak surfaced again, and thus you made a few FACTual mistakes in your posting.

But I'm willing to let it slide this time, but only because I don't have time to meddle with it right now. (And as we've all learned by example from Tim Eyman: If you're going to meddle, you might as well meddle BIG!)

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.

"Your arrogant streak surfaced again, and thus you made a few FACTual mistakes in your posting. " Actually, it isn't arrogance it's vexation over people who use emotion in lieu of logic. It was YOU, I recall, who posted this "A study discussing the economic virtues of public transit can be found at http://www.apta.com/info/online/vary.pdf

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000 " Now this was an opinion piece paid for by the business members (read that, those who make money from)of APTA written by Cambridge Systematics.

From the preface to that very study: "This study by Cambridge Systematics was underwritten by the private sector Business Members of the American Public Transit Association, 1201 New York Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20005.

Now, Cambridge Systematics is a beltway bandit, a hired gun for those wanting more transit systems. Please see their websites:

Cambridge Systematics offers a full range of services related to passenger and commercial vehicle travel and goods movement. We have supported a variety of transportation planning projects at the state, regional, and local levels, and we are among the largest continuous providers of federal transportation, economic, and environmental research. Our work is conducted with a full understanding of the regulatory, institutional, economic, and financial environments in which our clients operate. http://www.camsys.com/

So I went and read YOUR article, noted that it was an opinion piece (anything that justifies current opinions expressed by referencing PREVIOUS opinions expressed by the same author, really warrants being called an opinion piece. What was YOUR response when I pointed out that this was less than a scholarly effort and that the authors had potential conflicts of interest?

This, as I recall(actually, I don't have to recall it, I can paste from your actual comments): "It seems you prefer to attack the messenger instead of debating the message. There you go again! "

To which I agreed to debate the message, and waited for days for you to post ONE of the alleged benefits to debate. If anyone wishes to INDEPENDENTLY verify this, they can go back to the thread: [The greater benefits of transit]

Now, having done PRECISELY yourself what you now accuse me of doing, posting a biased article, you OH SO SANCTIMONIOUSLY indicate you wouldn't think or reading one of my postings without further research to ensure that the author isn't biased.

So yes, I'm a little vexed. You clearly don't practice what you preach.

But if I've made a FACTUAL error, go ahead and post it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.

Craig-

I remember that exchange quite well. CS posted an article, you read and critiqued it. He WHINED that you had bad-mouthed the authors of his advocacy piece. You indicated YOUR willingness to debate any of the alleged "greater advantages" of transit. We waited. And waited. And waited. And neither you, me, Marsha, or anybody else could get him to defend his fluff piece. We taunted him, challenged him, finally just gave up.

Oh yes, he's a GREAT one to be talking about being discriminating in his postings.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.

From the Study;

Secondly, U.S. transit properties are behind in optimizing their bus networks. There has been a failure to examine innovative new ways to provide services in an industry which is tradition-bound. A focused effort is needed to design bus systems which provide better service and operate more efficiently.

Hmmmm.....Like demand response maybe? Or maybe a combination of traditional and demand response?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.

I think that demand response IS a better way of providing service to the truly transit dependent (mobility or vision impaired). Most of these people find a quarter mile trip to the bus stop very challenging. Serving them isn't cheap, but is IMHO a moral obligation.

I think that there are very few places where the population density is high enough to make transit competitive with the automobile for the non transit dependent population. For those situations where it is, great. But I wouldn't pay much to subsidize it for the non transit dependent. It ought to run at pretty near break even.

The actual merits of transit in terms of energy consumption per passenger mile, air pollution averted per passenger mile, and congestion averted are, in most cases quite modest. They are insufficient to deserve much of a public subsidy.

In terms of energy per passenger mile, transit actually uses more than autos.

If your desire is to decrease air pollution for instance, getting more restrictive standards for two-cycle engines (lawn mowers, chain saws, motorcycles, PWCs, etc.) will gain FAR more pollution averted than doubling transit, for a small fraction of the cost. Similarly, increased standards for non-mobile air pollution sources (the Chehalis coal burning plant) will do far more at far less expense than doubling or tripling transit use.

If people are going to justify subsidies for transit based upon these issues, they ought to be quantified and compared to alternative methods for getting the desired reductions or improvements. In almost every case, transit just doesn't help unless the population density is quite high.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.

Well I haven't had time to read through the entire report yet, but by just going over the conclusion his report sounds rather interesting. Basically, it sounds as if he is advocating a multi-modal system in which an EXPANDED and LOWER FARE (probably more subsidized) bus system and a complementary rail system (one that doesn't try to compete with the buses) can make for a very good transit system. He holds up the San Diego system in which both bus and rail services were improved, and as a result, the system and ridership both improved.

I do like this quote in the conclusion: "The fact that political or public support for rail may not be rational from an economist's point of view does not detract from the fact that support exists and that, in the end, the outcome for San Diego has been improved transit all round- including both rail and bus service improvements."

So basically it echos what I said a few weeks ago about how citing all sorts of fiscal figures on how non-economical transit is basically ineffective in trying to convince people why we shouldn't continue to fund, and even increase funding for transit.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.

" He holds up the San Diego system in which both bus and rail services were improved, and as a result, the system and ridership both improved."

Actually, San Diego is far and away the best (and an outlier) in the light rail experience. What really makes it much more effective is the amusement ride function of the trip to the border. In that respect, San Diego is exceptional. Because of the tourist trade, the reluctance to take vehicles into Mexico for both insurance purposes and fear of theft/vandalism, the light rail has a built-in niche that others don't have. And that's why it truly is an outlier.

But aside from picking the one thing out this article that seemed to support light rail, what is your opinion of the many places where it demonstrated that light rail tended to weaken the transit system as a whole by taking over the most efficient routes, and then running low efficiency feeder routes to attempt to buttress low light rail ridership? Basically, what did you think of the paper as a WHOLE rather than just choosing the best light rail and wishing the others were like it?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 02, 2000.

Let's not forget the thousands of sailors without wheels who utilize it!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

Yeah Marsha, and they use the light rail to get to it too :-).

Best deal since Mt. Pinatubo shut down the Fire Empire.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

"So basically it echos what I said a few weeks ago about how citing all sorts of fiscal figures on how non-economical transit is basically ineffective in trying to convince people why we shouldn't continue to fund, and even increase funding for transit."

Anyone who would believe this would believe that funding public schools is a waste of time and money, because some people will remain ignorant regardless. What a nihilistic attitude.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

What is Nihilism?

n. 1.a) the denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth b) the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, etc. 2. the belief that there is no meaning or purpose in existence Webster's New World Dictionary

For those of our readers who have trouble using dictionaries. But we won't name names, will we Methane breath?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

"Basically, what did you think of the paper as a WHOLE rather than just choosing the best light rail and wishing the others were like it?"

Uh, well, pretty much that there are right ways to build a rail/bus system and there are wrong ways. That seems to be pretty much the point of the study. A review of various systems, and a critique of why they did or didn't meet their goals. A logical next step is to determine what particual items San Diego does differently compared to the other systems, and see if they can be duplicated. This would be pretty helpful in the design of the Sound Transit system.

You do have evidence to back up your claim that the SD system can attribute its success to its proximity to the Mexican border right?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 02, 2000.

You do have evidence to back up your claim that the SD system can attribute its success to its proximity to the Mexican border right? 

Other than the conclusions of the author of this article, the conclusions of several other transit authorities, the fact that this run has some of the highest load factors for the whole system, the fact that they promote this run for this purpose on their own website (see below), the fact that all the tourist brochures and the Navys Morale, Welfare, and Recreation people advise you this is the best way to get to the border, and the fact that my insurance company (USAA) strongly recommends it in lieu of getting Mexican auto insurance for a day in Tiajuana, no, I really dont have much hard data. Has YOUR research come to a different conclusion?

[The San Diego Trolley is known for its reliability, safety, and convenience. Often called San Diego's "moving landmark", the Trolley is also a fun way to get around, whether commuting to work, traveling to the International Border, or heading to Centre City's shopping, restaurants, harbor and historic attractions. http://www.sdcommute.com/sdmts/trolleypage.htm]

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 03, 2000.

The Trolley is quite convenient for a night out on the town involving alcohol consumtion.... runs right by the Navy Lodge to some great Pubs downtown! Yes, even Marsha rode it.

The Trolley also runs right past 32nd Street Naval Station, (you know, where they park all the "Ships") and is near to the Barracks, Commissary and Navy Exchange. One of the largest concentrations of active duty personnel in the country are located within walking distance of the Trolley.

So I guess light rail might be a wise investment as long as you have the right "demographics."

de7mo7graph7ics Pronunciation: -fiks Function: noun plural Date: circa 1966 The statistical characteristics of human populations (as age or income) used especially to identify markets. From Merriam-Webster.

Patrick states, "A logical next step is to determine what particual (particular?) items San Diego does differently compared to the other systems, and see if they can be duplicated."

Gee, Patrick, it would seem they had the right "demographics." Unless you want to dictate where the Military can locate bases (next to light rail) you won't be able to duplicate it.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

And this is typical of the kind of niche market where transit can be highly effective. When a carrier task force hits town for liberty, you have between five and ten (depending on screening and support vessels) thousand young (predominately) men without vehicles. If they haven't seen the bars (and fleshpots) of Tijuana, they are highly likely to want to see them. And it works out great for everyone, because you don't want them driving there and you SURE don't want them driving back to the ship.

Now in fairness, they usually DO put light-rail where they have the best demographics in the urban area. Unfortunately, as this report (and others) demonstrates, that area was previously the most cost- effective area for your bus transit, too. Much of the ridership consists of former bus riders, now riding rail, with little net gain in new ridership. And by replacing the most cost-effective bus service, you decrease the cost-effectiveness of the bus transit system as a whole. Also, since you can't afford to put a light rail stop at every corner (Seattle is planning for about one per mile), you wind up having to run extremely non cost-effective feeder lines, just to feed the light rail.

All this is reality. It has occurred time and time again. And this actual reality, not theoretical carrying capacity, needs to be the deciding factor in the business case assessment for when light rail is likely to be cost-effective.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 03, 2000.

HereUs another excellent paper about this topic.

Vast sums have been spent on the wrong transportation projects (usually rail) administered by politicized (and often unionized) monopolies. The disappointing results from several new heavy-rail projects (Los AngelesUs $5 billion 16-mile subway project, among others) have led rail boosters to emphasize light rail. Responding to the poor record of recently installed rail transit facilities, advocates of rail projects now promote "transit-oriented development" (TOD), a key element of smart growth, as a way to create development densities around train stations in order to ensure adequate patronage. In support of that idea, some studies have found slightly higher transit use by people living in densely developed areas near stations. From this it is inferred that forcing high-density development will generate greater transit use. Yet the obvious logical fallacy is ignored: even if there are some people willing to trade low density for transit access, it does not follow that others, somehow compelled to live at higher densities, will choose the same tradeoff. 5 9 A wide-spread and powerful preference for personal mobility cannot be so easily dismissed.

"Although empirical evidence on the relationship between residential density and various aspects of travel behavior has been widely reported," observes economist Don Pickrell of the U.S. Department of Transportation, "surprisingly little of it with-stands scrutiny. . . . None of these results explicitly recognizes the critical influence of differences in income, household size, gasoline prices, and automobile taxation." The consensus of economists who have studied the issue, reports Pickrell, is that "relationships between land use characteristicsQsuch as residential and employment density, mixing of different uses, and the relative distribution of employment and populationQand measures of urban travel demand are generally empirically weak and often statistically unreliable."61 While there are negligible differences in automobile trips per capita in TOD areas compared with those in non-TOD areas, there are many more people in the TOD areas. The higher density of people in those locations causes traffic conditions to worsen. After controlling for income and other household variables, studies find that a doubling of densities would decrease VMT per household by 10 percentQbut with twice as many households, there would be many more trips. Other cross-sectional studies corroborate the observation that high development densities are associated with high congestion.63 That helps explain why higher-density areas generally have the worst air pollution. 6 4 Finally, the steepest losses in transit ridership in recent years have been in transitUs strongest markets, the 10 U.S. cities with considerable rail transit capacity and relatively strong and high-density employment centers. 6 5 It seems that the availability of mass transit options just wonUt get people out of their cars.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa365.pdf

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 04, 2000.

And Al Gore has a good chance of being elected President and carrying out his "New Urbanist" policies on a much larger Federal scale.

Is it time to bring the Presidential Election up for discussion?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 04, 2000.

Well CS.....?

Ever going to READ the article, or are you still doing DNA testing on the author?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 11, 2000.