Commuters should reject the 4 percent red herring

by Greg Nickels Special to The Times Mark Twain once said, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics." Statistics can be true but misleading. A perfect example is an often-used sound bite claiming "transit serves only 4 percent of trips." It's true, but in a broad-brush sort of way. It's also true that transit provides up to 40 percent of all trips during our region's morning and afternoon commute hours - rated as the worst traffic congestion in the nation.

How can they both be true?

The "4-percent" sound bite is like cotton candy, tempting and quick but totally lacking in substance. However, finding solutions to traffic congestion is a much more complex and meaty issue that takes a bit more time to digest.

First, the 4-percent statistic counts every conceivable trip - 24 hours a day, nationwide - including all personal and recreational trips plus all business trips (meetings, delivery, service, etc.). For example, going from home to day care counts as one trip, day care to the store a second, store to the dry cleaner a third and back home a fourth. Likewise, every start and stop of a delivery truck or visit from a businessperson all count as single trips.

Second, it counts trips in neighborhoods and communities without transit service! In areas where transit isn't available - Omak, for example - personal vehicles are used 100 percent of the time, and without the proper context one could conclude that transit is a complete failure.

To honestly measure the value of transit, you examine the peak morning and afternoon commute hours - when traffic congestion is at its worst - and count only where a person has a choice between using transit and a personal vehicle.

Given a choice, commuters in our region choose transit for nearly four out of 10 trips. This statistic easily passes the common-sense test.

Look how full the park-and-ride lots are right now and imagine if all of those cars, SUVs and trucks were on the road. If all 60 riders on a single bus drove instead, they would add a line of vehicles three blocks long to our already congested roads. Now consider if every transit rider in our region drove alone, they would create a bumper-to-bumper line of vehicles 700 miles long - enough to fill every lane of I-5 and I-90 in the three-county Sound Transit district.

Clearly, without transit we would have gridlock every day.

To help keep our region moving forward, voter-approved Sound Transit is on track and on budget delivering new transportation options for traffic-congestion-weary commuters.

Last fall, Sound Transit introduced nine new, limited-stop ST Express bus routes - ahead of schedule and under budget - with even more routes and service to come in the years ahead. When all routes are up and running, ST Express will carry at least 300,000 riders every week, more people than the entire population of Tacoma and Bellevue combined.

This fall, Sounder commuter rail service will begin giving commuters from Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and Seattle a new and exciting way to get around Puget Sound, with service to Everett, Edmonds, Mukilteo and Lakewood by 2002. At full service, Sounder's 82-mile route from Everett to Lakewood can carry 34,000 peak-hour riders - capacity equal to three freeway lanes.

The all-electric Link light-rail system will carry at least 105,000 riders a day - equal to a 12-lane freeway - and do it pollution-free. Tacoma will be making state history in 2002 by introducing the first Link light-rail line, and by 2006 the 21-mile system connecting SeaTac, Tukwila and Seattle will be up and running, possibly going an additional three miles to the Northgate Transit Center if additional funding is secured.

Without a doubt, our transit partners - Community Transit, Everett Transit, King County Metro, Pierce Transit, Washington state ferries and Amtrak - have done a great job for the people and communities in central Puget Sound. Sound Transit is moving forward, working hard to help make our quality of life even better.

King County Councilman Greg Nickels is vice-chair of the Sound Transit Board.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 11, 2000

Answers

Gee simultaneous postings. See my comments on the other thread.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 11, 2000.

Patrick...Please do NOT say that we don't have transit in Omak. We are about to be injected with a shot of transit, at your expense.Okanogan County Transit Authority tried to push a transit system in this county in 1997, it was voted down with a 67.5% no vote. So,, they just applied for and were awarded a Rural Mobility Grant from MEVT. The system is due to roll in March of this year.

I intend to keep this forum informed on the latest and surely one of the better examples of government inefficiency.

And this will be done with your MVET that could be put to better use on the westside.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), February 12, 2000.

to Patrick: You know it's interesting, because Craig always blathers that "it's a demand problem". But if there's a lack of demand, why are all the Park'N'Rides full???

In fact, when I recently communicated with my representative via e- mail, I said the number one issue for me is transportation, and the most bang for the buck is to build new Park'N'Ride facilities, which by the way is the one area where the gasoline tax can actually be used to facilitate ridesharing on our roads. It is against the state constitution to use the gas tax to reduce congestion on our roads, unless it benefits the asphalt industry!!! That must be music to the ears of the oil industry.

There have been times when riders in my vanpool have been unable to find parking spaces at the Park'N'Ride. And this is at 5 AM!!! Must be a demand problem. Couldn't be a CAPACITY problem, could it????

I was a little surprised by your posting, though. You claim that the Sound Transit express buses will carry 300,000 passengers a week, when the system is fully set up. A value of 300,000 seems unusually large. Say a bus carries 100 people, and it makes three runs during commute hours, that would require 1000 buses. I'm thinking right now, they're probably not even close to 100 buses. Maybe more like 50.

Anyway, I agree with you that without society's commitment to subsidize ridesharing, the congestion on I-5 from Pierce County to King County would be much, much worse.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 13, 2000.

" But if there's a lack of demand, why are all the Park'N'Rides full"

Didn't say there wasn't a demand for parking. And I didn't say that there aren't niches where transit works. Buy heavily subsidizing (ie, FREE) parking, you can modestly increase the niche market for transit. But currently we are paying up to $30,000 per stall (Mercer Island parking garage) acquisition cost plus maintenance for park n rides, so the extent to which we can expand this practice is limited. Also, since 80% of auto pollution is caused from the cold start, it doesn't really please the environmentalists who believe transit ought to be a solution to air pollution as well. Also doesn't make the anti-sprawl people happy, because it facilitates sprawl.

But there will be people for whom this niche is appropriate. You'd be wrong to think that will be a lot of people though.

Out of curiosity, I thought the driver of the van was supposed to pick up the riders with the van, so that use of their cars wouldn't be necessary. If they need cars AND a subsidized park n ride AND a subsidized van to make them use a vanpool, that's asking for an awful big subsidy from the rest o

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 13, 2000.

Patrick-

"The all-electric Link light-rail system will carry at least 105,000 riders a day - equal to a 12-lane freeway - and do it pollution-free. Tacoma will be making state history in 2002 by introducing the first Link light-rail line, and by 2006 the 21-mile system connecting SeaTac, Tukwila and Seattle will be up and running, possibly going an additional three miles to the Northgate Transit Center if additional funding is secured."

Sorry guys, but the reality is nothing like that. The reality is this:

New US Light Rail Volumes Compared to Freeway and Arterial Lanes

It is often claimed that a single light rail line can carry the same volume as up to six freeway lanes. While this is theoretically true, new US light rail lines do not achieve volumes that remotely approach such a level (Figures #1 & #2). (1)

* On average new US light rail lines carry 80 percent less volume than a single freeway lane couplet (2 lanes of freeway, one operating in each direction).

* St. Louis has the highest light rail volume compared to a freeway lane couplet (66 percent below). San Diego follows closely at 69 percent below

* Portland's MAX carries 81 percent less than a single freeway lane couplet.

* San Jose has the lowest light rail volume at 91 percent less than a freeway lane couplet.

Light rail volumes are also lower than the average two way arterial (major surface street) lane couplet (Figure #3).

* On average new US light rail lines carry 50 percent less volume than a single arterial lane couplet (2 lanes, one operating in each direction).

* San Diego has the highest light rail volume compared to an arterial lane couplet (eight percent below). St. Louis follows at 26 percent below.

* Portland's MAX carries 50 percent less volume than a single arterial lane couplet.

* San Jose has the lowest light rail volume, at 77 percent below an arterial lane couplet.

Try these, they will give you a little bit better perspective.

http://www.gt-wa.com/RTA/rethink.htm http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-sea-6lanes.htm http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-fwy&lrt.htm http://www.CascadePolicy.org/transit/cunneen.htm http://www.CascadePolicy.org/transit/paveover.htm http://www.CascadePolicy.org/transit/literail.htm

The problem remains a demand problem, not a supply problem, made worse by the geometric realities of logistics. To get people on the light rail, you need to get them within WALKING DISTANCE of the station. Walking distance is (according to the USDOT studies) one-quarter mile in good weather (something that the Northwest is not blessed with in abundance) assuming no heavy loads (nothing heavier than a backpack or briefcase) and also assuming there are no rug-rats in tow, and no desire to hit the grocery store on the way to or from work. So IF ALL THESE THINGS ARE GOING YOUR WAY, you pull from and serve a geographic area of (1/4mile)^2*pi for each of the stations, so for 20 stations you are serving LESS THAN FOUR SQUARE MILES with light rail. Now it is just possible that we can build BIG PARK N RIDES at each end of the line (UW and SEA-TAC? Right!) But then it isnUt "pollution-free" because 80% of car pollution comes from the cold-start. Not that it was pollution free anyway, since we are burning fossil fuel to get the electricity, with attendant inefficiencies and line losses.

Go dig up some FACTS about light-rail systems. Foget the propaganda.

th

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 13, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Buy heavily subsidizing (ie, FREE) parking, you can modestly increase the niche market for transit."

MODESTLY increase....!!!! Once again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Without parking facilities, it is very difficult for people to rideshare. So, Park'N'Rides don't have a MODEST impact, they have a HUGE impact. And, you're being disingenuous when you say there's a demand for PARKING but not RIDESHARING. Why are people parking at the Park'N'Ride????

Now, I'm not advocating unlimited subsidies for ridesharing. And, I can appreciate your desire to limit such subsidies.

As to your misconception that vanpools pick up people at their front door, vanpools stop wherever is convenient: Park'n'Rides, shopping centers, church parking lots, etc. But I know of no vanpools that actually pick up ALL of its members at home.

And, as for your drivel about "cold starts", ridehsaring mitigates congestion, which implies less air pollution. Perhaps the reduction in pollution isn't as great as many of us thought, but it's still a REDUCTION!!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 14, 2000.

"Why are people parking at the Park'N'Ride???? " To PARK would be my guess, and then to ride. Hence the name.

"And, as for your drivel about "cold starts", " Not my "drivel". The environmentalists "drivel." It is a simple fact that most automobile engines are most polluting at their initial start. If one is going to tout transit (or HOVs) as a tool to decrease air pollution (as is certainly being done by transit and HOV advocates) the fact that driving a car to the parking ride creates 80% of the pollution that driving it to work does would seem a relevant issue in my mind. Don't you agree? What it would imply is that a van pool of ten people who DRIVE to the park n ride (or church lot or supermarket lot or wherever) would really pollute about as much as seven or eight SOV drivers. That would imply that,from an air pollution standpoint, we'd be better off inducing two or three people who are currently driving to walk to the bus than we would forming a new vanpool. Since we are paying up to $30,000 per stall for new park n ride capacity, it would seem relevant to know just how much air pollution avoidance we are getting for resources expended. It might be cheaper to just give everybody electric lawn mowers. You can buy one heck of a lot of electric lawn mowers for $30,000.

Why don't you think that this would be relevant to this issue?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 14, 2000.

to Craig: You're missing the point about the reduction in air pollution due to the MITIGATION of congestion. Yes, it may be true that the people who rideshare are, by themselves, not necessarily significantly reducing air pollution. But, when you factor the mitigation of congestion due to ridesharing, now you are reducing air pollution due to other vehicles on the road.

In other words, if ridesharing reduces EVERYONE's commute time by ten minutes, then you've cut down on ten minutes worth of exhaust due to thousands (if not tens of thousands) of automobiles.

You are being deliberately disingenuous when you say there is a demand for parking but not ridesharing.

Ridesharing provides the potential for TIMELY MITIGATION OF CONGESTION. Any reduction of air pollution is gravy. Pollution due to "cold starts" is going to exist whether or not there is ridesharing.

If you do not believe the benefits of ridesharing are worth the price, then I respect your point of view. There's no need to resort to deception or misleading statements in order to advocate a privitization of transit and/or parking.

Without Park'n'Rides, you will significantly harm ridesharing.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 15, 2000.

"Ridesharing provides the potential for TIMELY MITIGATION OF CONGESTION" Ride-sharing has a niche, albeit a small one. When you are having to build 9 park n ride stalls (at as much as $30,000 apiece in Mercer Island) to make one vanpool work, my guess is that we've expanded it about as far as economically reasonable.

Nothing disengenuous about that, just basic economics.

And if you look at the demographics, ridesharing has DECLINING mode share for the same reason that transit as a whole does. It's the demographics.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.

Report from Olympia (http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/tran151.shtml)

TRANSIT: All parties agree that they need to do something about transit, at least in the short term, but how much is still open to debate. Locke proposed a one-time only expenditure of $100 million from the state surplus to help transit through the end of next year, while Rep. Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, co-chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said she expects to propose between $50 and $100 million to help transit in the short-term. Republicans, arguing that highways should be the top priority since they move the most people, are likely to insist on less. The future of transit remains unclear. Among the proposals is giving transit districts a menu of local-option taxes to support support their service. Imposing those taxes would require voter approval. The Legislature, however, is likely to leave the issue of local option taxes for the next session.

My assessment: Politics collides with economic reality. If the money goes to the high expense/low cost-effectiveness suburban routes, inner city transit will be severely impacted. If it goes to maintain service in the high density areas, where it makes the most economic sense, the political consensus that transit does something for me will be lost in the Eastside and South King County areas where the commute transit mode share is only 2-3% anyway. Metro will find itself ceasing to be a regional organization, and becoming pretty much an urban agency. That will make it more and more difficult to pass such things as dedicated sales taxes.

Metro will be hard pressed to avoid a death spiral of less money, less service, fewer riders, less money, ...........

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.

But Craig, any information you received from "Public Purpose" IS propaganda!

Haven't you heard? Public Purpose is a lobbyist think-tank funded in part by GM, Ford, and others within the auto industry. I thought that was common knowledge.

-- Automania (auto@yahoo.com), February 15, 2000.

"Haven't you heard? Public Purpose is a lobbyist think-tank funded in part by GM, Ford, and others within the auto industry. I thought that was common knowledge. "

Got some DOCUMENTATION of this "automania" or is this just a drive-by ad hominem attack, under cover of a new nom de plume?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.

Oh, and as long as we are at it, do you care to do an ad hominem attack on one of the OTHER references? What you got against this one: http://www.gt-wa.com/RTA/rethink.htm

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Metro will find itself ceasing to be a regional organization, and becoming pretty much an urban agency. That will make it more and more difficult to pass such things as dedicated sales taxes."

With the advent of Sound Transit, it does seem redundant for Metro to be a regional organization.

I would expect Metro to morph itself into Seattle Transit, and any dedicated sales taxes would be voted on by Seattleites, only. They'd make out like "bandits", as sales-tax paying tourists are more likely to be visiting Seattle rather than South King County or the Eastside. Although, I do recall briefly traveling on I-405 to visit Jimi Hendrix's grave. But, really, I spent no money in Renton. Never have and probaly never will.

South King County and the Eastside will now be served by Sound Transit. Remember, it's the demographics, and Sound Transit has high ridership. Don't forget all the Park'n'Rides that are full. It's a capacity problem. The demand is there.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.

"Sound Transit has high ridership" ?????????

Enlighten me as to how many people you believe are currently traveling on Sound Transit.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.

to Craig: Since I've always been very lucky, and I'm usually right, even when I have no idea of what I'm talking about, I'd venture to guess Sound Transit moves around 1000-2000 people per hour, utilizing anywhere from 25 to 50 buses.

I don't have time to thoroughly research it. But I'll see if can point you to some official-looking websites and wow the masses.

Whenever I see a Sound Transit bus traveling in the rush hour direction, it appears to be quite full.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.

"to Craig: Since I've always been very lucky, and I'm usually right, even when I have no idea of what I'm talking about, I'd venture to guess Sound Transit moves around 1000-2000 people per hour, utilizing anywhere from 25 to 50 buses. I don't have time to thoroughly research it. But I'll see if can point you to some official-looking websites and wow the masses.

Whenever I see a Sound Transit bus traveling in the rush hour direction, it appears to be quite full. "

Would it change your opinion on anything if you had FACTS that were contrary to your guesses. If not, it isn't worth the time for me to research this. If it would, I'll look.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.

"to Craig: Since I've always been very lucky, and I'm usually right, even when I have no idea of what I'm talking about, "

Don't get mad, Craig. This just goes along with the narcississtic personality disorder. He really means this, he's not just trying to yank your chain.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

From the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, AND PSYCHOTHERAPY (IJPPP)

People who think only about themselves, and do things that totally disregard the interests of others . . . such people are narcissists . . .

http://www.psycom.net/marcelo.html

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

Marsha-

He's already been diagnosed.

DSM-IV 301.81, narcissistic personality disorder. He meets seven (arguably eight) of the criteria, just from his postings, and five (or more) establish the diagnosis. It was on a different thread, but I can give you a reference for the criteria if you want. It's not serious like a psychosis or anything (and no, he doesn't have multiple personality disorder as someone recently implied).

But that's just my PROFESSIONAL opinion.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

Zowie,

Seriously though. If HOV lanes were converted to general use lanes, and Matthew got stuck in congestion, could his "condition" turn into a horrible case of road rage? Is it possible he could be a danger to himself or others?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

Marsha- Typically no. Most really won't work themselves into a rage. Their egos are more suited to assume the mantle of martyr, and WHINE incessantly when they don't get their way, lamenting that the are surrounded by people to ignorant to benefit from their wisdon and sterling example. They KNOW they are superior, and don't really feel obliged to prove it to anyone else because, frankly there are very few people whose opinions they value as much as their own.

They're pretty harmless. Obnoxious, of course, but harmless unless you have to be around them. They can drive other's to do crazy things, and of course they are very inconsiderate drivers. They are likely, for example, to cut in and out of traffic and believe special privileges are their due. Just for example.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Would it change your opinion on anything if you had FACTS that were contrary to your guesses. If not, it isn't worth the time for me to research this. If it would, I'll look."

The answer is, yes. My opinions are constantly changing, based upon new information I acquire over time.

For example, I did not previously know I had a narcissistic personality disorder.

I believe Tim Eyman's Traffic Initiative is going to have a tough time passing because people see all of the FULL Park'n'Rides. And, unlike you, people understand that the parked cars imply a HUGE demand for ridesharing.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 18, 2000.

to Marsha: You write: "People who think only about themselves, and do things that totally disregard the interests of others . . . such people are narcissists . . ."

I don't agree. A better description would be: "People who take care of themselves, and do the right thing, in spite of the predatory interests of others...such people are paranoid...because, in fact, the universe is out to get them..."

As for road rage, fear not, I do not own a gun, and I drive a Honda Civic, when I'm not driving the vanpool van. Contrary to your opinion, I consider the safety of my vanpool passengers to be of the highest priority. If I was going to flip out because of congestion, I would've done it long ago as a result of driving I-5 Southbound, up the Southcenter Hill. And, don't forget, this is in the carpool lane!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 18, 2000.