11.19
Preface to future viewers of the following article, comments: if nothing else, the one thing readers should take away from this is that, even in transit statists’ most favorable scenarios (e.g., peak/work-only/riders or operators ), the mode share of the automobile in the Puget Sound CRUSHES the mode share of all other modes, notably including transit.This is not a reality Seattle Transit Blog et al. want you to focus on, which is why this class of people continues to decry the “fallacies” of mode share discussions, usually right before they talk about the relatively exciting–but absolutely underwhelming–new numbers for transit’s mode share.
You are not supposed to realize this. You’re supposed to admire shiny, 19th-century, fixed-axis technology (i.e., trains) and look at cherrypicked data sets to see alleged (relative) gains in share. These gains are often forced, just like bus lines are canceled to force commuters onto rail, or auto user fees are redirected to pay for transit automobilists don’t use, or general tax revenues are diverted to pay for the same, or congestion is deliberately induced to encourage transit. But again, you are meant to ignore this.
As you read, consider these things, and most importantly, do not forget that the auto’s mode share ALWAYS CRUSHES that of transit etc.
Speaking of transit share, I just saw a post on “Seattle Transit Blog,†a notoriously statist (as far as transit is concerned) leftwing blog, entitled “The ‘Transit Share’ Distraction.†It dismisses transit share as a measure of travel because, as they argue, non-work trips are “less meaningfulâ€* than work trips, and their higher auto concentrations drag down the overall transit share of transit itself. This is about the fifth time I’ve heard this claim from transit statists, so I had to address it.
First of all, the notion that non-work trips are “less meaningful†reflects the kind of arrogance we have come to expect of planners who presume to know which of your trips are “meaningful†and which ones aren’t. It reflects a deeper disparity in worldview, as well: collectivists believe the importance of your commute can be determined by government decree. To them, the value you place on your trips is comparatively meaningless. Each of us puts a different weight on the importance of our commutes, no matter what the destination. For some, commute to a job might be paramount. For others, it’s driving the kids to school, taking Grandma for her weekly hospital visit, or getting the family down to church or to the food bank to volunteer. Nevertheless, collectivists are unwilling to accept this idea that the value others place on their own commutes is of any importance to the collective.
Second, the holes created by trying to pick and choose the category of transit most favorable to your position – which is a shamelessly dishonest attempt to make the evidence fit your conclusion – are too numerous to delineate, but I’ll name a few anyway. Under this type of arrogance, a man rushing his wife to the hospital to deliver a baby is counted as a “less meaningful†trip than the leisurely work commute of a graphic artist on his recumbent bike. Moreover, the unemployed-but-driving and work-from-home populations – which include most people in the 16 to 18 age range (2.5%), most of the college population (2.75%), all retired persons (6.2%), all of the unemployed (4.2%), most people on welfare (?), workers-from-home (14.7%), and others – together constitute no less than 20% of the population (even adjusting for overlap, employed, and non-driving), and yet all of their trips would apparently be regarded as frivolous under the criteria transit statists like to use. These attempts to dismiss certain types of trips as “less meaningful†are wholly arbitrary. Even if the intent of placing a top-down value on certain types of trips is to measure economically productive trips, the notion that work commutes are the only that fall into this category is preposterous: every trip generates economic activity now or later, whether that means refueling your car, or driving to the grocery store, for example. Not all commutes are equal, but assuming that work commutes are for all intents and purposes the only significantly economically productive kind of trips is to ignore that economic consumption and productivity is a means or end to every trip.
Third, any attempts to divert your attention away from which mode(s) of travel carry the most transit overall are deliberately dishonest. That STB goes yet one step further and describes the total share itself as a mere “distraction,†then goes on to claim that their favorite picayune categories are the only ones that matter is evidence of a predilection for defiant mendacity and utter sophistry. When anyone tries to distract you from the big picture and refocus your attention on a small one, and then claim that their tunnel vision view is what is really important, you know you’re dealing with a cheat. I don’t know how many different ways I can say this.
Fourth, even with their attempts to manipulate the data by picking and choosing categories, their numbers still aren’t impressive. Citing second-hand PSRC data, the veracity of which John Niles has questioned before, STB notes that even allowing for their rigged, self-serving manipulations, the combined transit share of walking, biking and transit in Seattle increases by just 2.6%, from 13.3% to 15.9%. Meanwhile, the transit share of automobiles alone declines from 86.7% to 84.2% – a whopping 2.5% decline (the missing 0.1% is probably due to rounding). On this basis does STB declare rail critics’ complaints about its transit-effectiveness to be “spin.†What followed the article nonetheless were 56 posts, most of them relieved and congratulatory, effusively thanking the blogger for doing this “exposé†of “the transit share fallacy.†Did I miss something? Because this number manipulation is not only (1) wrong and (2) arbitrary, but even when it is manipulated, (3) it fails to prove any of their points.
I can’t remember the last time I heard something so simultaneously devoid of substance, so delusional, and so dishonest. This is so comprehensively intellectually bankrupt I’m almost tempted to think they actually believe this; it’s some sort of weird pseudoscientific religion to them. Why else would you commit so much of yourself to an empirically demonstrable lie? And these are the best-equipped among the transit statists; most of them are emotionalists who lack the intellectual fortitude to burn calories engaging in the sophistry of figure manipulation.
*Note: I have corrected this phrase from “important” to “meaningful,” to reflect the original language of the linked article.
It’s a distraction because the question is how we’re going to invest our marginal transportation dollar. Should we spend $10 billion on adding a lane to parts of I-405, or building a 50-mile light rail system? It’s not arrogance — it’s a recognition that are choices on highways vs. regional rail lines are not going to influence trips to the corner store.
The existing share of trips per mode is irrelevant to this policy decision. The current high share of car use is a result of hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidy and decades of draconian government regulation, and doesn’t tell us where to put the next dollar.
And as for statism, I’ll make a deal with you: no more government subsidy of highways and wide arterials, wars to secure oil supplies, free public parking on streets, zoning rules that limit how densely developers can build, and minimum parking requirements in construction, and I’ll put my mass transit head-to-head with your roads in a free market.
I am the author of that post.
First: You quoted the phrase “less important” and the word “important” many times in your post. I did not use the phrase “less important” in my post. In fact, I never used the word “less” nor the word “important.” The phrase “less important” did not appear in the following discussion, either. You seem to describe the motives of “collectivists” very well [in your own opinion]. I could do better in describing the motives of one who quotes phrases we can attribute to thin air.
Second: The relative personal or emotional “importance” of one trip over another is not relevant to this discussion. I would never presume that one car ride is more important than one bike ride, despite your incredibly emotional appeal involving pregnant women. The PSRC data does not factor in heavily emotional and banal scenarios like this one — please do not blame me. Perhaps you shouldn’t refer to others as “emotionalists” when using a series of emotional appeals?
To defend my original post in detail: The argument is that a projected low transit share even after a particular light rail investment means we should not build a light rail line. Do you have any idea what the “SR-520 share” is? The “I-5″ share? Single-digits. If this metric were used for any piece of infrastructure, we wouldn’t build any.
Non-work trips (more accurately: non-peak trips) are not meaningful in the context of infrastructure investment for the two reasons I lay out in my post: (1) peak periods are the time where congestion is most plentiful and lead us to develop additional capacity through highway or transit investment, and (2) the distance for non-work trips is significantly smaller and most people walk or bike to non-work trips, meaning that these trips have a much smaller CO2 footprint. Of these two reasons, the first is the most relevant to the topics brought up in your post. Commute patterns are more relevant to how we direct our investments than trips that do not interact with capacity levels.
Intentionally spinning broad-based data to reflect on far more scope-limited decisions is irrational. We are not trying to address or prevent congestion where it will/when never occur, such as when a 3am police response is required. Certainly this trip is vital, but that is not the trip we analyze when deciding how to address congestion that occurs during peak hours. Addressing or preventing congestion and raising the capacity ceiling of a corridor without a larger investment in additional roads or highways is the primary function of transit. Non-work trips are particularly irrelevant for the reasons above as well as the ones I outline in my post.
Third: The overall conclusion is that these numbers are frankly not at all meaningful in determining what investments to make. You argue that I chose a focus out of tunnel vision. I respond that in the question of whether to make Investment A or Investment B, the only appropriate thing is to consider the decision in front of you and not an over-all metric of “transit share.” In the context of these decisions we make at the ballot box or in planner’s offices, mode share is a distraction — either work trips, non-work trips, or all trips together.
While mode share is a distraction in any context, peak hour mode share — the best we can approximate from “work trip” — is more representative to the average person how regional transportation investments matter.
Fourth: You have misused the term enough to make me recognize that you are well out of your area of understanding. When you write the combined transit share of walking, biking and transit, you mean the combined mode share. You write in Seattle, which is absolutely not true. The area of study is the Central Puget Sound metropolitan area, including many rural and suburban areas. A study of Seattle would yield a much different set of figures.
I offered absolutely no praise for walking, biking modes being increased or decreased. The post did not address this subject — you are picking and choosing categories to serve a particular interest. I offered no prediction that transit share [sic] of automobiles would decline. That was not the basis of final points. Rather, I illustrated through data that one series of investments would nearly double the transit share figure to 19% for work trips — above the 15.9%. This is relevant John Niles asked With more rail & TOD, higher fuel prices, & more climate awareness, why can’t PSRC write 2040 Plan to double transit market share? We argued on his terms, but simply used what we thought were better metrics for rationalizing transportation investments.
If John Niles has questioned data, we owe it no consideration? That is an appeal to authority and not worth further consideration. (As of this post, you are linking to your desktop.)
In terms of collectively investing in roads, highways, buses, or rail: we are all collectivists. To pretend there is a distinction because your presumed preferred mode is more expensive, more damaging to the environment, and less effective at serving the city core is disingenuous. Rather, you’re a fair-weather collectivist. Pity.
And no, I am not the best-equipped among those who support transit investment, at all. I’ll neglect to accuse you of being well-equipped.
Martin: question-begging aside, if your offer is road privatization or a buyout, which would turn driving into a fee-based a la carte behavior, I am amenable to that. In the interest of fairness, I would also require a complete privatization of public transit.
John:
(1) Looking back through your post, you’re right — you did not say “important.” Exp: I am prone to overuse of quotations to stress sarcasm. I seem to remember reading “important” but it is more likely I got carried away with what to me was the obvious message of your post. For that error I apologize.
You did, however, use terms like “I dismiss,” “distraction,” and “not meaningful” in reference to total transit share evaluation, and I suppose between that and reading likeminded comments, the takeaway could only be denied by your compatriots.
However, John, If we’re going to get caught up on accuracy in quotations and word use, how’s about you and your supporters drop the ad nauseam usage of the word “INVESTMENT” — which you use no fewer than a whopping 13 times — to describe building rail infrastructure? Transportation subsidies for ANY mode are not “investmentsâ€. The latest Random House dictionary entry for that word is:
“the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.”
Far from complementing the above definition, I think that by “investment” you actually mean “heavy subsidies for a program that consumes more value than it produces and will perpetually run in the red, even with significant tax increases.” What is especially egregious about your use of that word is that you have used it to describe one of the most cost-ineffective modes of public transit. So as long as we’re going to act highminded about accuracy, let’s drop the flattering and deceitful euphemisms.
(2) You’re right that I made an emotional appeal. Besides being an effective approach for about half the population, it is a genuine outrage to have the value of your trips weighed by self-interested third parties, who then deny that this was ever a calculation even as they continue to agitate for their favorite mode and “dismiss†analyses which include non-work trips as “spin†that is “not meaningful.â€
Your “520/I-5 share” claim is sophistry. As you know, what is important are the proportion of trips carried within 520, not what percentage 520 carries by itself. By this reasoning virtually all modes would individually be rendered ineffectual and we would have no transit infrastructure whatever – but you knew this, of course. This is not like your claim that total transit share is a “distraction,†because what is being compared is comparative effectiveness of modes, not absolute effectiveness of individual iterations.
I object to describing total transit share as “intentional spin” of “broad-based data” not just because it’s inaccurate, but because it’s ineffective as a challenge to the sensibly prevailing idea that the total share is most meaningful.
(3) I stand by my point in the OP that your own data does not prove your point. You talk about comparing alternatives, and you have resolved to support rail – but for what reason? Surely cost-effectiveness, proportion of trips carried, budget shares, etc. must be a consideration for you?
(4) You cite my usage of “transit share†to describe what is referred to as “mode share†in the industry as proof of my ignorance. Of course, there was never any doubt in your mind about what I was referring to as I went on to explain my position – which explains why you knew the difference in the first place. Your correction may be well-placed, but the idea that it proves a comprehensive lack of understanding as you suggest is a debate shortcut and an intellectual copout. Also, I write this blog for my own remote reference and edification; I was not anticipating vigilant trackback response and used “Seattle†to describe the Sound. I know what I mean when I say “Seattle,†but because I am no longer the only person interacting on my site, it would appear I have to clarify better for others’ consumption.
My dubiousness of the PSRC and its numbers stems from the facts that (1) my work has peripherally exposed me to its organizational paradigms, that (2) it is a government planning agency and policymaker with boutique interests demanding opportunity costs their better-read constituents are likely not willing to pay, and (3) a few examples of fuzzy math and projection inaccuracy as demonstrated below in (a) a link and (b) the chart you noted linked to my hard drive.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1534
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2521/psrctransitshareproject.jpg
I consider all transportation infrastructure to be “investments.” Highways and light rail both have significant operational and maintenance overhead. Taxpayers pay the cost of building the infrastructure and then supposedly benefit from its successful operation. The amount of transpiration offered by a highway or a light rail line supposedly leads to a much more successful city and region. In those terms, taxpayers fund a piece of infrastructure and then see a more successful region. That is investment. This is hardly an exercise in doublespeak.
You say things like light rail is the most “cost-ineffective modes of transit” without any evidence of that. I’m not going to expend the effort to challenge unsubstantiated claims. But Niles’ claim isn’t that light rail is cost-ineffective, it’s that not a big enough percentage of trips use any mode of transit at all.
(By the way, transit is “public transportation” or “mass transit” — not “transportation” in general such as highways or airplanes. I don’t know if we’re talking about the same thing.)
I think you sidestepped my most substantial comments. My basic assertion is that when deciding where or how to fund transportation infrastructure — with the assumption that we do need more capacity for future growth — looking at peak-time capacity and usage is the only important measure. Using an over-all mode share that factors in travel outside of times where capacity is effected is meaningless.
There are plenty of side arguments we can go on — how much does the SR-520 new increase the car share, and if it reduces it then why should we build a new bridge? Or, does a “small” transit share simply represent a failure to build transit in the past? But the basic point is that Niles uses meaningless, off-peak data to make transit spending seem wasteful. The off-peak data is not how we make our infrastructure decisions, and we shouldn’t pretend like it’s meaningful simply because Niles brought it up.
“Do more people bike or walk to the grocery store at midnight?” does not answer the question “Should we expand I-5 through Seattle or build light rail along that corridor?” In the reality, not even off-peak share data informs this decision more than real-world limitations such as physical space and time spent in traffic. Why we’d use demographic information to say these real-world limitations should be ignored is well-outside my area of expertise. That’s probably why I’d call the whole thing a distraction, and be correct in doing so.
Do you want to explain to me why the transit share number is meaningful?
John: I disagree that I “sidestepped” your “substantial” comments. However, you would be right to say that I did not cover all of them. That is because (a) I do not have the time for it and (b) online debate is fruitless in my experience anyway. As a veteran blogger you know this is more about psychic self-relief and rep-preservation. Mine was never meant to be a debate forum; rather, it was meant for feedback from friends and the occasional straggler. I only regret that my pedantic nature compels me to debate to the extent that it does; it is a colossal waste of my time. That said…
Salvage your credibility here. Infrastructure which perpetually requires forcible taxation and subsidies is NOT an “investment.†The consultants and transit utopians can banter about with this term in blogs and charrettes, but the real fact is, this view of “investment†is at flamboyant odds with its actual dictionary definition.
This inspires another point: you criticize me for neglecting to cite evidence of why light rail is among the most cost-ineffective modes of public transit (a few of which I will expound below), but you neglect to cite causal empirical evidence of light rail’s NET POSITIVE contribution to economic growth. We can and do measure the Capital and O&M costs of LR and other modes; it is functionally impossible to scientifically measure and accurately attribute its secondary consequences. We are thus left to hypotheses and conjecture, which you seem to rely on absolutely as evidence of the preposterous notion that the shiny money pit of rail is an “investment.†You are on your firmest ground claiming LR has intangible social benefits or that it enriches a minority of rent-seekers. Taking it a step further and insisting that it is an investment is irresponsible at best, and dishonest at worst.
I cited John Niles’ comparison of PSRC projections vs. reality. Otherwise, Niles is the least of my influences so I’m not sure why you believe I am some sycophant follower of Niles who doesn’t even understand Niles’ allegedly delusional position. I am not a “follower†of Niles – I am a one-off citer of a chart compiled by Niles. The other link I provided was an exposé of the PSRC’s fuzzy math, further impugning its credibility as an accurate, disinterested number-crunching organization.
And what follows is probably the most important fact here. Believe it or not, I do now and always have understood the argument that peak work trips are the only that matter – and I reject it. As to your “basic assertion†above, which trots out that argument (about which I wrote the article), I reject the notion that data from any scenario – work, non-work, or total – justifies light rail over its alternatives; namely, increasing or otherwise enhancing road capacity. This is the third time this entry I have noted this, i.e., that your own data fails to prove your point. Under what twisted, highly selective and obscure scenarios is rail a superior alternative to, say, traffic engineering (e.g., traffic light synchronization, one-way streets, widening) for the majority of commuters?
Transit share is meaningful because, for one, it allows us to calculate the cost-effectiveness of modes. Portland, for example, spends 61% of its transportation budget funds to carry 2% of travel on LR; the Twin Cities spend 71% of their budget to carry 1% of travel, and in the Bay Area 68% of the CapEx budget and 65% of the operating budget are spent carrying 4% of travel and virtually no freight.
As for evidence (besides that above), which you note I had yet failed to provide, here are a few snippets, source specifics available in APA form upon individual request.
“The total daily demand on the best new American light rail system could be accommodated in a single hour on an 10 mile stretch of urban freeway. Indeed, none of the new systems own enough rail cars to carry the capacity of a single freeway lane.â€
“By 1989, enough cities had built new rail lines to evaluate the benefits those lines produced. A U.S. Department of Transportation researcher named Don Pickrell reviewed several lines completed by that year and found that the planners of those early rail projects had almost all overestimated ridership and underestimated costs to justify federal grants and local matching funds for the projects. ‘The systematic tendency to overestimate ridership and to underestimate capital and operating costs,’ said Pickrell, ‘introduces a distinct bias toward the selection of capital-intensive transit improvements such as rail lines.’ Rather than improve its procedures to ensure that estimates were more accurate, the Federal Transit Administration responded to Pickrell’s report by having him transferred to another part of the Department of Transportation and ordered never to analyze transit projects again.â€
“In 2002, the Vermont legislature [alone] agreed to fund an experimental commuter-rail service in Burlington. The legislature set specific performance criteria that the transit service had to achieve to receive continued funding. After 18 months, analysis revealed that the commuter trains were taking very few cars off the road and that the diesel locomotives produced more pollution than was saved by taking cars off the road. The legislature stopped funding it and the trains stopped running.â€
“[A]ll rail transit in 11 of America’s largest metropolitan rail areas carries an average of less than 2 percent of passenger travel (1.97 percent), yet each of these programs loses millions, and in some cases billions, each year.†(Areas: NYC, LA, CHI, DC, SF, BOS, PHI, MIA, ATL, BAL, & CLE.)
Speaking of distractions, I believe I have become distracted in this discussion. As you can see from its opening paragraphs, the attempt of the OP was to debunk the notion that non-work trips are, as you say in your article, “less meaningful,” “spin,” and a “distraction.” It seems to me that your comments have mainly focused on the notion we should focus our remedial efforts on peak times. We don’t really have a disagreement here; we diverge when you claim mode share (thanks for the correction) of peak work trips are the only that matter for our purposes. This is our real disagreement. My claim now, as it was in the OP, is that total modal share is what counts, on or off peak times. I further believe that rail fanatics’ insistence on ignoring any such total figures and focusing singularly on peak work-only trips is an intellectually dishonest practice done for purposes of statistical convenience. Hopefully neither of us has thrown out many red herrings; if we have, let us ignore them and focus on this, the original point of the article.
By the way John, let me congratulate you on being eminently more substantive, fact-oriented, level-headed, and just generally sensible than the rest of the railists I have encountered. I am happy to discuss things with somebody of this persuasion; most people I have discussed this with are visceral emotionalists who appeal to something they believe to be higher than empirics and common sense. Even your compatriot Martin Duke couldn’t write a paragraph without an irrelevant bumper sticker slogan about foreign policy. I still think you’re wrong; I just thought you should know you’re a welcome rarity in my experience.