One of the problems with dealing with the issue of transit is that perception is NOT reality. The Perception (and propaganda by transit advocates) is that transit really makes a big difference for congestion. The REALITY is that is does not. The perception is that there is plenty of room for growth in transit. The reality is that it is DEMAND constrained, not capacity constrained. The perception is that transit is more cost effective than automobiles. The reality is that, at least in Washington State, we have pushed transit far beyond the economic niche in which it is cost-effective and it is nowhere near as economical as the auto, particularly at the margin. Adding more transit users will require getting farther and farther out of the economic and marketing niche. The cost of adding the next transit user is far more than the cost of the AVERAGE transit user in todays system, and it only gets worse after that. Nor does it get worse in a linear fashion, it gets worse in a geometric fashion.

Every five years the (pro-transit) US Department of Transportation commissions a National Personal Transportation Study that documents what the current status of personal transportation is. This database was originally used to forecast transportation needs. Unfortunately, it kept showing the reasons that transit COULDNT work, rather than how to make it work, and it gets more obvious every five years. Nonetheless, being a government agency, its like the sorcerers apprentice. Although it is telling them what they dont want to hear, they dont know how to stop it, so well probably have another one this year. I would strongly suggest that anyone really interested in the issue of transit read these reports, as far back as you can find them on the web. They have been consistent and accurate indicators of personal transportation trends. If you are REALLY into this subject, the Oakridge National Laboratory has the database which (if you are good with data retrieval programs) you can crank to your hearts content. But Ill tell you now, no matter how you slice it and dice it, it wont come out much different than this little booklet: (http://www.bts.gov/ntl/data/NPTS_Booklet.pdf) (I know its a PDF file. Download it to your disk and peruse it at your leisure) Whether youre a transit advocate, or on the RIGHT side of the argument ;-) , this is data that everybody should have. Sorry for the War and Peace posting, but this really will improve everyones understanding of the REALITY of transit.

Some extracts:

Commuting accounts for only 18 percent of person trips and 22 percent of person miles. However, when the topic of personal travel is discussed, it is often in terms of the commute to work. There are several reasons for this deserved emphasis on travel to work: employed adults travel about 6600 more miles per year than those without jobs the temporal and geographic concentration of work trips place the largest strain on all transportation systems, and for the individual worker, the trip to work often dictates when, where and how his/her other travel is accomplished.

- Commute trips are in the minority, even during rush hour In examining the work trip as a component of total travel, it is useful to compare work trips by time of day with trips for all other purposes. There is a common perception that most of the trips made during the traditional rush hour are for commuting to work. The survey results show that the work trip share during these times is smaller than expected.

Approximately 37 percent of trips for all purposes start during the two rush hour periods, defined here as 6am to 9am and 4pm to 7pm. Only 10 percent of trips for all purposes are work trips starting these two periods. LESS THAN ONE OUT OF THREE PERSON TRIPS STARTING DURING RUSH HOUR ARE TRIPS TO OR FROM WORK.

Commute speeds INCREASED by more than 20 percent over the past 12 years.

While the average commute to work has increased in length, the travel time to work has not shown corresponding increases. Between 1983 and 1995, commuting trips grew 37 percent longer in miles, while the travel time increased only 14 percent. The speed of the average commute, including trips by all modes, went from 28 to 34 miles per hour.

This trend seems to fly in the face of the reality of congested roads. There are three reasons most often cited for the increase in speed of travel time to work: the continued decentralization of metropolitan areas the expansion of the peak period, because of greater flexibility in hours of work, and THE SWITCH FROM CARPOOL AND TRANSIT TO SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS, WHICH ARE USUALLY MORE TIME-EFFICIENT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL WORKER, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE LESS EFFICIENT FOR THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. 

Shopping trips are spread evenly throughout the week Shopping is another trip purpose that commands much attention and is a continually growing segment of personal travel. Currently shopping comprises one out of every five person trips and one out of every seven person miles traveled. Those of us who work the traditional Monday through Friday work week tend to think of shopping as a weekend activity. However the data show that the vast majority of shopping trips, 77 percent, take place on weekdays, which make up 71 percent of the days of the week.

Women make two-thirds of the trips to take someone else someplace Like shopping, trips to take someone else someplace occur disproportionately during the week. This makes sense when you consider that the great majority of these trips probably involve getting children to school or to after-school activities. It is also no surprise women make two-thirds of all pickup and dropoff trips, as they are termed in the NPTS.

Approximately 11 percent of all trips made by women and 7 percent of all trips made by men are for this purpose. Originally these trips were called serve passenger, but that wording implies travel in private vehicles. While THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THESE TRIPS, 95 PERCENT, ARE BY PRIVATE VEHICLE, another 2 percent are by walking AND 1 PERCENT ARE BY PUBLIC TRANSIT, with the other modes making up the remaining 2 percent. In Western Europe these pickup and dropoff trips are called escort trips, which describes them more accurately.

Ninety percent of all person miles are in privately owned vehicles (POV) Switching from why we travel to how we get around, travel by private vehicle accounts for 86 percent of all person trips and 91 percent of all person miles. Walking is the next most used mode, with 5.4 percent of all trips, but less than one percent of all person miles. Transit use, which tends to be concentrated in the largest metro areas, accounts for 1.8 PERCENT OF ALL TRIPS AND 2.1 PERCENT OF ALL PERSON MILES.

Transit use is highly dependent on route and time of day considerations. Approximately 44 percent of all transit trips take place in the traditional peak periods of 6am to 9 am and 4 pm to 7pm.

THE SCHOOL BUS SHARE OF PERSON TRIPS AT 1.7 PERCENT IS VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS THE TRANSIT, however the share of person miles is smaller than transit at 1.3 percent , probably reflecting the shorter distances of school bus trips.

About one-third of all vehicle trips are multi-occupant The ratio of multi-occupant to single occupant trips varies considerably by trip purpose. As expected, the other SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSE HAS THE HIGHEST SHARE OF MULTI-OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS, 52 PERCENT. The next highest share is other family and personal business, with 41 percent multi-occupant. Together these two purposes account for almost 40 percent of all vehicle trips. About one-third of the trips for shopping, to go to school or church, or to visit friends or relatives are multi-occupant. These three purposes account for another 33 percent of all vehicle trips. TRIPS FOR WORK-RELATED TRAVEL AND TO OR FROM WORK, WHICH ACCOUNT FOR 27 PERCENT OF ALL VEHICLE TRIPS, ARE THE LEAST LIKELY TO BE MULTI-OCCUPANT, WITH RATES OF ONLY 13 PERCENT AND 9 PERCENT, RESPECTIVELY.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 12, 2000

Answers

"Transit use, which tends to be concentrated in the largest metro areas, accounts for 1.8 PERCENT OF ALL TRIPS AND 2.1 PERCENT OF ALL PERSON MILES. " We are spending 25% of our transportation revenues on two (2) per cent of the miles traveled? WHAT A CROCK!

Transit sucks. Build Roads!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

"As expected, the other SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSE HAS THE HIGHEST SHARE OF MULTI-OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS, 52 PERCENT. The next highest share is other family and personal business, with 41 percent multi-occupant." 93% of the vehicles that CAN legally use HOV lanes are people that WOULD BE TRAVELLING TOGETHER ANYWAY?

Yo, Patrick- What does THAT do to your HOV cost-effectiveness argument. I know, it doesn't matter. They were completely paid for by a tax on rich people's Jaguars (a butt ugly car, don't know why anyone would buy them, whatever your wealth or social status.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Do you UNDERSTAND the statistics? I haven't the time right now to explain all the faulty generalizations above. In order to make meaningful use of transportation statistics, you need to look at not only the specific metropolitan area but also the specific corridor and time of day. Let's look at one LOCAL example:

According to UW-TRAC, on I-5 Southbound at NE 137th during the AM peak, the four general purpose lanes carried 61% of the people, while the remaining 39% were carried in the single HOV lane. Although the statistics don't report trips by trip purpose, you can bet there weren't very many soccer moms filling up the HOV lanes between 7 and 9 AM. It would take _at least_ one new lane, and probably two, to make up for the lost capacity of the HOV lane. Are we really ready to build another ship canal bridge? And then what?

We don't need to experiment by taking away HOV lanes to find out what problems will result. While transportation politics may be muddled, tranportation models can give us a pretty realistic picture of what this kind of change would do to traffic along our confined, no- alternative corridors.

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), January 13, 2000.

I'm grinning in anticipation now.....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

"Do you UNDERSTAND the statistics? " Have you downloaded and read the booklet? It won't help to debate it, if you've never read it.

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

Having ALREADY wasted hundreds of millions of YOUR TAX DOLLARS in trying to prop up a HIGHWAY and ROAD system that would be bankrupt without YOUR public subsidies (i.e., your wallet), the State (and Tim Eyman) wants $200 million more of YOUR TAX DOLLARS to fix old roads and build NEW ones that YOU'LL NEVER EVEN USE because they aren't anywhere near where you work or live.

And even though King County residents have VOTED to tax THEMSELVES and ONLY themselves for the purpose of a public transit system, TIM EYMAN and his blind followers want to take AWAY your RIGHT to govern yourself. He wants the WHOLE STATE to decide how YOU should spend YOUR hard-earned money,even though residents in the rest of the state aren't contributing any money at all.

Ever hear of TAXATION without REPRESENTATION? Well gee, this is like REPRESENTATION without TAXATION, isn't it?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

"Having ALREADY wasted hundreds of millions of YOUR TAX DOLLARS in trying to prop up a HIGHWAY and ROAD system that would be bankrupt without YOUR public subsidies (i.e., your wallet), the State (and Tim Eyman) wants $200 million more of YOUR TAX DOLLARS to fix old roads and build NEW ones that YOU'LL NEVER EVEN USE because they aren't anywhere near where you work or live. "

Do you seriously think we can get by without roads? Only if we return to a hunter-gatherer life style! And that's only possible at population densities equivalent to what native Americans had in the Puget Sound region before you European and Asian immigrants got over here. You going to deport everyone back to Mexico, Asia, and Europe? That's REAL practical.

Can we seriously get by without transit? Sure. 98% of the public does every single day.

So quit griping about essentials we can't avoid and put money where it can be most cost-effectively employed.

Screw transit. Build roads!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Hey Keith "We don't need to experiment by taking away HOV lanes to find out what problems will result"

Nobody is suggesting we 'take away' the HOV lanes. Everybody is suggesting we USE the HOV lanes as actual travel lanes for vehicles.

In all of the highway construction that has been going on in Washington most of the improvements and expansion has been either HOV or BUS ONLY lanes. That can NEVER alleviate congestion because the MAJORITY of the vehicles aren't allowed to use the NEW highway lanes.

Maybe there should be some specialty lanes for SOVs only. No buses and no more than ONE person per car. That should relieve congestion!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

"In all of the highway construction that has been going on in Washington most of the improvements and expansion has been either HOV or BUS ONLY lanes. That can NEVER alleviate congestion because the MAJORITY of the vehicles aren't allowed to use the NEW highway lanes. "

And this is the same SCAM that WA DOT is trying to pull on the proposed Narrows bridge. Current bridge- two lanes each way. Proposed future situation: Convert current bridge to one-way with two GP lanes and an HOV lane. Build new bridge one-way (hopefully, different direction from the other bridge, but with DOT doing it ......., well you remember their luck with the FIRST Narrows Bridge) with two gp lanes and one HOV lane. Now you can talk about widening, and better shoulders, etc., etc., etc., but any way you slice and dice it, that's another bridge for $350 million (and about another $350 million in road improvements to service the new bridge) for a net increase of ONE HOV LANE EACH WAY?

We need fewer social engineers and more civil engineers, especially in DOT.

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

Yet another very readable report concerning the REALITIES (as opposed to the misconceptions) of transportation in the US>

http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/titus/titus97t.pdf Transportation and the Economy: Key Points ) Transportation accounted for 10.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1995. ) The average household spent just over $6,000 on transportation in 1994, one-fifth of its total expenditures. This compares with $10,100 for housing, $4,400 for food, $3,000 for insurance (excluding vehicle insurance) and pensions, and $1,800 for health care. ) About 94 percent of household transportation expenditures go to purchase, run, and maintain private vehicles. Airline fares were the second largest category at 4 percent of expenditures, and mass transit ranked third at 1 percent. ) Governments spent $116.5 billion on transportation in 1993. About 31 percent was the federal share, which included grants to state and local governments. Of the total, 60 percent of these expenditures were for highways, 19 percent for mass transit, and 15 percent for aviation. ) Transportation-related revenues of federal, state, and local governments reached $85 billion in 1993. States collected nearly half of all transportation-related revenues, with 32 percent collected by the federal government, and 19 percent by local governments. ) In 1995, approximately 9.9 million people worked in transportation- related activities, about 7 percent of the total civilian labor force. ) Labor productivity in the for-hire transportation industry (as measured by value-added per worker) was 19 percent higher than the average for the economy as a whole in 1992. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1997 (Washington, DC: forthcoming) and Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1996 (Washington, DC: 1996); U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1994 and 1996.

Between 1983 and 1993, the proportion of federal spending on transit, rail, and water transportation decreased, while spending on air transportation and highways increased.

Between 1983 and 1993, the proportion of federal spending on transit, rail, and water transportation de-creased, while spending on air transportation and highways increased.

64 percent to 73 percent; federal coverage rose from 54 per-cent to 75 percent. State and local government coverage increased slightly. (Coverage refers to transportation expenditures that are funded by transportation receipts as opposed to general revenue.)

In recent years, a good deal of research has been con-ducted on the contribution of public investment in transportation to economic growth and productivity in the United States. A majority of these studies conclude that public in-vestment in highways reduces the costs of transportation and production, and makes a positive contribution to total economic output. Similar studies in Europe and Asia produced comparable results. A recent study by Nadiri and Mamuneas offers definitive evidence on the many ways highway capital in the United States contributes to the productivity of 35 different industries and the overall economy. In particular, it suggests that the return on the investment of a dollar in highway infra-structure generally has been greater than the return on a dollar of private capital investment (see table 5).

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

OK Craig. I read all 36 pages. I don't see how I can debate with you when we are in agreement though. But maybe you can tell me what UW- TRAC is, and where to access this information Kevin qouted. He seems to come up with facts, but he seldom provides his sources.

I must admit, I was suprised at Transit trip rates for African Americans. I knew it would be high, but not THAT high.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Marsha- TRAC is a UW research site http://depts.washington.edu/trac/

Im not real fond of it, because its slow loading. But what he is saying essentially is that under conditions of stop and go driving in the general purpose lanes that are barely moving carry a less than proportionate percentage of the passenger miles than the HOV/bus lane that IS moving. That is undoubtedly true, and the same could be said if you restricted one fifth of the lanes to any other 11% of the population. Under congested conditions, the non-congested lane will get the lions share of the passenger miles, because the others are mostly just sitting still. Its TRUE, but it doesnt say anything about the VALUE of HOV lanes, except for the 11% eligible to utilize 20% of the resources. Jim Crow laws were a good deal for the whites in the South, too. Doesnt make them right. I believe this is the reference he used: http://depts.washington.edu/trac/pdf/hovlane_perform.view.pdf Run it on a modem at your own risk. Its slow enough on an ethernet connection. Lots of real slow graphics. On the other hand, figure 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 identify a number of HOV lanes that carry LESS than their proportionate share of traffic (less than the adjacent GP lane), even during rush hour. Id start the download of the pdf file, and go to bed though, unless you have a T-1 line.

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

Marsha- Ken took a 147 page document and found the info he liked in it. Two can play that game. And the issue remains the same. If congestion gets bad enough (the SmarGrowth goal) you can restrict one lane to left handed Norwegians and it
fll move more than the adjacent lanes, just because it
fs the only thing moving at all.

http://depts.washington.edu/trac/pdf/hovlane_perform.view.pdf (It's not a bad pdf with my Mac. It handles the graphics better.

I-5 North of the Seattle CBD
| 112 th St. SW (see Figure 2-19) On a per-lane basis, the northbound HOV volumes were approximately 50 percent of northbound GP volumes during the afternoon peak period. The southbound HOV lane could approach 40 to 50 percent of corresponding GP volumes during the afternoon peak period. I-5 North of the Seattle CBD
| NE 137th St. (see Figure 2-20) HOV volumes had prominent peak values during the given commute periods. The northbound HOV volumes during the afternoon peak period and the southbound I-90 - Midspan (see Figure 2-35) AM Peak Period. 29 percent of the westbound commuters utilized the westbound center lanes traveling in a mixture of transit, carpools, vanpools, and GP vehicles. Traffic volumes along the center roadway at this time of day represented 14 percent of all vehicles on I-90. On a per-lane basis, the HOV lane carried 40 percent fewer people and 76 percent fewer vehicles than the GP lane. PM Peak Period. In the evening peak period, 33 percent of the people travelling eastbound used the center lanes in 20 percent of all vehicles commuting on the I-90 bridge. On a per-lane basis, the HOV lane carried 27 percent fewer people and 63 percent fewer vehicles than a GP lane. I-90
| Lake Sammamish Parkway (see Figure 2-36) HOV usage during both commute periods was moderate. Overall, the HOV lane carried about 15 percent of all people in less than 10 percent of all vehicles. On a per-lane basis, the HOV lane carried fewer people and vehicles than the adjacent GP lanes. This moderate usage of the HOV facility was primarily due to the low congestion level on I-90. SR 520
| 84th Ave NE (see Figure 2-37) AM Peak Period. The westbound HOV lane on SR 520 (the only freeway HOV lane in Puget Sound that requires three or more occupants) carried 31 percent of all people in only 3 percent of all vehicles. Of the people carried in the HOV lane, Figure 2-4 shows that bus riders represented 67 percent. On a per-lane basis, the HOV lane carried 9 percent fewer people and 93 percent fewer vehicles than the GP lane. PM Peak Period. The westbound HOV lane carried 28 percent of all people heading across Lake Washington in 10 percent of all vehicles. There were fewer bus riders in the HOV lane during the evening peak period because of decreased transit service in the "reverse" direction. On a per-lane basis, the HOV lane carried 22 percent fewer people and 78 percent fewer vehicles than the GP lane. SR 167
| S. 208 th (see Figure 2-38) AM Peak Period. HOV usage during the morning peak period was relatively low. In comparison to the adjacent GP lane on a per-lane basis, the northbound HOV lane carried fewer vehicles and people. PM Peak Period. The southbound HOV usage during the afternoon peak period was moderate. About 36 percent of all people were carried in the HOV lane in 24 percent of all vehicles, with an average of 2.2 people in each vehicle. In comparison to the adjacent GP lane on a per-lane basis, the HOV lane carried 14 percent more people in about 37 percent fewer vehicles.

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

"I must admit, I was suprised at Transit trip rates for African Americans. I knew it would be high, but not THAT high. "

But if you step back and look, Marsha, even African-Americans who use transit over 6 times as frequently as Caucasians, only use transit on 0.6% of their total trips and less than 1% as often as they use POVs.

The elderly only make about 2% of their trips by transit. Even those population sub groups that use transit a disproportionately high amount, really don't use it for much of their travel. It's a niche market, and the niche is pretty small.

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