No! It is LUDICROUSLY over funded for the transportation services that it provides.

And in the latest transportation statistics annual report, governments at all levels continue to spend ABOUT one-third of public transportation tax dollars on transit, despite the fact that transit only provides 2% of passenger miles. (http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar99/7chap05.pdf)

Governments spent more on highways than on all other modes combined. In 1995, total highway spending was $79.2 billion, about 61 percent of total government transportation expenditures. Nearly three-quarters of this amount was spent by state and local governments. Transit expenditures accounted for nearly 20 percent of the total; pipelines received only $42 million, less than one-third of one-tenth of a percent (USDOT BTS Forthcoming a).

Which is why we need the transportation improvement initiative at the federal level, too. Have you e-mailed Slade Gorton and Patty Murray to tell them to cease over-funding transit at the expense of roadways? Today would be a good time to do that!

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

Answers

Well that would have to depend on your definition of "public support." By Craig's definition of monitary amounts the answer is no, but if you mean do people like supporting transit then the answer is mostly yes.

Statewide poll in Minnesota in 1992, "Do you think more money, about the same amount, or less money should be spent on TRANSIT BUS SERVICE throughout Minnesota?" 40.6% said more, 50.3% said the same, 9.1% said less. http://www.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/17:47:01:80.htm

A question asked of people in Atlanta asked if they had $100 to spend, how much would they spend to expand public transit. Only 38% of the people said that they would spend 10% or less of that money on expansion. 50% said they would spend 25% or more. ftp://vance.irss.unc.edu/pub/search_results/POLL.netaccess.leg.wa.gov. 13Jan2000.18.21.40.txt

Same survey: "Would you say that you support or do not support the following proposed solutions? Substantial state funding for mass transit." Support: 71.8% Do Not Support: 28.2%

"A lane on commuter Highways reserved for autos with three or more persons or mass transit vehicles." Support: 79.3% Do Not Support: 20.7%

Shouldn't the question be: Is the public supportive of publicly supporting transit? Seems the answer is yes.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

"A question asked of people in Atlanta asked if they had $100 to spend, how much would they spend to expand public transit. " Who'd they ask, transit riders? Amy Carter would have spent it on world peace. ;-)

But Patrick, I'm perfectly willing to put the transportation improvement initiative on the ballot, and let everybody in the state have their say. How about you?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

"A question asked of people in Atlanta asked if they had $100 to spend, how much would they spend to expand public transit. "

Now Patrick, you have either provided the wrong citation, or you are playing REALLY fast and loose with the truth. That citation takes me to a SAS/SPSS readout of a 1994 poll conducted on about 800 Georgia residents over the age of 18. (I always liked SAS, used it at work. When the Macintosh version gets down to $100 or so, Ill buy a copy. Best street price now is over $400 though, so Ive probably got along wait)

I LOVED the question: Question: QARC2. The proposed Outer Loop project is a 211 mile limited access highway encircling the Atlanta region about 20 miles outside the I-285 perimeter highway. The cost of building it could reach 5 billion dollars. If the outer loop is built, do you think less money will be available for other regional transportation needs? Responses: Yes/No/DK/No answer Percent Responding 65.40% YES 28.00% NO 6.60% DK Number of Valid Cases: 800 SAS/SPSS Variable Name: QARC2

Which was right above the FOUR questions that you incorrectly allude to. One-third of the sample population apparently didnt think that IF YOU SPEND $5 BILLION IN TRANSPORTATION COSTS ON ONE PROJECT, YOU JUST MIGHT HAVE LESS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR OTHER PROJECTS. This is obviously a real well informed group.

But getting on to the questions YOU allude to; QARC4.1, QARC4.2, QARC4.3, and QARC4.4, you have mis-stated both the question and the answer. The QUESTIONS are: Four of the most commonly mentioned transportation needs facing the region are : building the outer loop, improving existing highways, expanding public transit, and building new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If you had $100 to invest in improving transportation in the Atlanta Region, how much would you spend to build (the outer loop?) (improving existing highways?) ( expanding public transit?) (building new bicycle and pedestrian facilities?)

Now this is what is called a forced choice question. The median answers for each mode were: Outer loop-$20 (mode 0), existing highways-$25 (mode $25), expanded transit-$20 (mode 0), Bicycle and Pedestrian-$10 (mode 0). These number dont add up to %100 because some people put money into other and 3.8% of people didnt want to spend ANY money on transportation at all.

So Patrick, first of all, it is a kind of uninformed sample if a third dont realize that something take away $5 billion is less than the original something. This was a forced choice response, not exactly as you portrayed it. And the majority of the money would go to roads, in fact, NEW CONSTRUCTION of roads was supported as much as transit.

Your statement that (50% said they would spend 25% or more. ftp://vance.irss.unc.edu/pub/search_results/POLL.netaccess.leg.wa.gov) is at best a half-truth. Only 16.8% indicated they would give $50 or more to transit (how much would you spend to expand public transit? Question: QARC4.3). 28.9% would give NOTHING to transit. The median, as I said, was $20. Mode was in fact ZERO dollars.

Did you not understand these issues, just read a synopsis, or were you TRYING to deceive us.

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

"http://www.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/17:47:01:80.htm " And I note that this is one question isolated out of a 1992 study. Do you have a reference for the study, so we can see what other questions were asked, and how they were asked? Not that we don't trust you, but you certainly didn't cover yourself with glory in your presentation of the previous data.

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

Well Mark, it was a random sample of about 800 average residents. And as I've stated many times before, I'd be more than willing to put the transportation initative on the ballot in the RTA district. Otherwise it is a matter of people outside the district having representation without taxation.

Here is that URL for the entire Minnesota survey Craig http://www.irss.unc.edu/cgi-bin/POLL/search.all.cgi?w1=NNSP-MN-003

The only reason why I didn't "cover myself with glory" with the information I posted is because it's information that flies in the face of your own perception of how the public views transit. Care to comment on the question that shows 71.8% support of HOV lanes? Maybe the question on supporting state funding for mass transit? Or would you rather fall back upon your attack on the group of people answering the questions? I'm sure if polled, a sizable amount of people in this state actually believed that their tabs would cost $30 this year.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say in attacking the "how would you divide $100 among transportation projects" question. Here's what I was pointing out: The transportation initiative here would make us spend a maximum of 10% on transit. However, in Georgia 62% of the people answered that they would prefer to spend more than that 10% number. It does tend to support the theory that people would be willing to spend a significant portion of money on transit if it is available.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

"Care to comment on the question that shows 71.8% support of HOV lanes? Maybe the question on supporting state funding for mass transit? Or would you rather fall back upon your attack on the group of people answering the questions? " If these questions are there, I couldn't find them. Why don't you post them. And you don't consider the fact that a third of your sample group doesn't know that $5 billion spent on one thing can't be spent on another thing important? Good Lord.

"However, in Georgia 62% of the people answered that they would prefer to spend more than that 10% number." No. They said that they'd spend more than $10 in a forced choice situation. And that was Georgia in 94. They don't subsidize their transit to NEAR the extent that we did in 1994, and we've rather dramatically increased the subsidy since then. You're comparing apples and oranges, and possibly (based upon the $5 billion question) fruitcakes.

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

Mark Stilson said: >"But Patrick, I'm perfectly willing to put the transportation improvement initiative on the ballot. . ."

Um, we already DID put a transportation initiative on the ballot. . .at least a TRANSIT initiative in King County, didn't we? Just a few short years ago? Remember? Or was that in an alternate universe that nobody else around here seems to remember?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

Seems to me to be a silly concept. Here, we give you $100 dollars (monopoly money?) to divvy up among some transportation programs. Tell us what your preference is.

I don't particularly care what people in Georgia would say about the topic, even if they were dividing up real transportation dollars. How is congestion in that neck of the woods? Have they spent alot of money on roads in the last 20 years? How about Minnesota? Have they kept pace with demand for roads in the last 20 years?

Patrick, as usual, your points are irrelevant. This is Washington. The place where we spent too much on Transit that few ride, and no where near enough on roads for 20-30 years. Got any "facts" on Washington State voters? No Patrick, please don't quote Sound Transit, I said Washington State.

If you are worried about the traffic improvement initiative passing, then you need to do a better job of fact finding and presentation of your argument.....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

common sense(?)-

"Um, we already DID put a transportation initiative on the ballot. . .at least a TRANSIT initiative in King County, didn't we? Just a few short years ago? Remember? Or was that in an alternate universe that nobody else around here seems to remember? "

We went into this on a previous thread. The track record is batting .250, two "forward thrust" failures, one previous RTA failure. Given that you have only won once out of four times, I wouldn't get REAL cocky about a rematch ;-).

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

Marsha said: >. . ."what people in Georgia would say about the topic, even if they were dividing up real transportation dollars. How is congestion in that neck of the woods?"

Congestion in the metro Atlanta area is among the worst in the country. Far worse than Seattle, Phoenix, or even L.A.

>"Have they spent alot of money on roads in the last 20 years?"

YES! In fact, roads are about ALL that Georgia spent money on from 1947-1995 (roads averaged 85% of Georgia's transportation budget during that time, while all other forms of transit - mostly buses - recieved just 15% of the transportation budget).

US Dept. of Transportation figures (www.usdot.gov) show that the State of Georgia was #3 in the country in road building from 1980-1995 (second only to California and Florida). In essence, Georgia tried to BUILD its way out of congestion with ROADS. And it hasn't worked. Not even for a year.

In 1995 (partially because of Olympic attention), the Atlanta metro region started funding more transit - mainly more buses and better routes and service - but also gave in to building a comprehensive light rail system. Georgia is still experimenting with the system (critics haven't liked some of the alignments of the sytem, but that's another story), so it's really too soon to say whether it's "worked" or not.

But the only alternative was continuing the state's 86% attention to road-building, which has proven over the past 50 years that it DOESN'T work. In fact MANY states are now realizing that you CAN'T build your way out of congestion with more roads. But this is an entirely new topic. . .perhaps a good idea for the subject of another thread???

>"How about Minnesota?"

I have no idea. I'm not familiar enough with Minnesota transportation policies.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

Talk about aplles and oranges, Patrick. Starting from a baseline 80% are satisfied with the work that's being done to improve their highways, 75% are satisfied with their present transportation system, 89% still want to continue to spend as much OR MORE on highways, 90% want to spend as much or more on transit, about the only thing you can conclude is that those Minnesotans is that they damn sure like their transportation, and they are willing to back those feelings up with bucks. That's the problem with pouring data into a database and using SAS/SPSS to slice it and dice it. Back when I was in the business our lead biostatistician said that if you tortured the data long enough, it'd tell you anything you wanted to hear. You really need to get beyond just A SAS/SPSS printout, look at the way the survey was taken, see what they did to either control or correct for response and selection bias, etc. I don't think that your average scientific journal would accept this sort of statistical anecdote as meaningful. And you get politely written refusal letters as to why they won't publish your "study" until you learn that. I know, I got a few of those letters when I was younger.

Question: QG1. The next few questions are about transportation. I'd like to know how satisfied you are with the amount of work that is being done to IMPROVE Minnesota's highway system . . . very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied? Responses: VERY SATISFIED/SOMEWHAT SATISFIED/NOT VERY SATISFIED/NOT AT ALL SATISFIED/DON'T KNOW/RA Percent Responding 23.40% VERY SATISFIED 57.30% SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 14.30% NOT VERY SATISFIED 5.10% NOT AT ALL SATISFIED Number of Valid Cases: 797 SAS/SPSS Variable Name: QG1 +--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------+ Survey Source: NNSP: MINNESOTA / MINNESOTA STATE SURVEY / CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH / UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA / 1992 1992-12 NNSP-MN-003 Survey Date: 12/1992 Sample: MINNESOTA Residents 18 or older Question: QG2. In general, how satisfied are you that Minnesota's most important transportation needs are being met . . . very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied? Responses: VERY SATISFIED/SOMEWHAT SATISFIED/NOT VERY SATISFIED/NOT AT ALL SATISFIED/DON'T KNOW/RA Percent Responding 13.60% VERY SATISFIED 61.60% SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 20.20% NOT VERY SATISFIED 4.60% NOT AT ALL SATISFIED Number of Valid Cases: 790 SAS/SPSS Variable Name: QG2 +--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------+ Survey Source: NNSP: MINNESOTA / MINNESOTA STATE SURVEY / CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH / UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA / 1992 1992-12 NNSP-MN-003 Survey Date: 12/1992 Sample: MINNESOTA Residents 18 or older Question: QG3. Do you think more money, about the same amount, or less money should be spent on Minnesota's HIGHWAYS? Responses: MORE MONEY/SAME MONEY/LESS MONEY/DON'T KNOW/RA Percent Responding 26.00% MORE MONEY 63.40% SAME AMOUNT 10.60% LESS MONEY Number of Valid Cases: 784 SAS/SPSS Variable Name: QG3 +--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------+ Survey Source: NNSP: MINNESOTA / MINNESOTA STATE SURVEY / CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH / UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA / 1992 1992-12 NNSP-MN-003 Survey Date: 12/1992 Sample: MINNESOTA Residents 18 or older Question: QG4. Do you think more money, about the same amount, or less money should be spent on TRANSIT BUS SERVICE throughout Minnesota? Responses: MORE MONEY/SAME MONEY/LESS MONEY/DON'T KNOW/RA Percent Responding 40.60% MORE MONEY 50.30% SAME AMOUNT 9.10% LESS MONEY Number of Valid Cases: 770 SAS/SPSS Variable Name: QG4

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

Even if your polling questions are accurate Patrick they are just a prime example of how to manipulate answers. A skillful interviewer or huckster(Imean pollster) can get any answers he wants from people just by asking questions the correct way. I can get people to tell me their own address is wrong if I want to. In court it is called 'leading' the witness and it it used ALL the time.

Maybe if your hucksters had said.

Now you have $100.00 left from your paycheck how much of it would you donate to the government so other people could ride the bus without spending their own money? Guess what?? 100% of the people would say.. play leap frog with a rolling donut.

You communist bozos can manipulate all you want by pretending it is somebody else's money.. BUT IT'S NOT.... When you actually attempt to speak the truth (no matter how disgusting you find that to be) IT IS MY MONEY (speaking for each individual in the collective) and I'm going to spend it on what I WANT.

Of course YOU mindless twits always remember that the money doesn't belong to you so you want to spend it on some socialized drivel. Hell you don't care..It doesn't come out of your pocket.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmal.com), January 14, 2000.

"YES! In fact, roads are about ALL that Georgia spent money on from 1947-1995 (roads averaged 85% of Georgia's transportation budget during that time, while all other forms of transit - mostly buses - recieved just 15% of the transportation budget). " Not what the current figures show, "common sense." For Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001, total programmed expenditures in the State Transportation Improvement Program (as approved by GDOT Board on 9-17-98) is $3.6 B. Of this, 40 % is programmed for Reconstruction/Rehabilitation, 28% for Public Transit, 9% for Maintenance, 8% for New Construction, 7% for Safety, 5% for Bridge, 2% for Enhancements, and 1% for Other. http://www.dot.state.ga.us/homeoffs/planning.www/planning/tranfact/fin ance.htm

The bulk of the building was the governors road improbement program, designed to get a four lane road within 20 miles of most rural towns, not for congestion relief.

And given that only 2% of the passenger miles come from transit, 15% seems like MORE than fair for transit funding. 28% seems quite excessive.

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

>"And given that only 2% of the passenger miles come from transit,"

Oh, don't go there. Trust me.

If 2% of the passenger miles come from transit, could it be because there's only 2% transit coverage in the Atlanta Metro area?

You can't squeeze 99% transit coverage in an area when transit only covers 2% of the region's population.

When higher percentages of a population are offered transit, then a higher percentage of the population can use it. If a lower percentage of the population is offered transit, then a lower percentage can use it. You can't squeeze 99% ridership if only 2% of the population is even ABLE to use it. It's basic mathematics.

I once lived in Ohio. There's NO light rail systems there. Yet anti-transit advocates were once quick to argue "We won't build light rail in Ohio because nobody in Ohio now uses light rail." Huh???

The similarites to Washington aren't exact, but close enough to make me chuckle.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

"When higher percentages of a population are offered transit, then a higher percentage of the population can use it. If a lower percentage of the population is offered transit, then a lower percentage can use it. You can't squeeze 99% ridership if only 2% of the population is even ABLE to use it. It's basic mathematics. " But the FACTS both in this state and nationwide is that we HAVE expanded transit in terms of number of vehicles, number of route- miles, and frequency of service, and we have seen NO increase in transit market share, and in many markets continue to see declines in absolute numbers of users as well as market share. Those US DOT references have been posted in these threads at least a half dozen times by me alone, and really aren't subject to debate. The Metro routes in South King County that are being threatened with cancellation averaged less than nine riders an hour. Given that riders ride, on the average, 20 minutes, that means that ON THE AVERAGE you have a driver and three (3) passengers in the (thirty- ton) bus. So what has happened is that as we've expanded the transit availability, we have ADDED to our EXCESS capacity in transit, making it less and less efficient. Transit does not have a supply problem. It has a DEMAND problem. We built it, and no one came.

That's the main reason the energy cost of transit bus passenger miles has been going up, and now exceeds the passenger mile cost in btus by 22%. Buses didn't suddenly get less fuel efficient. We simply pushed them into routes where the population density was so low that they COULDN'T be efficient. For someone allegedly named "common sense," you sure ain't got much. Try taking an economics 101 course at your local junior college. It'll do you a world of good.

Can we offer more transit and get more riders? Sure, but it's already so far out of its economic niche that we won't be gaining anything by doing it. We COULD provide every 30 minute service to every person in Okanogan county with a 30 ton $435K bus if we wanted to. The cost per additional rider would be astronomical, but it COULD be done.

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

Oops

That's the main reason the energy cost of transit bus passenger miles has been going up, and now exceeds the passenger mile cost OF AUTOS in btus by 22%.

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

Common-

Check the MARTA stats on the DOR website (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/4022/ $File/P4022.PDF)

They AVERAGED 9.6 passengers on their buses (255 million passenger miles/26.5 vehicle revenue miles). These buses hold 60+ people. They built it, no one came.

heavy rail- average 22 passengers (488 million passenger miles/22.2 millionvehicle revenue miles) This is for a 100 passenger rail car! They built it. No one came.

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

Common/Patrick,

From the Texas Transportation Institute Mobility Study.

Average Peak Period Travel Speed, Freeway System.

Minneapolis/St, Paul = 55 mph

http://mobility.tamu.edu/study/PDFs/minneapolis.pdf

Atlanta = 53 mph

http://mobility.tamu.edu/study/PDFs/atlanta.pdf

Seattle = 44 mph

http://mobility.tamu.edu/study/PDFs/seattle.pdf

Nice try though guys.

I say Washington spent to much on transit, build the roads!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

"No one came" Came, H*ll! Doesn't look like they were even breathing hard.

Screw Transit, build roads!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

If 2% of the passenger miles come from transit, could it be because there's only 2% transit coverage in the Atlanta Metro area?  Not according to MARTA. They brag about their transit area coverage. And even if it WERE true for Atlanta, it isnt true for Washington State. According to WA DOT 85% of the state population has access to transit services, and they still stay away from it in droves. And of course, assuming they have already served the most densely populated portions of the state (only reasonable, but you never know with WA DOT. They gave a grant to Okanogan county to start transit services AFTER the voters turned it down), the marginal cost of getting the other 15% will be extreme. If youre not familiar with the Okanogan, its the third largest county in the US. Largest city is Omak (pop 4495). Population of 7 people per square mile. http://okanogancounty.org/DEMO.HTM

New PTBAs Over the next 20 years, new transit systems are expected to be formed and implemented in rural areas of the state. Although the 24 transit authorities currently have boundaries covering an area that includes nearly 85 percent of the population, many rural regions of the state have no public transit service. The Public Transportation and Rail Division of WSDOT has as an action strategy to actively pursue the formation of new PTBAs. The projected population growth rate in rural counties is higher than urban counties, and rural counties such as Garfield, Pacific, Wahkiakum, Clallam, and Columbia have a high elderly growth rate as well. In rural areas it is expected that new community-based, general public demand-response service, linked to larger urbanized areas by adequate intercity bus services, will be initiated.

http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/ptirp.pdf

So you see, common sense (?). We built it, and no one came. We continue to build it, long after it has ceased to make sense. People dont keep making the same mistake over and over again for reasons of logic. This amounts to a religion for the pro-transit crowd. Im not an ogre, I dont want the poor to go unfed or unshod, but I dont want to support YOUR religion with MY tax dollar.

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

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.