The walking neighborhood is a zoning issue. If a neighborhood offers grocery, employment, medical, dining, social and other services available within 1/4 to 1/2 mile, who needs transit or a a car? But you still need roads. I lived in such a neighborhood dating from the 1890's. It had single-family, apartments, several grocery stores, hardware and lumber stores, drug stores, apparel, novelties, naughties, and all the parking lots were full because no one wanted to carry home their purchases. When we zone large areas for single-family-only, walking for any purpose other than exercise becomes futile, and transit is a pipe dream.

Transit has a business model problem. In it's currrent form it looks like the school bus...dispersed origins to a central destination at a given time, central origin at a given time to dispersed destinations. Transit is a time-and-space utility. The growth of the suburbs for both employment and living has eroded the central destination. Knowledge work has eroded the time aspect. "We need to get this out today". "Gee, sorry, I can't help you, I have to be at Spruce and Goose at 4:45 for my van pool or bus". A real recipe for career truncation.

The dispersion problem operates in both time and space. Fixed routes are condemned to run forever at 50% capacity because they are based of the theory that the customer wants to go from dispersed to central, then from central to dispersed. Transit can't deal with dispersed to dispersed with its present business model.

Shuttle Express is a business. It has customers, it has costs of operation, it has capital costs and it earns money on its investment. It provides a service that people want. It sells a ride to and from the airport at a reasonable approximation of your schedule at a reasonable price. Advance reservations only facilitate planning.

Can you apply this model to tansit? Maybe. Free parking at the office or plant erodes the economic attractiveness. Erratic work schedules erode the predictability, and decrease efficiency.

People have exercised their free choice to seek to live in places that maximize their satisfaction. Transit confronts this chaos and can only offer a turn-of-the-century vintage response: no matter where you live, or what you do, you must want to go downtown.

Shuttle express has the beginnings of the right business model to cope with what real people are really doing. Taxi and jitney srevice begin to approach this in a coherent manner. Public funded transit doesn't have a clue today, except for their demand-response or paratansit service. I hope they successfully confront this before they bankrupt the entire transportation effort.

-- Terry Jackson (terryj@olypen.com), January 26, 2000

Answers

Ah, except you're forgot to carry your model out, Terry!

Taxi or shuttle service is indeed good for (using your language) "dispersed" to "dispersed." But what happens when ENOUGH people are traveling by taxi service from one "dispersed" point to another? Answer: the route becomes "central" to "central."

Now in this new "central" to "central" model, you have a choice. For the sake of simplicity lets say this "central" to "central" scenario requires you to get 5,000 people from point A to point B - a distance of about 15 miles - within an hour's time. In this case, you can either use 5,000 single-occupancy taxis, perhaps 2,000 mult-occupant taxis, 100 buses, or 15 light-rail cars. Which transit choice would be most cost efficient? Which would require the least road space? Which would be the fastest? Which is the most quiet? Which choice would be the most environmentally friendly? Which choice is the least stressful and safest? In every case, it is light rail.

Indeed, we already HAVE such "central" to "central" transit practices within Washington! Such as from downtown to the airport, downtown to UW, downtown Seattle to downtown Tacoma, etc. And these places are exactly where we have rightly planned a light-rail route. Why light rail on these routes? Because of the scenario I've described above.

The residents of a three-county area near Seattle recognized this fact (along with some other advantages of light rail), and thus approved funding for a light-rail system on these routes ONLY.

Is light rail the best transportation option for EVERY situation? Ha ha. No!

Is light rail the best transportation option for MOST situations and MOST counties in the state? Ha ha. No!

But for a few situations, as described above, light rail DOES make the most sense. And what's so wrong with that, as long as we pay our own way? So if the voters of King County approve to fund it themselves, isn't that just democracy in action?

Remember, think things through. While taxi service, limos, and cars have their time and place, they're not the best in EVERY situation, and in fact in SOME situations cars are exactly the WORST option you can have. And also remember: cars are a tool for life, and not life itself. Think about it.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

CS,

You stated "In this case, you can either use 5,000 single-occupancy taxis, perhaps 2,000 mult-occupant taxis, 100 buses, or 15 light-rail cars."

Sigh....Where did you get the notion that Taxi service or a type of subscription service, would result in 2000 mult-occupant taxis? Using Smaller busses (16-18 passengers)and vans in a demand response system concentrating your scheduling in small cluster areas same origin, same destination, would be more attractive to passengers who could obtain curb to curb service and it's a heck of a lot more time/resource efficient.

People like you are part of the problem. You want to defend the status quo that isn't working instead of thinking outside your little box. Terry has an excellant idea and you flame it without even thinking it through.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

"Such as from downtown to the airport, downtown to UW, downtown Seattle to downtown Tacoma, etc. " Downtown to the UW I can almost buy. The UW is a commuter campus, however here we are talking about a 4-5 mile trip that is ALREADY served by buses fairly well. If we could use light rail IN LIEU of buses it MIGHT make sense....... as soon as we amortized the capital investment which, as was noted on the thread for LINK-T, pretty much never happens. But you CAN'T use LINK in lieu of buses, because any number of DOT studies have shown that people will only walk about a quarter mile to a transit stop, and that in good weather (Seattle blessed with a lot of good weather?), and then only if carrying nothing much more than a briefcase. So given that the entire line will only have about 20 stops, that gives you an area of 20*pi(1/4)^2 square miles, about 3 and 3/4 square miles that you can draw from without using buses to get people to the transit station. For just downtown to the UW, the area is much less, less than one square mile. And the population density just isn't enough in any square mile of Seattle to justify a light rail to the UW. So you wind up having buses AND light rail, except guess what. People don't like intermodal transfers. Again, there are any number of DOT studies that demonstrate this. The net effect of a light rail is to decrease the viability of existing bus routes.

Downtown to the airport is another issue. If you are a single person or couple going on an overnighter, with a briefcase and carry-on, maybe. But most people have luggage. And luggage greatly complicates the situation. So does kids. Then there is the fact that light rail averages about 14mph. First and Pine to Sea-TAC is 15+ miles. That's an hour seven minutes plus boarding wait. (Median boarding wait is (surprise) one half the service interval, call it five minutes) MapQuest says driving time is 24 minutes.

Downtown Seattle to Downtown Tacoma, about 41 miles. Mapquest says 48 minutes driving time. That may be a little optimistic, but light rail would be 2 hours and forty minutes plus boarding wait.

So what we have is a plan for a system that is less adaptable, slower,requires additional walking and waiting, and is more costly than using buses to do the same job. And the buses don't have demand because they are not perceived by the average person as meeting their needs (hey, we're talking a 2% market share of passenger miles here).

Why don't I think this'll work?

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 26, 2000.

>"Why don't I think this'll work?"

Because you've forgotten that most trips - car, bus, ferry, pedestrian, or rail - actually do NOT involve "luggage." Most trips of ANY form rarely involve more than a rain jacket and purse. Maybe a bookbag or satchel, but certainly not "luggage." Think about your own daily trips by car, bus, or foot. How often do you drag around MORE than just your briefcase and perhaps an umbrella? Not very often, if you're like most commuters, except for one (1) average weekly trip to load up on groceries. But if the grocer (and other retail establishments) is within walking distance of your house, it's becomes even an even RARER occourance that you have more than just a briefcase and umbrella in your daily commuting life.

Therefore, "dragging around luggage" isn't such the issue you present.

I'll get to another issue you've forgotten later: I've gotta make an errand of my own right now!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

We seen to be finessing the service area of less than four miles, speed of 14mph,lack of population density to make it work, parasitism of bus lines, and other issues here, seizing on a minor issue of luggage "Because you've forgotten that most trips - car, bus, ferry, pedestrian, or rail - actually do NOT involve "luggage." " which if you'll READ THE DAMN POSTING was mentioned only as in issue in the TRIP TO THE AIRPORT. Now it seems to me that the airlines impose limitations on baggage, and are instituting new regulations on carry- on luggage precisely because this IS a problem at airports. If your intention is to get people from the CBD to the fast food eateries at Sea-Tac, I'll concede your point. If your intention is to get them to the airport for an intermodal change (ie, what the damn airport exists to do), luggage is certainly not a moot point.

I think the biggest trouble I have with your abuse of the phrase that you have for your posting name is your lack of same. I gave you a variety of very real issues in a reasonable scenario that, if you were being objective about this, ought to concern you greatly. You took one small issue applied in a specific case, took it out of context, saif, "Aha. This doesn't generalize!", implied that somehow that did SQUAT to refute the other arguments, and slinked off.

I guess the difference between us is that winning the argument matters more to you than the reality of whether this multi-billion dollar investment in tax dollars really works or not. To me it doesn't. My approach is pragmattic and (if you please) common sense. Your's is philosophical, doctrinaire, and anything but common sense.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 26, 2000.

Common Sense I think I will rename you Junque Sighence. So now Junque First off you speak of "5,000 single-occupancy taxis". Well I don't think I've ever driven a 'single-occupancy taxi' because when a taxi only has one occupant it's not really being used as a taxi. Not until it has a passenger is it achieving it's correct use and having a passenger means there are a minimum of two occupants.

You also speak of the route becomes "central" to "central." Well when there IS a 'central to central' that is an ARTIFICIAL condition that is either created by the government or by the transportation agency. Sure there are ALWAYS central DESTINATIONS like the airport or specific institutions or shopping/entertainment complexes. But the only time there are central ORIGINATING points are when certain groups are NATURALLY together at those points (like a school or group home) or when they have been FORCED to gather at those points by something more powerful than themselves.

You also say "The residents of a three-county area near Seattle recognized this fact (along with some other advantages of light rail), and thus approved funding for a light-rail system on these routes ONLY"

WRONG!!!! The ELITE decided they were going to FORCE this ill-planned monstrosity on us and worked diligently to delude people into believing it would be a wonderful blessing. There is already bus service. The bus service does NOT disrupt traffic and neighborhoods and create dangerous situations for all those who live on the route.

LIGHT RAIL IS AN ATROCITY. Why do you think Rainier Valley wants it buried in a tunnel? We would be much happier if it WOULD WITHER ON THE VINE AND DIE. ThE University district doesn't want to be the starting point BECUASE THEY KNOW HOW MANY PROBLEMS IT WILL CREATE. Now the University didn't mind it being there at first because it will not bother the surface streets...IT WILL BE ISOLATED FROM THE ELITE. But the Rainier Valley (which has MAJOR bus service)will be destroyed. Bend Over Junque Sighense.. you can have your light rail

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Maddjak dear,

I have to take issue with one single teeny little thing. You stated "The bus service does NOT disrupt traffic and neighborhoods and create dangerous situations for all those who live on the route."

Why is it a good idea to take a thirty thousand pound, 40 foot bus into a residential neighborhood? It is VERY dangerous. Hard to stop, hard to control, and and visibility sucks. I would prefer something a bit smaller...What about the school bus? School bus driver's have the advantage of strict laws, warning lights and superior training.

Of course, I do not want a choo choo down the street either.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Marsha, The buses are already here. They go much faster than 14 MPH. They are required to observe traffic signs and signals (even though they often ignore them). They use the same road that I do. Rail makes cross traffic stop when it is going by. It makes no difference that the lights were synchronized for a smooth traffic flow. Rail is GOD. Rail removes part of the road that I would generally use. Rail is EXTREMELY MORE DANGEROUS because people are stupid. People are always trying to beat a train across the tracks. People don't usually try to beat a bus across the intersection. People have a tendancy to sit on railroad tracks, drink beer and get run over. People don't usually sit on the road. Pedestrians try to sneak in front of, under and even between the rail cars..that's why we have special 'Safety Ambassadors' in Seattle because Mariner Fans are so dumb they try to crawl through moving trains. Pedestrians generally give buses more respect than they do cars.

I live in Rainier Valley and I don't want Ron Sims damm choo-choo train in my neighborhood

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Maddjak,

Yes, people are stupid. I have a nephew (husbands side!) who got drunk with his buddies at Chico State and tried to hop aboard a moving train. Received a head injury and partial paralysis of his hand for the stunt. He longer drinks....And I think he is afraid of trains now.....

I have a really good train joke if you want me to email it. It is not for the faint of heart!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

US New Light Rail Peak Volumes: Well Below Single Freeway Lane: The Portland & St. Louis Examples

Even during peak travel hours light rail carries comparatively few riders compared to freeway lanes, though data is not generally available. In Portland, for example, inbound (toward downtown) light rail volume averages approximately 1,100 per hour during the 6:00 a..m. to 9:00 a.m. peak period. By comparison, each lane of the adjacent Banfield Freeway (Interstate 84) carries approximately 2,600 people per hour --- nearly 2.5 times the volume of the light rail line. In the outbound direction, each freeway lane carries 1,500 persons hourly, 28 times the light rail averages of 55 passengers during the same period (Figure #1). Overall, during the morning peak period, the freeway carries more than 10 times the volume of the light rail line.(1)

Theoretical and Practical Capacity: These findings appear to contradict the often cited claim that a light rail line has the same person carrying capacity as up to six freeway lanes. Yet US transit agencies do not even provide the service that could carry such a large number of passengers.

For example, St. Louis, with one of the nation's most intensively used new light rail lines, provides seating capacity for fewer than 900 passengers each peak hour --- one-third the capacity of a freeway lane. With a "crush" load.of standing passengers, the St. Louis line could achieve a passenger volume of nearly 2,000, still 25 percent below a freeway lane's capacity. Moreover, it is apparent that the St. Louis line has not reduced traffic congestion. Traffic on the adjacent Mississippi River Bridge (I-55/64/70) has increased by more than 20 percent since before the light rail line opened. Despite being able to save between $4.00 and $11.00 daily in parking charges by taking light rail, the vast majority of commuters continue to drive.

It is theoretically possible (2) for light rail to carry the volume of six freeway lanes,(3) but it would require service levels and passenger demand far above present levels. Like Interstate 10 between Fort Stockton and Van Horn, new light rail systems have the capacity to carry much more volume. Interstate 10 does not because there is insufficient travel demand in that area. Light rail does not because there is little demand for a mode of transport much slower than the automobile on which one may stand for a major portion of the trip.

1. Oregon Transportation Institute, Max Versus Banfield Freeway: A Comparison of Actual Passenger Usage, Internet: www.hevanet.com/oti/MVFE.htm., based upon Oregon Department of Transportation and Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District data, 1994.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

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. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-fwy&lrt.htm

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

So send me the train joke already...Faint of heart??? NOt me LOL

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

CS: Light rail, or heavy, probably has a place in the universe. It works well in Chicago as a method to get business visitors between O'Hare and downtown, and during many periods of the day it is faster than the alternative.

Having said that it works in Chicago for business travelers, though, doesn't say anything about the economics. Most airports have become quite adept at squeezing the last nickle out of the traveler, and I'm mildly surprised that they haven't extended this to the airport train, where demand is relatively inelastic if your next best alternative is a cab. They could easily get a $5 or $10 fare out of the airport to downtown, which isn't any worse than $3 hot dogs. In other words, airport to downtown business district might be self- supporting if the fare levels are set high enough, and demand may be high enough and inelastic enough to attain this level.

If the good people of Pugetopolis want to build a rail line, have at it. However, it ain't ever going to be remotely economic or efficient.

In a region obsessed with Growth Management where every jurisdiction wants a minimum lot size of 10,000 sf or more, where every proposed development must first provide adequate parking, population densities will never raech a level where public transit makes sense. Sure, some people will always ride the bus or the train because it passes their door and goes where they want to go, saving them parking fees. Some will ride it because it just makes them feel like they are doing the right thing. Public policy in the zoning and GMA regulations ensure that public transit will always be an economic white elephant.

Tax youselves as much or as little to build whatever makes you happy. It is your money. Don't ask the rest of us to help out, and don't expect it to ever be anything but an economic black hole consuming taxes and delivering very little.

-- Terry Jackson (terryj@olypen.com), January 27, 2000.

I've used the Portland Light Rail system, and it is painfully slow as you get closer to downtown. However, it did save me money vs. parking. But, I think I ended up wasting an extra 15-20 minutes each way. It was ok, but I wouldn't call it great.

Personally, my favorite rail system is the subway in Washington D.C. Of course, taxis in D.C. are quite inexpensive, too. Another great subway system is the one in Mexico City. Both subway systems are very clean.

If I was going to blow a wad of the fed's money on rail, I'd opt for a subway system. But, if the taxpayers of the state of Washington have to foot a substantial part of the bill, man, that would cost a pretty penny.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 27, 2000.

CS- This one's for you:

PUBLIC TRANSIT

For more than a quarter century, federal, state and local policies have sought to entice people away from automobiles and into public transit. More than $350 billion (1998$) in public subsidies have been expended to support transit --- more than was spent to build the 40,000 mile interstate highway system. The overall failure of these policies rivals that of the "war on poverty."

Since 1970, automobile and light truck use has increased 85 percent, while transit use has declined by three percent. Most of transit's decline has occurred since 1983, the last year before transit receive a dedication of funding from federal highway user fees.

Today transit represents less than one percent of the nation's surface passenger travel. Transit's share of travel has declined so much that doubling or tripling ridership would have an imperceivable impact except in a very few of the nation's largest central cities. Each school day, school buses carry three times as many passengers as transit.

During the 1980s, transit's work trip market share declined in all but two of the 39 largest metropolitan areas, and in all of the metropolitan areas that built or expanded urban rail systems.

The 1990s are proving to be even worse than the 1980s with respect to transit ridership. From 1990 to 1995, the ridership loss exceeded the entire loss between 1980 and 1990. Worse still, the largest losses have been in the metropolitan areas most dependent upon transit, and where traffic congestion is the greatest.

The allure of urban rail is proving to be no more than an allure. In Los Angeles, where I served on the transit & highway policy board (the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission) transit ridership has dropped more than 25 percent since 1985 --- despite opening three new rail lines and a comprehensive commuter rail system. Officials there have imposed a moratorium on rail construction. The transit agency has taken on so much debt to build its first three rail lines that it is unlikely that rail construction will resume without a massive infusion of new money from state and local sources. Moreover, the new rail systems are having little or no impact on highways. From St. Louis to Portland, highway traffic volumes have continued to increase despite the addition of urban rail. Washington, DC's $12 billion metrorail system has attracted so few automobile commuters that the overall share of work trips is lower today in that metropolitan area than before the system was built.

Transit productivity continues to decline. Since 1970, virtually every other mode of transport has maintained or improved its productivity (even Amtrak). Transit costs per passenger have escalated nearly 50 percent relative to inflation since 1983, which translates to $7.1 billion in annual spending above inflation.

In what is perhaps the most stunning development, automobile fuel efficiency has improved so much that public transit bus energy consumption is 30 percent higher per passenger mile. Overall auto and transit energy consumption per passenger mile, including urban rail, is approximately the same as that of the automobile. Transit energy consumption is trending upward, while auto energy consumption is dropping.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/21st-fl.htm Why has transit policy failed? There are two fundamental causes --- transit policies that are anti-transit, and demographic trends.

Anti-transit policies: Federal transit policy discourages efficiency, both in operations and capital projects, and as a result discourages transit use itself.

Operations: Federal policies force the cost of transit operations up artificially, especially through labor protection provisions that require up to six years severance for laid off employees. At the local level these policies create a situation in which transit agencies are unable or unwilling to employ cost effective service provision alternatives, such as competitive contracting, with the effect that transit costs per mile are often double what is necessary. As a result, less transit service is provided, and there is lower ridership. Where competitive contracting has been implemented, the results have been very positive. Denver has been able to use the savings to expand service and increase ridership by 25 percent. San Diego has increased service levels by half while operating costs have increased only three percent. And, transit systems are being converted to competitive contracting around the world --- London, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, and soon the entire nation of South Africa.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), February 04, 2000.