For those of you into GRAPHIC representations, there are some great graphs on the summer 1999 progress report on the Metro KC six year transit plan:http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/tp/transit/charts.pdf

What it shows is that Metro KC has expanded outside of its niche of cost effectiveness. Contrary to the recent Greg Nichols editorial, transit nowhere approaches 40% market share of commuting. In the most transit friendly (high density) area, they HOPE to get above 25% market share by 2010 (graph 2). For Eastside and South King County, transit share of the commuter load is TRIVIAL and projected to stay trivial through 2020. Transit costs, which fairly well parallelled ridership until 1997, have significantly diverged from ridership as transit has been expanded beyond it's niche of cost-effectiveness (graph 3).

Costs per passenger boarding are going up fast, and since the costs are greatest for the Eastside, the effect is to draw down CBD transit, where transit is relatively cost-effective to subsidize transit to the suburbs, where it isn't cost-effective. (graph 6)

Now Patrick and other pro-transit people, these are METRO'S OWN FIGURES. Take the graphs to any economics professor and they'll tell you just from the trend lines, that this company is trying to expand into markets where it can't effectively compete.

It's not that hard, people. Look up the figures. Do some research. Look past the dogma and get the FACTS.

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

Answers

As always, you have investigated time and effort into research and have provided us with various facts and figures. It would be senseless to argue the numbers.

However, what should Metro's priorities be? If cost effectiveness was the PRIMARY priority, then Metro might as well close up shop. Metro will NEVER recover all of the money that they spend.

If the primary priority is to provide a service to the community, then costs effectiveness becomes a secondary consideration, extremely important, but secondary.

The problem with transit in the Puget Sound region is that it is extremely inadequate. It doesn't cover enough area and it doesn't have the frequency that it needs to have.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), February 14, 2000.

"The problem with transit in the Puget Sound region is that it is extremely inadequate. It doesn't cover enough area and it doesn't have the frequency that it needs to have. "

Is this a problem that can be solved with transit, or is it a function of demographics. The SmartGrowth people implicitly admit that transit can't do the job, because of demography and geography. I happen to agree with that. They believe that they can get the population concentrated and get the population density up to where transit will be more effective. If they can, it will, but I don't think they can. And I don't think it will be ENOUGH "more effective" to offset the adverse effects of the increased congestion associated with the increased population density.

Not everything can be solved with transit. Right now the transit available (in the aggregate) greatly exceeds the demand. Since the highest density areas already have the most transit coverage and the most frequent transit coverage, the expansion (both geographic and frequency) you suggest will run into the law of diminishing returns. It already has, as these graphics representations show.

Explain to me how you would expand these without making the situation worse. Also, if it has excess capacity already, how much more unused capacity are you ready to pay for? And how do you propose to pay for it, in the post 695 political world?

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

Webmaster: Is there anyway that you could post the actual graphics (the charts) cited above to this thread, for those who don't do pdf files?

Given all the discussion from the recent editorial, this would be most helpful.

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

Gene states "The problem with transit in the Puget Sound region is that it is extremely inadequate. It doesn't cover enough area and it doesn't have the frequency that it needs to have."

Even the Transit Planners wouldn't buy your argument. It's logistically impractical to provide an increased area of service that would make Transit "adequate." The key to this faulty logic is the term "region." You are trying to cover too broad of an area, too often. If it made sense to expand service beyond what was available, it would have already been done.

It simply doesn't meet most people's needs.

It's still the demographics.

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

if providing that service, balanced against something with a higher priority, wouldn't you agree its time to reevaluate that service and decide whether its really worth providing...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), February 14, 2000.

To Craig: Of course it's the demographics. As long as society fails to build Park'N'Ride facilities at the same rate the population expands, then transit will find it difficult to maintain its current market share, let alone expand its market share.

Likewise, if society fails to expand the HOV system at the same rate the population grows, then the relative advantage of ridesharing is diminished, as the HOV lanes become clogged with 2-person vehicles. A DATE IS NOT A CARPOOL!!! (HA, HA, HA).

So, yes, "it's the demographics, stupid". Build more Park'N'Rides and expand the HOV system, and transit will soar to ever greater heights.

NOTE: The phrase, "it's the demographics, stupid", is not meant to be insulting, deragatory, obnoxious, or offensive on my part. I am merely quoting unnamed "others". I apologize in advance for all of you sensitive types whose feathers I may have ruffled.

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

Craig,

I agree that transit is not THE solution. Transit needs to be part of an overall transportation system solution to work. This transportation system solution would encompass roads, transit, rail and ferries. I believe that a diverse transportation system is the best overall solution. Much like financial investments, it is better to diversify rather than placing all of your transportation investments into a single asset.

I don't doubt the information provided by you that transit is more cost effective than rail, that roads are more cost effective than transit, or that ferries and transit may be over subsidized. I happen to believe that all of them are necessary.

Marsha,

When I stated that transit was inadequate, I was expressing an opinion, not an argument. I have not gone through the time and trouble that Craig has gone through to obtain any facts or data. Whether or not Transit Planners agree is up to them. I had not proposed anything. I only stated an opinion that the existing service was inadequate. So let me correct that and give you something "logistically impractical" to pick at...

If I were king and allowed to design a transportation system for the Puget Sound region...

I would start with a rail system with a route from Tacoma to Seattle to Everett (farther South / North?) and another line that basically circles Lake Washington (remember the '62 Worlds Fair monorail display?) with smaller lines that cross over 520 and I-90. Individual cities like Lynnwood and Federal Way would have their own bus service that would serve their area and feed the rail system. Metro / Pierce Transit would take care of the unincorporated parts of their respective counties, but basically feeding the rail system. Cities would concentrate only on their area and should cover a large overall area with higher frequency.

Road and bridge construction is another matter. I've seen the Tacoma Narrows at rush hour and it needs more capacity. Another bridge may be the answer. Similar for the 520 floating bridge. The I-405 and Highway 167 interchange needs a different ramp system. I-90 itself doesn't need any major help, but the I-90 & I-5 interchange and up pass the convention center needs a MAJOR overhaul. Everything else could be relieved by just adding a single additional lane of traffic. (I would leave the HOV lanes alone.)

Now, I doubt that any on this is "logistically" impractical, but "How much will it cost?" definitely comes to mind. I saw on the History(?) Channel that Boston is in the middle of some major transportation improvements that are running between 10 - 11 billion dollars.

No Chance,

Wanting to prioritize a service against something else is valid, but prioritizing was not something that I-695 did. I-695 cut taxes and required a vote on tax or fee increases, but that is all. If you want your representatives to prioritize, then you need to let them know.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), February 15, 2000.

Gene-

I believe that a diverse transportation system is the best overall solution. Much like financial investments, it is better to diversify rather than placing all of your transportation investments into a single asset. 

I keep seeing this repeated over and over like a mantra. Its starting to get eerie, like a Druid chant or an incantation. At the risk of being politically incorrect, its nonsense.

I have no trouble with diversity, IF THERE IS A VALID REASON FOR (or at least no harm in) THE DIVERSITY. You have asset allocation because there are advantages and disadvantages to each asset class, and because certain groups tend to rise or fall out of phase with other groups, limiting your risk (or at least your volatility, which people have been told is the same thing. Its not). In theory, as one asset classs return decreases the others will increase.

But diversity for diversitys sake is silly. What if I wanted to be able to travel by caribou cart (I HAVE traveled by Caribou cart, it was kind of fun. Of course I was five). Is this a valid transportation mode for Seattle? Of course not. What if I wanted to travel by F-16 (I have traveled by F-16. It was a LOT of fun). I guarantee you that I can get from Paine field to Sea-Tac faster by F- 16 than by transit.

So the real issue is what attributes of one system complement, augment, or synergize, or otherwise contribute to the whole mixture. For any mode that you want to put in the mix, you ought to be capable of describing WHY you put that in and HOW it helps you, and this applies to transportation just as much as it does to asset allocation.

So stop with the Mantra. If you believe that light rail ought to be in the mix, tell me what attributes light rail brings to the table. Same for bus transit. Same for HOV lanes. Explain to me why you put that asset in your asset allocation, dont just tell me its because of diversity. Caribou carts, camels, and F-16s will dramatically contribute to your transportation diversity too, but thats not enough. The mix has to make SENSE. Explain to me why you think it makes sense.

The Craigster

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

Craig-

You are asking for logic and fact. You are going to be accused of being, at best, an engineer.

Gene is talking philosophy. Light rail is NOBLE. Auto's are UNCLEAN. That's all you need to know in his world.

People who like light rail are GOOD. People who like autos are EVIL. You have pressed him for a logical rationale, and he can't come up with one. Since no LOGICAL case can be made for light rail, he has made an emotional case.

His fig leaf, deprived of his standard arguments by your facts to the contrary, has become that it supports DIVERSITY which he again perceives as a universal GOOD.

This again is an emotional argument. Your RATIONAL argument that diversity is neither good nor bad, will make you evil in his eyes. You'll be lucky if you aren't called a Nazi or a racist.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.

OK, the most common form of conveyance taken on a trip to work during rush hour is the elevator. BUILD MORE ELEVATORS.

-- Terry Jackson (terryj@olypen.com), February 16, 2000.

Craig,

You asked for reasons for a diverse transportation system, but I am fairly certain that you already know the reasons. You have previously indicated that transit has a niche, but that expanding it beyond that niche was not cost effective. But I will point out some of the basic reasons anyway (if just for Zowie's sake). 7 While many have access to automobiles, there are many who do not. 7 There are those who do have access to automobiles, who choose not to use that option. 7 A diverse transportation system gives users an option. And when other options are used, then the one that you select has greater capacity.

Just because these people may not constitute a majority of the population, does not mean that their should be ignored by the government. Some may think that government should provide only to the majority. I happen to disagree with that (within reason, of course).

From my point of view, these are the attributes each mode of transportation brings to the table: 7 Automobiles gives users the freedom to select their own routes. It is less constrained by outside influences, but is heavily dependant upon the user to provide for the asset (e.g. car payments, gas, parking, insurance, etc.). 7 HOV lanes is a policy decision intended to increase the effectiveness of the existing roadway infrastructure. 7 Rail gives users a link to of activities (e.g. businesses, entertainment, shopping, etc.) and to other fixed gathering points. It is highly constrained (limited to where tracks are laid) and not readily adaptable, but users are only liable for the fare. 7 Bus transit, like rail, is constrained to fixed routes. But unlike rail, can be readily adapted.

I'm not a transportation engineer and I have not spent anywhere near the time and effort that you have in researching this topic, but I think it makes sense.

Zowie,

While I am talking philosophy and opinion, I did not indicated that one was NOBLE and GOOD and that the other was UNCLEAN and EVIL. I only indicated that both are necessary because I believe a diversified transportation system is a solution that serves everyone's needs, not just the majority. I have not presented any "facts" or sourced a 1000 page research paper on the matter because this was not meant to be an argument or debate (and it's too much work).

As far as light rail is concerned, the case for it has already been made, whether it is logical or not. It was voted on and passed by the people. Facts and data can be re-presented to argue why light rail is not necessary. And the people may reverse their opinion and stop light rail development, which is their right.

Now, as for how you make assessments, don't you think that you are a bit extreme in your comments. Just because I thought rail and transit should be part of a solution, you made the assumption that I thought automobiles are unclean. I did say that additional roadways were necessary, didn't I? And don't you think that using extreme references and name calling (e.g. Nazis, racist, etc.) elicits emotional responses that distract from the overall intent of the message? Why don't you try and keep those types of responses in check.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), February 16, 2000.

While many have access to automobiles, there are many who do not. I agree, although this is a continuingly diminishing number. Not just diminishing as a percentage, but the actual number of individuals who do not have access to an auto is going down notwithstanding the rise in population. That trend would argue for LESS transit investment for social equity purposes than historically. I have no problem with serving this population. For the mobility impaired, it is most readily served through demand response, since it is unrealistic to expect them to walk to the nearest transit stop.

There are those who do have access to automobiles, who choose not to use that option. 7 A diverse transportation system gives users an option. I understand and have no problem with someone wanting choices, as long as THEY are willing to pay for their choices. John Madden CHOOSES not to fly, due to his fear of flying. He owns a bus that he drives (has driven, hes in the back), to football games. I feel no particular obligation to provide him with a bus, although a case could be made that his fear of flying is a disability. I feel NO obligation to provide transit services to those who simply opt for them as a choice. I dont object to them using them, merely to the public subsidizing them.

And when other options are used, then the one that you select has greater capacity. Im not sure I understand this. Please explain what you mean.

Just because these people may not constitute a majority of the population, does not mean that their should be ignored by the government. Some may think that government should provide only to the majority. I happen to disagree with that (within reason, of course). I have no problem with government enabling minorities to fulfill reasonable desires. I do have trouble with government subsidizing one group of people at the expense of other people for choices.

From my point of view, these are the attributes each mode of transportation brings to the table: 7 Automobiles gives users the freedom to select their own routes. It is less constrained by outside influences, but is heavily dependant upon the user to provide for the asset (e.g. car payments, gas, parking, insurance, etc.).  Id agree.

HOV lanes is a policy decision intended to increase the effectiveness of the existing roadway infrastructure. Id agree. My main concern with HOVs is equity. If all are contributing to provide a resource, all ought to be allowed to use it equitably. In the case of the HOV lanes, people are being taxed to provide lanes that they are not permitted to use, and being taxed to a greater extent than the users for this non-use.

Rail gives users a link to of activities (e.g. businesses, entertainment, shopping, etc.) and to other fixed gathering points. It is highly constrained (limited to where tracks are laid) and not readily adaptable, The bulk of rail is nowhere NEAR activities, unless you are talking about light-rail.

but users are only liable for the fare. And herein lies the rub. If the fare covered capital and operating costs, Id have no problem with this. But you are taxing the general public to provide a service that will be used by a relative few to do the job that they could do with a bus cheaper. In fact, most light-rail riders ARE former bus riders. For Intercity rail its even worse. AMTRAK is slower and has higher fares than air travel, and still manages to lose money on every customer except on the NY-Boston-DC corridor.

Bus transit, like rail, is constrained to fixed routes. But unlike rail, can be readily adapted. I basically agree.

SO WHY WOULD YOU PAY A PREMIUM (as much as three times the cost) to do something with a light rail that you could with a bus? WHY WOULD YOU PAY A PREMIUM to ride AMTRAK rather than take a plane? If your fare covered the costs, I wouldnt much care, but since the public is subsidizing this, why do you want light rail or AMTRAK in your asset allocation? And why should the public want to subsidize YOUR CHOICES?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 16, 2000.

[While I am talking philosophy and opinion, I did not indicated that one was NOBLE and GOOD and that the other was UNCLEAN and EVIL.] I didnt say that you had, merely that you likely would. That seems to be the last resort of people who dont have facts to back up their intensely held opinion. They become emotional rather than logical. Recently an opponent of the transportation improvement initiative posted that he would rather DIE than permit the initiative to pass. And then another emotional type tried to get me kicked off the forum for saying I had no objection to that individual dying, if that was his wish. The emotionalism on this forum has long been disproportionately on your side of the issue, rather than mine.

[ I have not presented any "facts" or sourced a 1000 page research paper on the matter because this was not meant to be an argument or debate (and it's too much work).] Yes, citizenship takes work. But weve got it pretty lucky. Look at what our ancestors went through to fight and win our independence, and in WWII. Maybe you ought to do a little research before you vote on something. Ignorance may not be bliss.

[As far as light rail is concerned, the case for it has already been made, whether it is logical or not. It was voted on and passed by the people. Facts and data can be re-presented to argue why light rail is not necessary. And the people may reverse their opinion and stop light rail development, which is their right.] As the record shows, it lost three times and won once, and then only after combined with express bus service that people wanted and with restrictions as to what taxes can be spent in which area that even the proponents now argue make it almost unworkable. There has never been a clean up- down vote on light rail.

[Now, as for how you make assessments, don't you think that you are a bit extreme in your comments. Just because I thought rail and transit should be part of a solution, you made the assumption that I thought automobiles are unclean.] These statements have been made repeatedly on this forum by people on your side of the issue. It was not an illogical assumption. Are you now saying that you dont believe autos are unclean?

[I did say that additional roadways were necessary, didn't I?] Actually, you indicated a few choke points needed to be smoothed, as best I could tell.

[And don't you think that using extreme references and name calling (e.g. Nazis, racist, etc.) elicits emotional responses that distract from the overall intent of the message? Why don't you try and keep those types of responses in check. ] I certainly do. And I didnt call anyone either. I indicated that Craig was likely to be called such things for not acknowledging diversity as inherently good. Its happened before..on this forum.frequently.

The intent of my posting was to pre-empt an emotional response to Craig and shame you into a rationale response WITHOUT the name- calling. Perhaps you would have done this anyhow. Id like to hope so. But if not, I got the desired result.

Zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

Addendum:

Gene- This is from CS on another thread:

"Aha! So Craig is (basically) a traffic engineer by trade? " (Did I call this one, or what? My exact quote was "You are going to be accused of being, at best, an engineer." Zowie does understand the irrational mind, of course that's my business. Zealots are SOoo predictable.)

"Forty-lane freeways and acres of surface parking are enemies to humans, and so I am thus against them too. "

"This leads me to believe, Craig, that possibly you're not just a concerned citizen. It leads me to believe that you have professional interests in mind, and that you personally benefit from sprawl: Are you a developer? Land prospector? Road builder? Auto-industry employee? Do you work for a developer or the auto industry in some capacity? Do tell! "

Demagoguing a whole profession (traffic engineers).... hmmm! Enemies to humans....... hmmm! Character assaults ......hmmm!

This is unfortunately typical of the reaction you get when you confront "true believers" with facts that challenge their philosophy. Hyperbole, vitriol, personal attacks implying the person they disagree with MUST have a financial interest in the other side of the issue. Anything but rational thought. A zealot cannot be rationally persuaded. Their philosophy is more important than reality. Look at recent and historical zealots- the Japanese cult that nerve-gassed the subway, the cult that castrated themselves and suicided over Hale-Bopp, the Unabomber. All did things that the vast majority of us would find as irrational (not to mention immoral) in pursuit of what they considered to be loftier goals.

You see why I anticipated an emotional response and attempted to preempt it? And this fellow has the chutzpah to use as a "handle," COMMON SENSE.

And this truly is an intellectual equivalent of brown-shirt conduct, screaming at and demagoguing the opposition rather than the marketplace of ideas that the first amendment was designed to ensure. And yes, I truly do believe that such people imperil freedom of speech by their actions.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

Gene- As long as I'm on a roll. How about these:

I'm going to have to claim only a passing knowledge of both the SmartGrowth and GMA goals since my job does require me to do other things with my time besides pour over studies not related to my workload,  I know what you mean CS. I certainly wish I had the time to post half a dozen messages and track down a bunch of case studies during my work day. But then again, my life doesn't revolve around this message board. 

These are not only ad hominem attacks, but cheap shots at that. You are rebuking someone for making an effective case. It is precisely what CS was doing, in only slightly subtler fashion.

A more rational approach would be to listen with an open mind, or be willing to defend YOUR views in the marketplace of ideas. Craig probably provides more FACTS to the debate than any other single contributor. You may not agree with his opinions, but it is intellectually bankrupt to mock his industry in supporting his beliefs.

But most of us realize that you are doing it because, frankly, he made the better argument. And your reaction to that makes you look bad, not him. And if you had adequate objectivity, you'd see that these tactics hurt your case, not help it.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "So stop with the Mantra. If you believe that light rail ought to be in the mix, tell me what attributes light rail brings to the table. Same for bus transit. Same for HOV lanes. Explain to me why you put that asset in your asset allocation, dont just tell me its because of diversity. Caribou carts, camels, and F- 16s will dramatically contribute to your transportation diversity too, but thats not enough. The mix has to make SENSE. Explain to me why you think it makes sense."

The only attribute I see for light rail is that, long-term, it would have lower labor costs than operating tens if not hundreds of buses.

As for HOV lanes, there are no HOV lanes on I-5 in Pierce County. So, new construction of HOV lanes provides ADDED CAPACITY, consistent with your own personal mantra. If the federal government will pay more for HOV lanes then for GP lanes, then HOV lanes may very well be (from the state's point of view) the MOST COST-EFFECTIVE method of adding capacity.

As for bus tranit, I would like to see regulations requiring minimum ridership levels for publicly funded transit. Or, perhaps require the fares to cover the operating and maintenance costs of the vehicle, as society would graciously cover the capital expense.

I would personally like to see a network of non-stop express buses connecting people from Park'N'Rides near their homes to major transportation hubs. The transportation hubs would eventually have their own on-and off ramps to the HOV lanes. And, the HOV lanes would have their own on and off ramps to major exits, so as to not interfere with the GP traffic. The transportation hubs would be a place for buses and vanpools to collect/discharge passengers with some type of coverage from the rain. There could even be coffee kiosks, etc.

Why does this make sense? Because it provides for TIMELY MITIGATION OF CONGESTION. And, with the exception of the on and off ramps, the construction of the transportation hubs and/or park'n'rides will not create congestion the way road-building does.

Oh, and don't forget, mitigation of congestion will mean less air pollution.

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

Matthew,

Your ideas sometimes have merit. Where you and your "moderate" values and me and my "moderate" values differ is that you want to take an idea with merit and "liberalize' it all to hell.

A case in point, "I would personally like to see a network of non- stop express buses connecting people from Park'N'Rides near their homes to major transportation hubs. The transportation hubs would eventually have their own on-and off ramps to the HOV lanes. And, the HOV lanes would have their own on and off ramps to major exits, so as to not interfere with the GP traffic. The transportation hubs would be a place for buses and vanpools to collect/discharge passengers with some type of coverage from the rain. There could even be coffee kiosks, etc."

Transportation hubs work well in a small geographic area, and I see no reason why they would not work on a larger scale. The real problem is the demographics. The more people must transfer, the more likely they will stay away from mass transit.

As far as park and rides are concerned, It is not something I care to subsidize a great deal. Too many under utilized parking lots exist. More effort to utilize said parking lots has to happen before I want to spend another dime. Where are these parking lots? Church parking lots, of course.

When you add HOV on and off ramps, you lose all my "moderate" support. This is not something I would want to spend my limited transportation money on, to benefit a few.

Your statement here says it all....As for bus tranit, I would like to see regulations requiring minimum ridership levels for publicly funded transit. Or, perhaps require the fares to cover the operating and maintenance costs of the vehicle, as society would graciously cover the capital expense.

You are willing to cover operating expense with fares, as long as the rest of us pay the capital costs of the park and rides and HOV lanes and ramps. Nice try. No cigar. Try to do a better job of compromising.

You pay the operating expense through fares. Pay to park in your park and ride lot at a church facility, (who, by the way, may make better use of the money than our government) and throw out your spoiled child HOV lanes and ramps, and I might "buy" it and kick in a few bucks for the "hubs"

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

to Marsha: Hey, your attitude seems fair enough to me. The HOV lanes are not that high of priority. The highest priority is for society to commit to paying for the capital costs of the buses and vanpool vans.

You are correct when you claim that private parking lots can serve the same purpose as Park'N'Rides. But, then, it takes more effort and hustle for members of the community to make expanded ridesharing options a reality. It's not impossible, just another bump in the road. But, if there are too many bumps in the road, then folks lose their commitment to ridesharing, and the result is a faster growth of congestion on our main arteries.

The cost of Park'n'Rides may be significantly cheaper then the cost of attempting to build new road capacity. If the Park'N'Rides facilitate the removal of thousands of cars from the roadways, then it's money well spent. Don't forget, too, that Park'n'Rides represent a capital investment which does not necessarily decrease over time like buses or vanpool vans. So, down the road, if the public policy is not providing the expected bang for the buck, society can sell the Park'n'Rides to developers for a hefty sum.

As for HOV lanes, it's your choice. You can either have no additional capacity, or, the feds will help pay for the HOV lanes.

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

Matthew,

I stand by my assertion that we don't need to spend a nickel more on park and rides. Many community churches would jump at the chance to gain revenue by providing park and ride spaces as this has been done in many communities already. Sorry, but the task of getting a solid network of Church based park and rides still falls on transit agencies. Some do a good job, and it appears others suck. The cost to lease such space, paid for by fares, would be far lower than what it would cost to aquire a publicly owned and maintained lot. It may add as little as .10 to .25 cents to a fare.

If you want to hide the cost of park and rides, fine. Roll it in to the fares and let the transit agency pay up. If you believe the demand is there, then the associated costs should come down. In other words, IF the demographics are right.

Let's not forget what you posted earlier. "I would like to see regulations requiring minimum ridership levels for publicly funded transit" I translate this to mean more cost effective routes.

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

to Marsha: You write: "If you want to hide the cost of park and rides, fine. Roll it in to the fares and let the transit agency pay up. If you believe the demand is there, then the associated costs should come down. In other words, IF the demographics are right."

Perhaps the demographics aren't right. Because, bizarrely enough, an added cost of $5 - $10 a month turns people off to using a vanpool. Go figure. It makes no sense to me. If they're willing to pay $60/mo., you'd think they wouldn't mind paying $65 or $70 a month.

Again, society can recoup its investment in a Park'n'Ride down the road, as the land will have increased in value. It's not money thrown away forever.

But, hey, that's your opinion. You'd rather have more congestion on our roadways, than INVEST in Park'n'Rides.

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

Nice diversionary tactic Matthew. However, I doubt you have ANY evidence to support your theory that riders would not be willing to pay more a little bit more. Especially if it benefits LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCHES. In fact, if a recent 40-50% increase in fares didn't chase them off, I guess this small amount wouldn't either.

Unless of course, you never had the right demographics to begin with!

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

"Perhaps the demographics aren't right. Because, bizarrely enough, an added cost of $5 - $10 a month turns people off to using a vanpool. Go figure. It makes no sense to me. If they're willing to pay $60/mo., you'd think they wouldn't mind paying $65 or $70 a month. " This indicates that, despite the economic subsidies, you are saturating the demand. Like most things, a vanpool has elasticity in the demand curve. One of the reasons why trying to massively increase the number of vanpoolers wouldn't work. There may be a few out there who you could recruit, but it appears that the pool is quite limited.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), February 17, 2000.

"Because, bizarrely enough, an added cost of $5 - $10 a month turns people off to using a vanpool."

I once asked on another thread whether transit usage was (in)elastic. The relatively small amount of research I found on this topic paints transit usage as inelastic for work trips. In other words, while the above statement may be anecdotally true, it's generally meaningless if you believe (as I do) most vanpoolers are commuting to work.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), February 18, 2000.

Brad-

"I once asked on another thread whether transit usage was (in) elastic. The relatively small amount of research I found on this topic paints transit usage as inelastic for work trips."

It is much more complicated than that, according to my reading. It is inelastic only for the relative handful of transit-dependent individuals, a group declining both in percentage of population, and in absolute numbers. Then there is a population group that, while not necessarily transit-dependent, are highly likely to use transit for geographic and cultural reasons. These are first generation immigrants (and this persists ONLY for the first generation). For the rest of the people, there is a huge elasticity of demand, but not merely in a classic cost mode. This elasticity of demand has to do with convenience, strongly driven by geography (how close the nearest transit stop is, both from origin of trip and from destination), frequency of service (most of us don't want to plan to catch a bus, we want the bus to get to the stop very shortly after we get there, no matter when we get there), directness of routing (which is more than just speed, USDOT has numerous studies that find huge negative correlations of transit use with transfers. It is difficult to get someone to transfer once, extremely difficult to get them to transfer twice, transferring three times en route to work is nearly rare enough to be a reportable event to USDOT). And you forget that the worktrip share continues it's long DECLINE. While this is driven in part by a declining new immigrant and transit dependent population, some of that is simple choice. And that certainly implies that the demand just isn't there. Can it be stimulated? Sure, with massive subsidies, but they'd have to be truly massive in most areas. But you have to get the political consensus for massive subsidies, and I think the consensus is turning against such subsidies as the unit real cost (as opposed to fares) of transit increases.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 18, 2000.