[sustran] Re: Litman on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit]

[BruunB at aol.com]

Todd,

Thanks for taking the time to get out this article or to look it up. Your
comments about highway planning having the same flaws as rail planning were 
also
highly relevant.

The Pickrell report is old, but nevertheless still cited. Therefore, it needs 
to be discussed. I am trying to get hold of Leroy Demery, whose e-mail is now 
bouncing
back. He did a detailed analysis of which estimates Pickrell chose to 
criticize. He pointed out that there were a variety of esimates floating 
around and Pickrell dwelled only on the ones that made his case. I don't have 
it in electronic form, but if I get it, I will post it.

I think most of us agree that models can be doctored to give the projections 
one wants to seek, but I think in fairness it must be pointed out that errors 
can be innocent. For example, the Miami rapid transit line was assumed to be 
well connected to a bus network and to have frequent service. When it opened, 
there were insufficient funds to operate the bus network, so of course the 
models would then be wrong. Even today, I hear that they operate the rapid 
transit line on 1/2 hour headways in the evening. What analyst would assume 
that any agency would operate such infrequent service? It defeats the whole 
point of the investment to provide such sparse service. Similarly, when 
Sacramento's light rail line opened, it was initially without a timed 
transfer network. When it was corrected, ridership vastly increased. Thus, 
the devil is in the details of the operation.

Finally, the FTA no longer allows situations like Miami. Before the US 
federal government will give capital support, the local plan must prove that 
there are sufficient operating funds in place.

Eric Bruun