[sustran] Re: Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety

[Michael D. Setty]

RE: "Sextrain"

In Mr. Richmond's book Transport of Delight, which is based on his  
Piled Higher and Deeper(tm) thesis, there are references and  
metaphors comparing the desire among politicians, in particular, for  
rail transit as similar to sexual desires, including such gems as the  
analogy of how subways are like sex, along the lines: "...the train  
is revealed as both a woman and a penis." Dime-store psych, if a  
literary metaphor

For more on this, see http://www.publictransit.us/modules.php? 
op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7

Here is the article, from June 18, 2003 [2006 comments in BOLD]

HEY DEMERY, WE'VE GOT A LIVE ONE

(A Reply to Dr. Jonathan Richmond, Post-Modern Loon)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than knowledge." Charles  
Darwin

WP02-03 Monorails in Japan: An Overview (644k PDF 4.0 document)

WP02-04 Rapid Bus and Rapid Rail: Peak Period Service Supply vs.  
Observed Passenger Utilization (308k PDF 4.0 document). Documents  
35%-40% higher peak period rail patronage compared to bus when equal  
capacity is provided.

WP02-01 Detroit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Critique (572k PDF 4.0 doc)

Recently we received an e-mail from Jonathan Richmond, a relatively  
well-known academic critic of rail transit, with a subtext that our  
conclusions regarding rail transit weren't strictly based on  
verifiable facts, contrary to our "about" statement. This post is a  
slightly edited reply to Dr. Richmond's email. Richmond's website is  
at the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ . But first a sidebar...

Dr. Richmond:

Just read the little blurb on the web page for your upcoming book  
( www3.akron.edu/uapress/richmond.html ) for an unneeded rehash of  
your half-baked clueless ivory tower "deconstructionist" thesis  
Transport of Delight: The Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in Los  
Angeles .
In all intellectual honesty, how can you possibly make the following  
statement regarding L.A.'s light rail Blue Line!?:

"En route, it shows that ridership forecasting for this project was  
not only biased and statistically invalid, but in fact done to  
justify decisions made on other grounds."

FUNNY, the original traffic forecast for the Blue Line was 54,000  
passengers daily, and currently passenger traffic exceeds 70,000  
daily. Even if you calculated in lower patronage for zone fares,  
patronage would still be higher than the original 54,000 per day  
forecast!

It would be rather unprofessional of you to not update your pending  
book to reflect actual experience. But I doubt you'll change your  
research; reality has a funny habit of upsetting many pet theories.  
If you persist and don't change your analysis, I think you will be  
proven to be a sorrier character than even Wendell Cox, whose facts  
are at least nominally correct most of the time (Cox's hard time is  
figuring out what they really mean). BOY, THIS WAS RIGHT...

You are also a professionally unqualified failure in your  
psychological and cultural analysis (I don't see any degrees in  
psych...) Who else but an academic hack whose brain has been fuzzed  
out by 'deconstructionist' gobblygook would write this '...the train  
is revealed as both a woman and a penis...' Oh, pullleezzzeee. Andrea  
Dworkin makes more sense!!

I will also restrain myself (and boy, is it hard!) from making any  
deconstructionist or psychological theorizing about why you post a  
photo of yourself in front of an L.A. Blue Line train...

Now back to our original reply.

Dr. Richmond:

Given the titles and tone of some of your past work (The Mythic  
Conception of Rail Transit in Los Angeles), I find it brazen someone  
of your academic pedigree thinking us guilty of some sort of 'pro- 
rail bias' not based on verifiable facts.

If you look further at our work, you'll find that our conclusions  
that rail works, and often works extremely well in many circumstances  
compared to the alternatives, are based on verifiable facts. For  
example, Demery's rather extensive research on peak period passenger  
loads actually observed on a wide selection of rail and bus services  
in the United States and around the world. Or his quite accurate,  
predictions of Los Angeles Red Line patronage originally made in the  
mid-1990's.

We agree with you in principle that transit planners need to be less  
obsessed with technology and unblinking modal advocacy. We concur  
strongly with the points made by Australian Paul Mees in his 2000  
book A Very Public Solution about the need for strong, central  
planning in urban regions, with technological, service delivery (do  
we or do we not contract out?), and modal selection issues still  
critical, but of secondary importance. But the Mees book doesn't  
undermine the case for rail where sufficient traffic density exists  
to support its capital costs.

Mees uses Toronto to compare with Melbourne-the latter blessed with a  
rail network even more extensive on a per capita basis than Tokyo,  
the most extensive in the Western world, despite Melbourne's  
relatively low density and Anglo roots. But Toronto has managed to  
maintain much per capita higher transit patronage than Melbourne,  
despite the TTCÕs relatively short subway and streetcar system being  
confined to a relatively small core area. The difference is explained  
by consistent funding and service policies, extensive coordination  
between different modes and types of service, as well as centralized  
regional transportation planning (at least until the most recent  
neoconservative provincial government was elected!)

Toronto's most profound transportation decision was to focus on  
expanded transit service, not just roadways, beginning subway  
construction in the early 1950's. Virtually all American cities  
constructed freeways, with the most negative results Detroit, similar  
in size to Toronto but very much a social and economic basket case.  
Even in 2003, two decades after the last significant expansion of the  
Toronto subway system, the subway plays a central role in transit and  
transportation, serving as at least one link in about 2/3 of all  
linked transit trips within the old Metro Toronto boundaries.  
Toronto's newest challenge is to extend the same sort of transit  
thinkingÑand investment--that has proven so successful during the  
last 50 years within old Metro Toronto to serve the outer suburbs.

Excessive, unrealistic expectations by some rail advocates are  
sometimes a problem, particularly government officials who put too  
much faith in computer models and the formulaic studies demanded by  
the FTA. A case in point was the absurd expectations for L.A. Red  
Line traffic levels of 300,000+ daily passengers in the 1980's,  
versus the 120,000-130,000 per day actually achieved and accurately  
predicted by Mr. Demery in the mid-1990's. But many looking for a  
"magic bullet" with the benefits of rail "on the cheap" often have  
unrealistic, excessive expectations about "bus rapid transit" and  
what it can realistically accomplish.

For example, Wendell Cox's latest "apples to watermelons" comparisons  
between traffic levels on South American busways versus Anglo- 
American rail systems (http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-sausrail.htm).  
Cox reveals himself as less than a completely coherent analyst when  
he doesn't point out the biggest differences, e.g., (a) South  
Americans squeeze themselves into transit vehicles at densities  
utterly unacceptable to Americans (autos aren't an option for the  
vast majority), and (b) average trip lengths in Curtiba et al tend to  
be relatively short, compared to rail trips in cities like San  
Francisco or Washington, D.C. In our view, Cox is clueless about the  
importance of these factors. He also avoids unpleasant facts that  
undermine his point, such as Curtiba flirting with monorails in at  
least one busway corridor where the capacity of even double- 
articulated buses has apparently been reached (surface LRT with 3-4  
car trains probably makes sense in that corridor, but that's another  
screed). CURITIBA IS NOW COMMITTED TO BUILDING ITS FIRST LRT LINE.

I took a cursory look at the short summary of your 1999 "systems"  
paper. To a great extent, it appears to regurgitate much of  
Pickrell's study. The whole subject area would greatly benefit from  
inclusion of up-to-date information.

As previously stated, we agree in principle that transit planners  
must take a systematic, "big picture" view, rather than being  
obsessed with technology or a specific mode (this applies to BRT  
advocates as well!). But I must take issue with your analysis of LRT  
in at least three cases I am very familiar with: Portland,  
Sacramento, and Los Angeles.

First Sacramento. Current RT Metro patronage is now up to about  
31,000-32,000 daily, ironically about 2/3 on the East Line, 1/3 on  
the Northeast Line (the reverse of original predictions). Comparing  
what was built and how it is operated with the original projections  
made 20 years ago actually give some credibility to those original  
projections. The East Line has exceeded all expectations, primarily  
due to the fact that LRT service is reasonably fast and direct, and  
close to large residential concentrations. The Northeast Line is a  
completely different matter. The original studies predicted up to  
50,000 daily LRT passengers, mostly in the I-80 corridor. Unlike  
original assumptions, the Northeast Line operates about half the  
speed needed to be auto-competitive, wandering up 12th Street, across  
the American River, and along a rather slow, indirect route until the  
last few miles of relatively fast running on the old I-80 Bypass  
right-of-way to Watt Avenue. From 12th and K Street, the trip take 23  
minutes to go 7-8 miles, while a direct line along the railroad right  
of way (if it had been built) would shave at least 8-10 minutes off  
the running time. A new high speed line to Roseville with a fast new  
downtown entrance would cost $450-$500 million, but it would also  
carry at least 35,000-40,000 daily rides, versus the 10,000-12,000  
carried by the "Toonerville Trolley" half of RT Metro.

In Portland, MAX now serves about 80,000 daily passengers, 29,000 on  
the West Line and 51,000 on the East Line and Airport branch.[NOW  
OVER 100,000 DAILY].  Subtracting the airport branch, the East Line  
now exceeds the original 42,500 rides per day prediction by a small  
margin, because a commensurate, if still inadequate, level of service  
is now being provided. All indications are that MAX could be serving  
significantly more riders if sufficient capacity were offered.  
Currently MAX trains during the peak are very heavily packed by U.S.  
standards, at 4.5 to 5.0 passengers per meter of vehicle length (see  
Demery's demand vs. supply paper). A 20% increase in peak period  
capacity is justified now, if only to reduce overcrowding to a more  
reasonable standard. Of course, Portlanders would probably take  
advantage of the new space, increasing overall patronage by 15% to  
20%. Thus East Line patronage sans airport could increase to a range  
of 52,000 to 55,000 daily. In fact, Tri-Met has extra cars on order,  
in addition to those needed for the Interstate line, to help  
alleviate crowding.

Portland also would make for an interesting thought experiment if LRT  
didn't exist. Currently the MAX East Line carries about 3,500  
[ACTUALLY BOTH WAYS] inbound passengers during the morning peak hour,  
or about 1.7 to 1.8 [ONE MORE 26% OF THE MARKET] freeway lanes  
equivalent. Substitute capacity provided by freeway would require  
construction of a billion dollar-plus facility--presumably in the old  
Mt. Hood freeway (e.g., McLouglin Blvd) corridor rejected three  
decades ago. Alternative bus express bus service would have required  
at least some capital improvements costing a significant fraction of  
the LRT project's cost. Using observed bus occupancy factors from the  
Seattle busway tunnel of 2.5 passengers per meter of vehicle length,  
the Banfield corridor would have to carry 90-100 [70-80] buses during  
the inbound peak hour to match current LRT patronage. This implies an  
overall additional bus fleet of at least 150 vehicles, costing  
40%-50% more to operate than the current MAX system.

In Los Angeles, an immediate benefit could be gained by MTA  
financially if bus to rail transfer rules were eased, switching a  
significant percentage of Wilshire Rapid Bus passengers to the Red  
Line where it operates parallel service. Many passengers would gain  
more reliable and faster service; MTA would gain because some buses  
could be reassigned to other routes, thus increasing patronage and/or  
reducing overcrowding (some success of the Ventura Boulevard Rapid  
Bus also is certainly due to the Red Line transfer opportunity).

Also in L.A., the question is not whether rail works or is needed,  
but rather why are capital and operating costs so high? Certainly a  
more cost-conscious MTA administration could have saved several  
hundred million on Red Line construction-but I suppose corruption and  
politics got in the way (not inherent in rail per se, contrary to  
what Wendell Cox or Robert Poole would claim, I'm sure). On the  
operating side, why are MTA unit costs so high for both bus and rail  
operations, when other operators in the same regionÑsuch as Long  
Beach, Santa Monica, or Montebello, among othersÑhave much lower  
overall unit operating costs though driver and other pay rates are  
essentially the same? Why are LRT unit operating costs 40% to 50%  
higher than the national LRT average, at $300+/vehicle hour? Granted,  
LA LRT security is intense, using about 25% of the LRT operating  
budget. But there still is a large increment in unit costs well above  
the national average, even when adjusted for wage rates.

  Also, it would seem that Green Line patronage of 30,000 daily is  
reasonable for a line that operates "nowhere to nowhere" (not  
compared to original wild estimates, but other U.S. LRT lines). It  
probably could come close to original estimates IF extended the last  
2 miles to LAX, plus connections to the South Bay and Santa Monica/ 
West L.A. areas; in other words, if a more extensive network existed.  
The existing three line L.A. rail transit network does remarkably  
well, considering it covers less than 60 route miles in an area of 10  
million people, but serves as a link in 20%-25% of total linked  
transit trips.


On Jul 9, 2005, at 3:35 AM, Millvalley at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/9/2005 3:20:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
> msetty at publictransit.us writes:
> To Mr. Jonathan Richmond, PhD#, the famous Los Angeles "Sextrain"
> sexpert:
>
> Go stuff it up where the sun don't shine, Mr. Sextrain.
> For those of us who are uninitiated, please explain the term "Mr.  
> Sextrain."
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Schneider

Michael D. Setty
Carquinez Associates
P.O. Box 6076
Vallejo, CA.  94591-6076
(707) 557-7563   (707) 557-6735 fax
msetty at publictransit.us
www.publictransit.us
-- 
Chacun a droit à son propre avis,
mais à non ses propres faits.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050709/43ae46c1/attachment.html