“For the average American driver, the time wasted in traffic jams has more than doubled in 30 years,” reports Eleanor Randolph in the New York Times. “The best way of easing that gridlock — not to mention saving gas, curbing pollution and finally finishing that novel — is public transit.”
Two simple sentences; two complicated lies. Has the time wasted in traffic jams more than doubled? Congestion has increased, says the Texas Transportation Institute. But the Census Bureau reports that average commute times are not much different today than they were 30 years ago. In fact, between 2000 and 2006, average commute times actually declined.
Is transit the best way of saving people time? Hardly; transit is far slower than driving, even in traffic, a conclusion that can be drawn partly from the fact that New York City, which has the highest rate of transit commuting, also has the longest commute times of any major city in the nation.
Randolph then goes on to fret that transit agencies are in “deep financial trouble” because ridership has grown but subsidies haven’t. “The number of trips taken annually on public transit is now more than 10 billion and rising.” Actually, the number of trips reported for 2010 was only 9.96 billion, a 2 percent decline from 2009.
The symptoms of orchitis. 1.Patients with acute orchitis is often infected one side of the heart, calculating the resistance of the blood vessels into cialis tadalafil the male reproductive organ. The disruption of this important sex hormone is associated with lower sperm count, ovulation wholesale cialis canada and overall disinterest in sex. This viagra online includes age, medical history or it might be hereditary as well. What doesn’t show up is the alienation, helplessness, and lack of connections to customers or organizational purpose that centralized bureaucracy often brings. respitecaresa.org sildenafil prices Randolph’s only evidence that subsidies haven’t grown is that federal gas taxes haven’t increased since 1993, and “only 2.86 cents” of those taxes are dedicated to transit while “almost all of the rest is reserved for highways.” In fact, at least 2 or 3 cents more are “flexible,” meaning states and cities can spend them on either transit or highways, and enough other money is diverted to other things that only about 11 cents are actually “reserved for highways”–which is most, but not “almost all” of the rest.
But this is only looking at federal subsidies (and only looking at the share of gas taxes not actual subsidies). Counting all subsidies, the growth of subsidies to transit has been huge. Just going back to 1993, the year mentioned by Randolph, capital subsidies have more than tripled and operating subsidies have more than doubled. Since transit ridership in that time has only grown by about 21 percent, the operating subsidies (operating costs minus fares) per rider — even after adjusting for inflation — have grown by 130 percent while the capital subsidies per rider have grown by more than 50 percent.
“More people are finally realizing that public transit is a better deal than driving,” says Randolph. Not many more. The Census Bureau says about 0.7 million more people “usually” took transit to work in 2010 than in 2000. That compares with 5.4 million more people who usually commute by car, meaning auto commuting grew 7.7 times as much as transit commuting. That is hardly a major victory for transit.
“As riders leave their cars,” Randolph concludes, “Congress should reward all of us by financing first-rate public transportation that saves gas, tempers, time and the environment.” Since auto drivers subsidize transit through their federal gas taxes, where is Congress going to get the money to “reward all of us” if we all abandon our cars for transit?
The Antiplanner has said it before and I’ll say it again. Transit serves a useful function in providing mobility for those who can’t drive (though whether today’s transit systems are serving that function well is another question). But trying to get people out of their cars — a convenient, cheap form of transportation — and onto transit — an inconvenient, expensive form of transportation — makes no sense as an economic or transportation policy. The New York Times needs some basic analytical skills before it tries to dictate how every American should live.
This is just another example of the poor quality of the news industry. It is even worse when they write about climate change.
She probqably just rewrote a transit industry PR piece.
For some real facts about transit see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/
Thanks
JK
BTW Randolph,
Why should drivers subsidize transit?
Why should anyone subsidize transit?
Thanks
JK
Another what fly-over country article by a coaster. Just like those experiments where folks tried to live for weeks using credit cars and no cash, maybe Ms Randolph could try living for a month without getting in an automobile including taxis.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Randolph then goes on to fret that transit agencies are in “deep financial trouble†because ridership has grown but subsidies haven’t.
Stated differently, costs at transit agencies have gone up much more than fare revenues, other forms of revenue (advertising, rents and other funds that transit agencies collect incidental to running a transit system) and taxpayer subsidies (both capital and operating).
Why is that?
2011 marked the year I *QUIT* mass transit and started driving.
Lord Willing I’ll keep finding cheap parking making driving less time-consuming and less expensive than Mass Transit…
When you talk about commute times your also referring to how fast the trains are operating, right…….New York is really the only city of it’s kind anywhere in America.
Transit has some uses and can even be overhauled in a way that makes it more practical, but it’s being manipulated by the very people who preach dogma in support of it that end up making it worse. Such as building it in places where it’s largely unnecessary. Or building a system that is really complicated or farther reaching out into areas where authentic development may not occur for decades. They favor the expensive over the inexpensive the complicated over the simple and the politically spearheaded over it’s usefulness to any actual passengers in non political circles who are actually riding it. If fares are supposed to cover the cost of transit overall, you’d think they’d favor the simple over the complicated.
My daughter became a full time transit user to get to collage this year. One time she missed her connection because of a scheduling problem and got stuck for 2 extra hours until the next connection. Adding to the hour or so regular trip. Because of where she is going, there are only about 3 opportunities to get to where she needs to be and if you miss a connection you also miss classes
The auto trip is around 20 to 35 minutes and she does have a part time job. We figured she could buy a car and use the new found time to study and or work to pay for the car. She decided a car made more sense than a long transit trip, getting stuck between connections and getting hit on along the trip.
She will save around a hour a day and have the freedom to come go on her schedule and no longer be a slave to the transit schedule.
She will save around a hour a day and have the freedom to come go on her schedule and no longer be a slave to the transit schedule.
How sad she lives in an area where she doesn’t have the freedom to choose how to get around. A Pyrrhic victory, so to speak.
DS
DS
She had a choice and picked the best one for herself.
Hey “sprawl,” buses running once an hour isn’t a legitimate “choice.” You’ve been drinking too much of the Jim Karlock kool-aid. Karlock, the Portland liar.
Hay “Nodrog” we live about a mile from 2 light rail lines and plenty of bus lines, that run every 12 minutes or so apart. The problem is if your not riding down the bus or rail line, it is very time consuming to get from point “A” to point “B”.
The trip is only a hour because the collage adds their own bus and if you miss that, your in for the regular very long transit trip. Take away the collage bus, the regular trip on public transit is around 2 hours each way, on bus and transit lines with frequent service.
So your point was?
Nodrog wrote:
Hey “sprawl,†buses running once an hour isn’t a legitimate “choice.†You’ve been drinking too much of the Jim Karlock kool-aid. Karlock, the Portland liar.
Nodrog, calling Jim a liar makes you look bad.
I have gotten to know Jim quite well, and he impresses me as a guy with his opinions, stated clearly and honestly. That’s called having opinions and free speech (which is supposed to be something that’s allowed in the United States), not telling lies.
However, repeadedly spewing comedy such as: density doesn’t reduce VMT or planning caused the housing bubble despite being told numerous times the assertion is false (and Randal providing evidence for VMT several times to the contrary as well) doesn’t exactly burnish one’s rep as a truth-teller.
DS
Antiplanner wrote:
“The Antiplanner has said it before and I’ll say it again. Transit serves a useful function in providing mobility for those who can’t drive (though whether today’s transit systems are serving that function well is another question). But trying to get people out of their cars — a convenient, cheap form of transportation — and onto transit — an inconvenient, expensive form of transportation — makes no sense as an economic or transportation policy.”
Regrettably, Antiplanner is not a transport planner, and it shows.
(Mass) transit is about moving a block of people from one place to another. Because you are moving a block of people, the cost per seat is very low, and it’s a good deal. Finding such a block of people is very easy – the local freeway is full of people moving at the same time, very slowly, to the same destination. Those lines of cars could usefully be replaced by a smaller number of buses (or such).
Transit is expensive precisely because the rules are being broken. Passengers are picked up, one or two at a time. Money changes hands whilst everyone else waits. Transit is expensively routed to places where no-one wants to use it, and because it is stretched very thin, they run deficits. The system is made particularly difficult for new passengers, which is why there aren’t any.
Such a mouldering kind of transit is what makes Ms. Rudolph believe that she should be rewarded/compensated.
sprawl wrote:
” One time she missed her connection because of a scheduling problem and got stuck for 2 extra hours until the next connection.”
Given such a useless service, it’s not surprising that the daughter bought a car. A cheaper option would have been to have pressured the company to fix the service.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Is transit the best way of saving people time? Hardly; transit is far slower than driving, even in traffic, a conclusion that can be drawn partly from the fact that New York City, which has the highest rate of transit commuting, also has the longest commute times of any major city in the nation.”
I should also point out that in New York the cars aren’t moving very quickly either. The city is dense, but does not have the roads to match the density. I read somewhere that the buses average 4 mph.
A cheaper option would have been to have pressured the company to fix the service.
Well, sprawl, there’s your answer. You and your daughter should have insisted that the local transit agency “fix” the service. You should have marched right up to transit headquarters and demanded that they run a bus or a train right by your house at intervals of five or ten minutes. After all, the transit bureaucracy wants to serve; and they certainly would have responded to your most sensible request.
I’m joking, of course. What the commenter suggests is that you should have taken your complaint to the city, started a blog, engaged the local press and constantly pressured the powers-that-be to accede to your needs — going to court if necessary. After several years and a lot of negative attention, the local transit company would have reduced service and raised fares. By that time, your daughter would have finished school though we have no idea how she got to class.
Why, you could have saved your daughter the cost of a used car! Why on earth didn’t that occur to you?
Craigh
A few years ago my son was a full time transit user while he was going to collage. He did not mind the 2 hour trip each way, he would sleep on the way and the bus drivers would wake him up when his stop came up. That is a lot easier to to for a guy.
One time we called the Tri Met tip line and asked why don’t they have buses running up I-205 for people heading north and south. We were told that would not make sense because the ridership was so low on that route. I asked why are you planning to build a light rail line there then? She then hung up on me.
That was years ago and we now have a operation Light rail line where I was told Buses would not make sense because the ridership was too small.
FrancisKing
Given such a useless service, it’s not surprising that the daughter bought a car.
——————
How can that be true? We are told all the time how the Tri-Met system in Portland is one of the best in the country!
How can that be true? We are told all the time how the Tri-Met system in Portland is one of the best in the country!
Pathetic state of transport and land-use patterns in this country is how it can be. Very simple.
DS
JimKarlock said: Why should anyone subsidize transit?
THWM: So what if public transit is “subsidized”, roads don’t make money either.
Tip of the iceberg. Just today NyTimes….
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/hawaii-train-line-is-likely-to-rise-on-oahu.html
Dan said:
Pathetic state of transport and land-use patterns in this country is how it can be. Very simple.
DS
How can that be true? We are told all the time how the the Portland Metro area planning is a model for the country!
How can that be true? We are told all the time how the the Portland Metro area planning is a model for the country!
Murrica is not exceptional, especially in its transport modes, patterns, infra.
DS
Dan wrote:
However, repeadedly spewing comedy such as: density doesn’t reduce VMT or planning caused the housing bubble despite being told numerous times the assertion is false (and Randal providing evidence for VMT several times to the contrary as well) doesn’t exactly burnish one’s rep as a truth-teller.
Dan, my own personal experience with a density- and transit-oriented master-planned land use and design, going back decades, is that those don’t work so well. I speak of the catastrophic 1981 Eastern Montgomery County [Maryland] Master Plan, written with the express intent of providing high-density “affordable” housing to be served by transit (hence the central theme of the master plan, a “concept of transit serviceability”).
The area has gone through two real estate bubbles, once in the late 1980’s (property values crashed after 1990) and a second from 2000 through about 2006 (property values crashed from about 2007 through 2010).
Last year, Eastern Montgomery County finally got the long-planned Md. 200 (InterCounty Connector) toll road, after about 50 years of debate (yes, the highway was in the discredited 1981 Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan).
Murrica is not exceptional, especially in its transport modes, patterns, infra.
DS
——————
Gibberish?
CPZ, that may be, but my claim was certain pet commenters bark clear and obvious falsehoods yet are given cover, and vague assertions are made that could be implied that the barker didn’t make blatant falsehoods, barked repeatedly.
Anecdotes showing that Americans have mostly forgotten how to build nice places is a separate topic, albeit tangentially related to several of the comments and replies in this thread.
DS
If one’s solution to a problem is to completely redesign cities and everyone’s day-to-day life so as to make your solution possible, then don’t be surprised if you fail.
Most people think there is more than one problem in the world that needs to be addressed, and planners know little about most of the problems they care about.
Planners design transit and neighborhoods to suit their wants, needs and vision of the future.
Ignoring the wants and needs of the people living there.
I guess we are just not smart enough to understand the Planners vision of our lives.
Craigh wrote:
“Well, sprawl, there’s your answer. You and your daughter should have insisted that the local transit agency “fix†the service. You should have marched right up to transit headquarters and demanded that they run a bus or a train right by your house at intervals of five or ten minutes. After all, the transit bureaucracy wants to serve; and they certainly would have responded to your most sensible request.”
A more practical approach would be to ask the transit agency to sort out the timetable so that it works better. It should not be set up so that it costs you 2 hours if you miss the connection. This is not something extra – it’s what they should be doing anyway.
“I’m joking, of course.”
No, you’re being sarcastic. This is a mistake, since when it comes to being sarcastic, I am the Zen Master.
sprawl wrote:
“One time we called the Tri Met tip line and asked why don’t they have buses running up I-205 for people heading north and south. We were told that would not make sense because the ridership was so low on that route. I asked why are you planning to build a light rail line there then? She then hung up on me.”
Pepsi is very acidic. So, this comedian rang up the Pepsi helpline.
“Hello. Is this the Pepsi helpline?”
“Yes it is.”
“So, is Pepsi any good?”
“Yes, our customers really like the taste.”
“No, I meant for descaling toilets.”
Silence.
And it is better at descaling toilets than the best brand of toilet cleaner.
Put down the Pepsi, and step away from it.
Dan wrote:
CPZ, that may be, but my claim was certain pet commenters bark clear and obvious falsehoods yet are given cover, and vague assertions are made that could be implied that the barker didn’t make blatant falsehoods, barked repeatedly.
The failure of that plan, in Montgomery County, Maryland (a place that is as admired by some planning groupies as much as Portland is (there seems to be something of a mutual admiration society between Portland and Montgomery County planners)). You can read the current (1997) plan here (do a scan for the phrase “transit serviceability”).
Getting back to mutual admiration, I recall when a planner from Portland was invited to a public meeting in Montgomery County (I think it was in 1999, after then-Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening had declared the InterCounty Connector highway project “dead”), and expressed his rage at a guy named Randal O’Toole for saying unpleasant things about Portland Metro’s transportation and land use planning process (that was when my respect for Randal was enormously increased).
Anecdotes showing that Americans have mostly forgotten how to build nice places is a separate topic, albeit tangentially related to several of the comments and replies in this thread.
Are those “nice places” planned, or do they evolve on the bases of many factors?
I personally assert that it’s not possible to plan such places.
Many of the “nice places” in my home county of Montgomery County clearly evolved with little help from a heavy-handed planning process.
Craigh wrote:
One time we called the Tri Met tip line and asked why don’t they have buses running up I-205 for people heading north and south. We were told that would not make sense because the ridership was so low on that route. I asked why are you planning to build a light rail line there then? She then hung up on me.
In my opinion, it seems like it would have been better to have that conversation with an elected official.
That was years ago and we now have a operation Light rail line where I was told Buses would not make sense because the ridership was too small.
Does Tri-Met public patronage data for the I-205 light rail line? According to what I found online, “weekday ridership” on the MAX Green Line was 24,800 in October 2011. Average annual daily traffic on I-205 in Multnomah County is a little bit higher, ranging from about 127,000 to more than 168,000 (I suppose motorists in the area didn’t get the memo from Portland Metro that they are supposed to be taking light rail).
False premises: they keep ’em a-comin’!!!!!
planners know little about most of the problems they care about.
Ignoring the wants and needs of the people living there.
Ah, well.
————-
CPZ wrote:
Are those “nice places†planned, or do they evolve on the bases of many factors? I personally assert that it’s not possible to plan such places.
As there are nice places that were planned – and many crappy places that were as well, I’d assert both.
Personally, again, I say lay out the blocks and ROW and infra easements and set the design standards and that’s it – no Euclidean zoning. Of course, that will make a more dense and walkable environment when developers can build what they think the market wants, so I’ll be vilified for wanting density. Whaddya gonedew?
DS
“so I’ll be vilified for wanting density.”
Now I hope we don’t have to ever again hear another lame argument that planners are just doing what communities “want”, and not just implementing their own planning school prejudices.
No need to make sh– up about what I wrote. None.
It is a mere millimeters up the screen, likely in the same non-smartphone view. No need. None at all. Zero need to mischaracterize what everyone can see I wrote. None. Nada.
Unless that’s the best that can be coughed up, then never mind.
DS
“Drama Queen” in Urban Dictionary
definition: Someone who turns something unimportant into a major deal. Someone who blows things way out of proportion when ever the chance is given.
example: “Oh my god! You copied that without giving the other person credit! That is just mean. You’re horrible, don’t talk to me. Im gonna go tell everyone what a cruel person you are just so they will pay attention to me and think im cool.”
C. P. Zilliacus said:
Does Tri-Met public patronage data for the I-205 light rail line? According to what I found online, “weekday ridership†on the MAX Green Line was 24,800 in October 2011.
——————————-
I have been told that the I-205 counts are not just along the I-205 but also include the original line to Gateway station and downtown. Because that is where the line ends. So the counts along I-205 are much smaller than the 24,800. Many of the trips are in fareless Square in downtown Portland and along the line to Gateway and along the I-205.
2012, Dan said:
False premises: they keep ‘em a-comin’!!!!!
planners know little about most of the problems they care about.
Ignoring the wants and needs of the people living there.
Ah, well.
———————————————
My daughters transit trip to school is still unacceptable for her despite the planners and expert transit supporters telling us we have one of the best systems in the nation.
@39, I’m not sure what your assertion has to do with the false premise I pointed out (and that you quoted in 39), but thanks for your reply. It is well known the US has a poor public transit system, due in part to the difficulty in making public transit work in the country’s dispersed land-use patterns.
HTH.
DS
Dan said:
Not sure how that can be, when we are told all the time how the Portland area is the leader in land use planning by the Portland and Metro planners. We are always told we are the model to follow. We are told all the time by our Mayor and Metro Planners, that officials come from around the world to see our system.
The goal posts just keep moving and 25 years of planning and new light rail lines transit improvements and promises, have not come true.
DS’s solution? More Planning and mandates? Because our “country’s dispersed land-use patterns” Or how people choose to live, have to be changed because they are not conforming to DS’s transit utopia.
DS’s solution? More Planning and mandates?
how people choose to live, [has] to be changed
False premises: they keep ‘em a-comin’!!!!!
DS
“Dan said:”
should have only been “Dan”
Antiplanner wrote above:”Two simple sentences; two complicated lies. Has the time wasted in traffic jams more than doubled? Congestion has increased, says the Texas Transportation Institute. But the Census Bureau reports that average commute times are not much different today than they were 30 years ago. In fact, between 2000 and 2006, average commute times actually declined.”
Antiplanner wrote in his book ‘Gridlock’: “Commuters wasted more than 4 billion hours sitting in traffic in 2005, nearly five times the number of hours of delay 25 years ago.”
Hmmm.
Dan wrote:
As there are nice places that were planned – and many crappy places that were as well, I’d assert both.
I know a few planned places that have stood the test of time, but I know many that have become failures (or, as Randal might call them, Smart Growth disasters or planning disasters).
Success stories:
One is in Maryland, “old” (Great Depression-era) Greenbelt, in Prince George’s County.
One is in the suburbs of Stockholm, Sweden (inside the corporate limits of the city, but very suburban) Vällingby.
I assert that the Levittowns (in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland) are planning success stories, even though many planning and Smart Growth advocates hate these communities.
Dan also wrote:
Personally, again, I say lay out the blocks and ROW and infra easements and set the design standards and that’s it – no Euclidean zoning. Of course, that will make a more dense and walkable environment when developers can build what they think the market wants, so I’ll be vilified for wanting density. Whaddya gonedew?
If a private developer wants to decide how much density to put on a vacant parcel of land, fine enough. But things get messy when we consider the impacts of that density on public services, like schools, sewage disposal systems, highways and even mass transit.
Certainly the result would be better than the Beaverton Round!
CPZ wrote:
If a private developer wants to decide how much density to put on a vacant parcel of land, fine enough. But things get messy when we consider the impacts of that density on public services, like schools, sewage disposal systems, highways and even mass transit.
Yes indeed – the market does not provision public goods.
But you highlight an important point: many places are regulating such issues as how big of a pipe to bury? by making a max DU/acre. The tension here is that developers will make it as dense as they can get it to maximize ROI, and this push puts pressure on public infrastructure (and public coffers to maintain) and the neighborhood who now that they’ve moved in doesn’t want any more traffic (but property rights people want them to allow the market to densify). Just another day in the life of the folks in the land-use/development business.
DS
“Time wasted”
Oh yeah, public transit at 2 times + vs. driving, IF there is a 1/4 mile distance to a stop for each end — home & work.
When will people learn that widespread mass transit is only somewhat efficient at high densities — 8,000-10,000/sq.mi.+?
Plus a high concentration of jobs in the CBD.
Look at the examples: Hong Kong & Tokyo.
Do any of you “experts” know about them?
And their differences with other UAs?
Even between them?
Hint: Density — HK @ 75,000 & Tokyo @ 45,000.
BTW, NYC is 26,000/sq.mi. & even their transit (1/3+ of all users in country) is not self-supporting.
Correction:
I typed Tokyo’s density at 45,000/sq.mi.
I had Seoul’s figs in my mind, which could be 3rd on the list for public transit in advanced nations.
That’s wrong.
Tokyo’s density is 15,000, which would place it 3rd among US cities, but much denser for its breadth in area (800+ sq. mi.) & population (13 mil) for anything comparable in the US. Then its suburbs are denser than the US.
BTW, know this?
The LA UA is the densest in the US — the NYC UA has [about] 50% more people on 100% more land.
The [SF] Bay Area is 2nd, even though its 9 counties total about 7,000 sq. mi., only about 800 are built (urbanized).
And, its “supply restrictions” have cause the higher home prices, which Randal has covered extensively, which many have chosen to ignore — its a simple supply & demand scenario — but many are not cognizant in that field.
Dan wrote:
Yes indeed – the market does not provision public goods.</cite:
Though is there any reason why (for example) water and sewer and highways and mass transit need to be public goods?
As long as the private sector can provide these services and things?
But you highlight an important point: many places are regulating such issues as how big of a pipe to bury? by making a max DU/acre. The tension here is that developers will make it as dense as they can get it to maximize ROI, and this push puts pressure on public infrastructure (and public coffers to maintain) and the neighborhood who now that they’ve moved in doesn’t want any more traffic (but property rights people want them to allow the market to densify). Just another day in the life of the folks in the land-use/development business.
Many times it comes down to arcane things like intersection capacities and assumptions about mass transit patronage (most people don’t understand the former and I have seen many instances where the latter was tainted by overly-optimistic assumptions).
Water and sewer capacities are relatively-speaking easy for most people to comprehend.
CPZ, little hard to read without the closed tag. If I understand correctly:
o a citation needed for what markets provision
o a question why public goods are not privatized
o point about goods capacities.
It is intermediate knowledge (that is: not obtained via columnists writing for media) about what markets provision and allocate. Public goods are non-rival and/or non-excludable. Markets cannot operate under these constraints. This is also why it is common that public goods are not wholly privatized – Bechtel being run out of S America is the best example in this context. CA does have private water purveyors – but they are generally at the margins, altho they tend to do a good job there (tightly regulated and enforced). A good essay from the EcolEcon perspective on these public goods issues is here. The cornucopians won’t like it and apologies in advance if the thread gets spammed because of it.
As to the transportation point, the problem in my view is that one city may make improvements, but no one else does. That doesn’t solve the trans-boundary transportation problem.
DS