The American Public Transportation Association reported that transit ridership on US systems is at its highest levels since 1957, having increased for the last three consecutive years. Light, heavy, and commuter rail, respectively, led the increase.
The American Public Transportation Association reported that transit ridership on US systems is at its highest levels since 1957, having increased for the last three consecutive years. Light, heavy, and commuter rail, respectively, led the increase.
72 responses to “Transit Ridership at Historic Levels”
As APTA releases its numbers, which are provided by transit agencies, with subjective counts, we find that the objective sources such as the US Government, which may be biased in favor of transit, and independent institutions such as the Texas Transportation Institute, all reporting that congestion worsens and the modal split between transit and auto shows transit with a lower share and autos and trucks with a higher share.
For example, Tri Met can show increasing ridership but cannot show taking any cars off the road.
Stacking up fareless square trips doesn’t do a thing for mobility. It just reduces walk trips and makes downtown (mostly government, government related and chambermaids) employees fatter. Fareless square is not where our congestion occurs and freight shippers run into bottlenecks. See ODOT for the differences in the volumes of any of our freeway and roads like Burnside , Everett, Glisan, Broadway, etc.
Mel
what we need is a good plan for slimming our chambermaids.
Mel –
You may be skeptical of the “subjective” numbers coming from transit agencies (although a number of agencies use automated counting means, and those agencies show increases as well), but I note from personal experience that where I have compared TriMet’s per-stop counts to real-world experience, I have found the real-world numbers in sync or (in the case of my own home) significantly higher that the official counts.
Also, if you are the same Mel who previously reported on the supposedly empty park & ride lots at the end of the yellow line about a year or so ago, that I personally went out and looked for myself and did a count and posted the results here and found many times the number of cars as you (or some other Mel) stated.
Such a count in isolation would be merely an anecdote, but I have noticed a trend: Nearly every time an anti-transit accusation is levelled which I have taken the time out to go personally verify, I have found the anti-transit accusation to be way off-base, whether it be Park & Ride counts, number of trains per hour, fullness of trains, or the number of people who can comfortably fit in an aerial tram car.
– Bob R.
The American Public Transportation Association reported that transit ridership on US systems is at its highest levels since 1957
How is market share doing?
Thanks
JK
Bob R: You may be skeptical of the “subjective” numbers coming from transit agencies (although a number of agencies use automated counting means, and those agencies show increases as well), but I note from personal experience that where I have compared TriMet’s per-stop counts to real-world experience, I have found the real-world numbers in sync or (in the case of my own home) significantly higher that the official counts.
JK: TriMet now seems to consider the per-stop counts a state secret. This is a great big red flag that they have something to hide.
Bob R: Nearly every time an anti-transit accusation is levelled which I have taken the time out to go personally verify, I have found the anti-transit accusation to be way off-base, whether it be Park & Ride counts, number of trains per hour, fullness of trains, or the number of people who can comfortably fit in an aerial tram car.
JK: On the other hand,
* Trimet releases boarding counts as riders with no explanation that one person may count as 2-4-6 or more “rides” on a single trip.
* Trimet brags of increased ridership (boardership?), but never talks of market share which is hardly increasing (0.1% per decade 1990-2000)
* Trimet still claims that MAX carries as many people as 1.2 lanes of US26, without admitting that most of those would be in a bus, had they not spent 1 Billion building that line.
* Trimet still claims that rail is less expensive to operate than the bus. But the comparison is of the very most productive routes with all routes since they only build rail on popular route while buses are prevented from serving the most profitable routes. The lowest cost bus line is actually cheaper to operate that the average MAX line.
* Trimet leaves out construction costs from the rail cost figures (that alone would more than double the reported per ride cost)
see DebunkingPortland.com (try agin if its down – its being temperamental lately)
Thanks
JK
Last year, I remember hearing about ridership increases on all modes on some railfan boards. Even Amtrak Ridership was up, in some states where they only have just a few stops. In Indiana, the Chicago-South Bend Regional Electric Rail operations of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District were up to ridership levels not seen since 1957! I remember getting in an argument with someone up here that claimed Metro routes were empty, even the 7-Ranier Beach line. One problem, that route is often gaurenteed to be Standing Room Only at times, and often in both directions. Sometimes some routes fulfill important connecting functions, but are only full on a portion of the line, such as the 39 Seward Park line. It starts in Ranier Beach, is often half full when it gets to the VA Medical Center, but can and does fill up there, and then most of the riders that get on there transfer at the first stop that Southbound buses stop at, 1 mile away. At times, the Suburban Cities have made moves to get more service that is more costly than city service, but then you cannot attract riders if the service is not there. I remember seeing a story about 5 years ago in one of the Seattle Papers that some suburban routes cost as much as $5 more than the Peak HOur fare($2.00 for two zone, $1.50 for one zone), while some city routes in Seattle itself cost about $1.50. The reason, Seattle routes are geared towards all-day operations, and passengers often ride for short distance. Suburban Routes are geared for one-seat rides, mainly rush hour only, to Seattle, although that model is begining to change. THe difference between Seattle and the Suburbs is how they were developed. In Seattle, much of the city was developed around the streetcar, while the suburbs were developed exclusively around the Automobile. Kind of makes it hard for effective local transit service moving around all them Cul de Sacs. Also, even when the streetcars were dropped, Seattle continued to have an effective(and at times profitable) bus service until the trolleybus routes were gutted in 1963.
Now I noticed some of the Light Rail systems with ridership gains, included ones you never thought would become Light Rail Cities. Including San Jose, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and St.Louis. San Jose had a whopping 36% increase. The Hiawatha Line in Minnesota is just a single line, and they will not have any expansion running until 2014 with the Central Corridor. It will be an Interurban Light Rail line, connecting Minneapolis with St. Paul. Got to give credit for any ridership gains, at least in some part, to rising gas prices. We might be at a crossroads. Maybe they will get back down to the late 1990s levels, but then again, they might not. One of the reasons I think that multi-modal corridors should be explored. Right now, up here, we are at a crossroads. The Alaskan Way Viaduct is going back to the drawing board. Voters rejected both options, and although it was an advisory vote, the y said they will abide by the voters wishes. In 1988 there was an advisory vote held, and that was over Light Rail. It passed, and maybe by 2009, we’ll have something running between Downtown and the Airport. Although with the Vancouver B.C. Olympics coming up, and the line having a station next to King Street Station, we might see Sea-Tac take some load off of Vancouver’s Airport. Also, by the end of next year, Amtrak 513/516 will have a new Northern Terminal, Vancouver B.C. B.C. Ministry of Transportation, Amtrak, WSDOT, and BNSF have an agreement now on funding improvements needed.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lrt_2007-03b.htm
One thing that must be considered comparing new ridership records to old ones, is population changes. Last year, King County Metro reported 103.5 million riders. That beats the previous record for the system at 100 million from 2000. That still don’t beat the all-time record for any system in Puget Sound, of 130 million in 1944. That was set by Seattle Transit, which operated only within Seattle itself, Seattle was also much smaller in size on it’s Northern Boundary, which was at the time N.85th st, a decade later they annexed a 60 block area between the Puget Sound and Lake Washington that stretched to N.145th St. The County Line is N.200th St(and thankfully Snohomish County has the street numbers North of that radiating from Everett). Puget Sound Population was around 1 million, Seattle’s population was between 200,000 and 400,000. Also need to take into account unique factors to that time, such as WWII, and gasoline was rationed.
Metro might have had a bigger ridership last year, but King County’s population of around 2 million is much bigger than the population in the county back in 1944, so even if they hit 130 million riders this year( I doubt it), the record will not be the same. As for hitting 130 million, politicians don’t think that will happen. Using Metro’s last tenth of a cent sales tax authority, they said all the improvements it would fund, would at best build capacity for hitting 120 million riders.
JK wrote: “Trimet releases boarding counts as riders with no explanation that one person may count as 2-4-6 or more “rides” on a single trip.”
Actually, JK, TriMet uses the term “originating rides” to distinguish connected trips from unconnected trips.
For example, in FY2006 there were an average of 240,100 weekday originating rides, but 307,200 weekday boarding rides. (An average of 1.28 transfers per originating ride.)
Your assertion implies that a significant number of riders are making 3-transfer or 5-transfer journeys, but the numbers don’t come close to bearing that out. (Who would make a 4 or 6-vehicle transit trip on a regular basis, anyway? The average transit journey is about 5 miles.)
– Bob R.
Bob R. said “but I note from personal experience that where I have compared TriMet’s per-stop counts to real-world experience, I have found the real-world numbers in sync or (in the case of my own home) significantly higher that the official counts.”
Mel-Go out and do real counts instead of giving everyone jibberish based on a few anecdotal experiences.
Bob R said “Also, if you are the same Mel who previously reported on the supposedly empty park & ride lots at the end of the yellow line about a year or so ago,”
Mel-It certainly wasn’t me that said that. When we did counts of the yellow line, we found virtually no cars in the two parking lots FROM Washington. The preconstruction hoopla was about people from Washington making use of the yellow line.
Bob R said “Such a count in isolation would be merely an anecdote, but I have noticed a trend”
Mel-You can’t make a trend out of a few sightings. That is why your lack of data is called anecdotal.
Bob R said “Nearly every time an anti-transit accusation is levelled which I have taken the time out to go personally verify, I have found the anti-transit accusation to be way off-base, whether it be Park & Ride counts, number of trains per hour, fullness of trains, or the number of people who can comfortably fit in an aerial tram car.”
Mel- Bob, your observations are inane. You inclusion of the TRAM is indicative. The TRAM has no effect on the roads or mobility. The TRAM is like an elevator. It takes people from offices on the hill to offices in the CHH. It the same as if they had merely added floors to the buildings on the top of the hill. Do your homework.
You just see what you believe.
Mel Zucker
Oregon Transportation Institute.
Mel –
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful reply.
Since you doubt the efficacy of my anecdotes, I am happy to dig up some of your comments and mine from nearly a year ago here in this PortlandTransport post.
Back then, you wrote:
The moment I read that, I was quite stunned, for such poor park & ride performance would indeed be indicative of trouble. As soon as I had some free time, I rode the Yellow Line out there and did my own count and took photos.
Here’s my results (to which you never replied the first time around) again:
You tell me that my observations are “inane” and that “you just see what you believe”, but I have photos and counted plates. Why are your anecdotes to be accepted and mine to be dismissed?
By the way, nice dodge about the tram. I did not make any statements about the tram other than that I personally verified how many people could fit “comfortably” on a tram car. I’ve been lightly critical of the tram in other places on this blog (but supportive of the concept of linking the South Waterfront to OHSU overall), and in fact have on several occasions endorsed Jim Howell’s suggestion of a tunnel/elevator. I also opposed, over on Commissioner Sam’s blog, the last round of increasing the city’s share of tram construction costs, and supported a higher fare for tourists. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I reiterate: Nearly every time I’ve taken the time to personally investigate a claim made by an anti-transit (or sometimes merely anti-rail) person, I have found the claim to be groundless, and in your case I have the pictures to prove it.
– Bob R.
Awesome comment Bob R. I’m gonna have to meet you face to face sometime.
I’d have a problem with all of these JK points out if the Federal, State, and Cities of this nation had not spent about 130 Billion dollars last year on roads, and still they are starting to crumble faster than they can be rebuilt. All the while artificially removing millions form their homes, displacing billions of dollars of wealth, causing sickness that can’t even be measured in totality yet, and the almost complete destruction of the great cities of America with BAD planning, especially bad city & transportation planning. But I digress, I just wanted to point some things out…
* Trimet releases boarding counts as riders with no explanation that one person may count as 2-4-6 or more “rides” on a single trip.
Yup, this is true. It should be obvious to anyone with partial cerebral usage. The FHA and such also count each trip made in a car, even if it is the same car and same person driving as a “ride” or “trip” or whatever the flavor of the month for that descriptor.
* Trimet brags of increased ridership (boardership?), but never talks of market share which is hardly increasing (0.1% per decade 1990-2000)
Unfortunately baordings aren’t part of overall revenue. :( But it is a good example of replaced “auto” based trips. It is definately true of SOV auto trips. The market share, for the entire area might be low, but between the west hills and about 120th to downtown the trips are a much much larger number. If it dissappeared the number of lanes that would need added to get the workers into and out of downtown would be so great multiple $6 billion dollar bridges would be needed and multiple billion dollar parking garages would be needed to accomodate them. To put it in better context, downtown COULD NOT EXIST without the transportation options.
* Trimet still claims that MAX carries as many people as 1.2 lanes of US26, without admitting that most of those would be in a bus, had they not spent 1 Billion building that line.
Yeah, if those bloody interstates that carry just slightly more cars hadn’t consumed what now would easily be worth billions in property, removed thousands from their homes in the north (maybe hundreds south of the city) for construction, and manipulated people socially by the mere “freeway” perpetuation maybe that billion to build (I admit it wasn’t done in what I’d consider the smartest way) would sound a lot worse. But considering ODOT/WSDOT want to build a bridge now that will exlipse every single cent of transit money spent to date – ON A FREAKING BRIDGE – that one billion to move 90 thousand plus people into and out of downtown every day is well worth the money.
* Trimet still claims that rail is less expensive to operate than the bus. But the comparison is of the very most productive routes with all routes since they only build rail on popular route while buses are prevented from serving the most profitable routes. The lowest cost bus line is actually cheaper to operate that the average MAX line.
Rail is less expensive to operate on high usage lines than busses, for operations. They’re not lying, they just aren’t stating the whole cost. Neither does the FHA or other entity put together accurate information in such a way. No road has shown even remotely good ROI in comparison. Especially with “public funding”. If roads began privatization and started being built from private funds with 99 year leases and other such instruments they would be built in a much wiser (or not at all) way. The interstates for instance, would have never been built, and in all likelihood we’d still have massive transit systems that didn’t get destroyed when they’re bread and butter was stolen from them by the Feds/States and the utopian highway system ripping through the downtowns of America.
* Trimet leaves out construction costs from the rail cost figures (that alone would more than double the reported per ride cost)
Yup, and they usually state this. Most people don’t read any of that crap anyway. I’ve informed dozens as to how much it actually costs (1-2 bucks a mile) but also coridally remind them that it costs (1.20-5) a mile for an automobile of any decent nature.
…but I digress. Mixed modes is what we need more of. Not auto-centricity. Empirical evidence in America and Europe is starting to prove that.
…and if we can just clean up those combustion based engines we’ll be on a roll. :)
…and btw – JK, I’d love to chat at you sometime too. On transit but on other notes also. It’s difficult just to ramble back and forth via a blog.
Thanks, Adron – Sorry I didn’t make the last PortlandTransport meet ‘n greet… hopefully there will be another soon.
– Bob R.
I kept track, and compiled the results the other night – in 2006, I rode transit to somewhere (work, recreation, etc.), an average of 6.64 days a week. Not sure if this is an all-time high for me; so far 2006 is the only year I kept track for the entire year.
I’d have a problem with all of these JK points out if the Federal, State, and Cities of this nation had not spent about 130 Billion dollars last year on roads, and still they are starting to crumble faster than they can be rebuilt. All the while artificially removing millions form their homes, displacing billions of dollars of wealth, causing sickness that can’t even be measured in totality yet, and the almost complete destruction of the great cities of America with BAD planning, especially bad city & transportation planning.
Wait a second, are you saying that transit infrastructure doesn’t crumble?
Busses require replacement, typically they are replaced every 15 years. (TriMet has busses running on 20 years – the 1400-1600 series.)
Light Rail infrastructure requires CONSTANT maintenance. That’s why the system shuts down for several hours each night – rails require inspection (daily!), catenary requires inspection, rail requires periodic grinding down, contact wire requires retensioning and replacement. Don’t even get started on the maintenance needs of the Steel Bridge (fortunately that’s the responsibility of Union Pacific and not TriMet, but when ODOT’s 99 year lease expires, I have to wonder what will happen since UP is now a minority user of the bridge; Amtrak uses the bridge more than UP freight trains.)
That $130 billion spent on roads? Guess where that money came from? The gas tax. Sure, some roads were paid for with local property taxes (namely city and county streets, the ones that typically carry local traffic and often don’t have extensive maintenance needs, the ones that are typically built by developers). State and National Highway System component roads are funded through the gas tax. Take a look at ODOT’s own budget – it has $10M from the general fund and it goes solely to fund the two Amtrak trains from Portland to Eugene. The rest is bourne by drivers.
What does TriMet do when it can’t afford its budget? It cuts service and/or reallocates dollars, namely from bus service to MAX service. It doesn’t help that the TriMet service area was raped by the City of Portland to pay the operating costs of the City owned/City operated Streetcar – that’s $4M a year that ISN’T going to MAX or busses regionwide. Roads can have potholes, but if MAX has a broken rail you can predict what will happen when the train goes over it when it finally fractures. (Or if the catenary wire snaps and hits the ground, and an unsuspecting pedestrian happens to touch it…)
If we truly want to digress on a $4B bridge for freeways, take this into consideration – that $4B bridge will last at least 50-75 years with only routine maintenance, and will carry some 150,000 or more vehicles a day, carrying everything from motorcycles to autos to busses to freight. Westside MAX cost close to $1B, and on a systemwide basis MAX carries 90,000 passengers and zero freight. Certainly, not everyone uses Westside MAX. MAX doesn’t cover its routine costs unlike the Interstate Bridge does (or will); and MAX isn’t a link in a major transportation chain that stretches 1400+ miles.
Highways are not solely responsible for removing people from their homes and causing illnesses; after all MAX requires electricity, which is largely generated from the Boardman Coal Plant which is a major contributor to the air pollution in the Columbia Gorge. So does using a (gasp!) computer!! I could go on and state that if we would eliminate all personal computers and televisions that we could reduce energy consumption in this country significantly, resulting in fewer air pollution caused deaths worldwide and encouraging more physical fitness…
Oregon Transportation Institute??? You want to complain about numbers, lets look at the studies you’ve done:
The first study on your website compares fatalities per VMT for the 6 years before and 6 years after the rural interstate speeds were increased, and concludes that since fatalities went down slightly, faster speeds are actually safer. If you gave that report in a Freshman Stats class, they’d laugh because any long term study of fatalities per VMT says that fatalities go down. The big reason is that cars have gotten safer over time, so less people die when they crash. (You also haven’t normalized the fatality data over time to the average number of people in the cars over time, but we’ll assume that is insignificant and ignore that for now.)
So, we have to take the increase in vehicle safety trend out of the numbers. I can plug the FARS numbers from all fatalities per 100M VMTs into excel and they say that they go down by about 0.029 per 100M VMT per year from 1994 to 2004, (I couldn’t find earlier years data on that site, but if you have them, you can do the math yourself.) (Once we have normalize for that trend, we should also run statistics on that data and find out that the standard deviation is 0.02, which means that that line is a fairly accurate representation of the trend.) We then subtract that trend line out of table 1, and redo the averages: If you compare the period from 1990-1995 to 1996-2001, fatalities actually increased .117 per 100M VMT over what they should have based on safer automobiles. That is way more than standard deviation, so those results are very significant, especially since that is a 6 year average, not a 1 year average.
If you had done the math right in the first place, you could at least argue that the time savings at the higher speeds more than made up for the lives cut short, or any number of things, but instead you come to the conclusion that “This reduction of fatal crashes may well be due to the fact that fewer drivers hit the brakes when they saw or thought they saw a law enforcement vehicle.” (By that conclusion, cutting state police funding should also reduce the fatality rate, in fact, nobody should have ever died in the movie Mad Max. :-)
My point is, if you want to complain that Tri-Met’s data is wrong and you have your own data to back it up, (that is better than that study, you really should throw that one away,) we can talk, but if you just want to claim that Tri-Met lies and just makes chambermaids fat, and that the “Oregon Transportation Institute” says so, well, that is nice, but nobody is going to take you seriously.
Thanks to Bob R. for all of your informative posts on this blog. Nicely done.
However, I’m going to be leery of BOTH Trimet’s and Bob R.’s statistics, because both parties have an obvious bias. The presentor’s bias should be the first red flag to look out for in evaluating statistics, according to what I have read numerous times.
This comes from someone who is most definitely NOT anti-transit, as I have never driven a car in my whole life.
However, I’m going to be leery of BOTH Trimet’s and Bob R.’s statistics, because both parties have an obvious bias. The presentor’s bias should be the first red flag to look out for in evaluating statistics, according to what I have read numerous times.
This comes from someone who is most definitely NOT anti-transit, as I have never driven a car in my whole life.
Nick –
You are wise to be skeptical of presenters potential for bias when evaluating claims. However, please also be aware of your own biases as well, which may unduly prevent you from changing your views in the face of new evidence.
As near as I can tell, you think my biases are those of a “rail lover” and should be discounted. As I have shown you before, in fact I support using the appropriate mode for the job in a variety of circumstances. You, on the other hand, appear to have been opposed to every current rail system in Portland and all current proposals, and support only BRT and standard buses. Thus, I will take your bias into account as well when you make clams.
– Bob R.
Bob R. Actually, JK, TriMet uses the term “originating rides” to distinguish connected trips from unconnected trips.
JK: Not necessary to the public. For instance, see Trimet’s factsheet.pdf: “• 63.1 million were bus trips” (yes, they do mention “boarded” earlier, which suggests “boardings”, but the clear impression is that the data is “trips”, when, in reality it is “boardings”, not “originating rides” as you mention)
Another example: “3,670 people rode to and from the airport on the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving.”
(trimet.org/news/releases/nov13redline.htm) Is there any hint that that number is “boardings” and it actually represents a lot of round trips by airport workers? (Note use of the word “people rode” to me that means 3,670 DIFFERENT people on that day, not the 1500 or so people making round trips that it actually represents, plus a few air travelers.)
Bob R. For example, in FY2006 there were an average of 240,100 weekday originating rides, but 307,200 weekday boarding rides. (An average of 1.28 transfers per originating ride.)
JK: That means that you must discount the number associated with Trimet’s use of the term people or riders by 2 x 1.28 to translate boardings into actual number of people making round-trips (one usually ends up going home) One usually does not say “I took a trip downtown and took another trip home” For Trimet an average trip downtown (and back) is be 2.56 “trips” .
BTW, why is Trimet hiding its stop-by-stop data?
Thanks
JK
For another take on this see:
ti.org/antiplanner/?p=90
Thanks
JK
JK –
You point out instances where TriMet has been sloppy with terminology (but they do use the correct term “Originating Rides” on their web site’s ridership statistics link), yet you then go on to make unattributed assumptions about the proportion of employee ridership at the airport and the ratio of round trips to originating rides.
In my own life (here comes one of those horrible, “inane”, useless anecdotes of mine), the round trip formula does not apply in either case. Last week I flew to Texas from PDX, and used the Red Line to get to the airport – the overwhelming majority of people getting off at the airport at ~5AM had bags and were not employees. On my return trip, I was picked up by my partner by car, so the trip was not a round trip by transit.
My partner commutes by MAX to a part-time job downtown before going to PCC in the afternoons/evenings. On numerous occasions, if I am out running afternoon errands close-in, I will pick him up downtown — no round trip for him. (And he doesn’t transfer.) Next semester, the schedule will be tight and we anticipate on Tuesdays and Thursdays that I will regularly pick him up and have him drop me off at home as he proceeds directly to school unless road conditions indicate that MAX will get him home (and into the car) faster. Those Tues/Thurs will never be transit round trips. I know of other persons who bike in to work (mostly downhill from inner NE), and take transit home, and those who use some combination of carpool or transit, as well as kids who are dropped off at school but take transit home, etc.
Now, I don’t have the numbers that show just what the ratio of round trips is, and I don’t have the numbers that show just who is getting on or off at the PDX Airport stop. But, I do know that TriMet conducts ridership surveys for this purpose. I have been surveyed a couple of times while riding MAX in the past several years.
– Bob R.
Bob R.
You really don’t understand what you read and have no idea of context. As indicated over and over, our counts done by sixteen people verifying each other in many ways (i.e.person at one station counting incoming load to insure the reported number that left the prior station). We did entire peak hours because those are the only times that roads are congested.
You did not show and did not think about showing the day and whether there was an event at the EXPO. Lots of people park at the Delta and EXPO FREE lots to avoid paying the $7.00 EXPO parking lot charge. you did not count an entire period to see the turnover, if any When I go north of Vancouver, I match-up with others at the Delta lot so we can parko our cars and carpool the rest of the way. Those types of cars do not imply transit use. We watched the people aprking and noted whether they took the yellow line.
Even if your numbers cited were indeed related to the roads, look at the numbers in relation to the 150,000 cars per day on the particular freeway segment. They are totally INSIGNIFICANT.
Look at the yellow line reported ridership. 60% of it is in fareless square WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE YELLOW LINE CONSTRCTION. Look at the prior No. 5 bus ridership and you will find just as many riders as the yellow line reports. So what was accomplished, except wasting money.
As for your desire for a tunnel-anything, all you prove is that you are 1) financially lax without a care in the world about how society should spend OTHER PEOPLE”S money and 2) subscribe to Jim Howell’s notion that no matter what you build and no matter what it costs, people will use it. Jim is one of the sweetest guys in the world but , to him, nothing matters except building anything, the more money the better. The same is true of Ray Polani. Neither care about usage before or after.
As one of many, I am sick of paying for your bad ideas, the net effect of which we have had one of the highest increases of congestion of any metro area since 1986 when east side MAX opened.
You will pursue the same agenda notwithstanding anything that you face and try to rationalize it by creating senseless numbers.
To you, it’s a religion not sound social policy.
Melvin Y. Zucker
Oregon Transportation Institute
Mel just wrote: You did not show and did not think about showing the day and whether there was an event at the EXPO.
Mel, in my response to you yesterday I linked directly to the original post from a year ago, which apparently you still haven’t read.
Here is the relevant quote I wrote last April:
You just wrote: You really don’t understand what you read and have no idea of context.
Pot. Kettle. Black. And thanks for the personal attacks, I needed some today. Good for the soul.
Good day.
– Bob R.
Thanks to Mel for all of your informative posts on this blog. Nicely done.
TriMet’s numbers?
Here’s a sample of their credibility.
TriMet’s Fred Hanson said Airport MAX helped attract Ikea BIG BOX furnituire store.
This in a UR plan meant to prohibit BIG BOX stores while resulting in a “ped/bike/transit oriented Mini-City”.
Now, after many years of nothing, Cascade Station, with it’s MAX station, is destined to be an auto-oriented BIG BOX cluster.
Fred Hanson, “It’s a success”.
Who needs ethics.
Gosh Richard, I’m a little confused. If Airport MAX wasn’t a motivating factor in IKEA’s decision to locate at Cascade Station, then don’t you find it a little strange that light rail access was what they chose to emphasize in their press release announcing a new Portland store?
“Seventy-five bicycle racks and two light-rail stations will provide convenient access for coworkers as well as for customers, who may use the home delivery service IKEA offers”
http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/about_ikea/press_room/press_release/national/portland_ground_breaking.html
Who needs ethics indeed.
Mel writes about Jim Howell: “…to him, nothing matters except building anything, the more money the better. The same is true of Ray Polani. Neither care about usage before or after.”
Mel, your attacks on Jim Howell are unwarranted. He’s opposed the current light rail on the transit mall expansion and has offered up a lower-cost proposal for an east-side alignment several times, right here on this blog, as recently as last week. He has voiced serious concerns about capacity and ridership in numerous public forums. He has questioned the cost/benefit of the central eastside streetcar. I have personally witnessed him speaking out in favor of what he considers lower-cost, higher-ridership alternatives. Once again, the facts do not back up your allegations.
– Bob R.
Mel, your attacks on Jim Howell are unwarranted.
Oh, come on. Who cares what Mel Zucker says about Jim? If anything, its a compliment since all it means is he thinks Jim has been effective.
Mel spends his time making ad-hominens because he has little else to offer except silly “studies” that are transparently fallacious. I salute Bob and Matthew for having the patience to shoot them down, but I don’t think anyone should really consider it necessary.
Bob R.,
You must go to Delta Park and count the number of people leaving the Station to go north and the number going south for any three hour segment. The total route ridership is not relevant because of people going on and off and because 60% of the ridership is on track that has nothing to do with the yellow line. Those lots are convenient meeting lots. Further, when you do a count at 3:00 PM, it is the whole days accumulation of transit riders and nontransit riders.
Post those numbers and then compare those numbers to what is recorded by permanent counter on I-5 (see ODOT web site).
And I did say, “Jim is one of the sweetest guys in the world”
Mel
Golly DC, do ya think Ikea might have been suggested to suck up and pander to the local agenda?
They were paid handsomely to do so. Since they were given the site at Cascade Station for a song. But even their lease payment won’t be going to the Port or city.
The agencies desperate to have anything at all get built there caved on the BIG BOX prohibition the Cascade Station plan included and they schemed away untold millions.
You are more than a little confused if you think Ikea has any more than a petty and token use for bike racks and light rail. So a few employees use it. Big deal. The proximity to the freeway and the populous made that site.
But if one chap rides MAX to IKEA when it opens TriMet and the Oregonian will be there to BS the happening like they have the whole Cascade Station.
So no I didn’t find it “a little strange that light rail access was what they chose to emphasize in their press release announcing a new Portland store”.
“Emphasize” was you little add on.
I’m sure the Ikea execs were laughing as hard as I was.
Who needs ethics indeed? The Port, PDC, Metro and TriMet. Along with a shred of integrity.
The saps only got $41.3 million comes from an 85-year lease on 120 acres of commercial property to the Bechtel and Trammel Crow corporations.
Of that 120 acres IKEA got a 93 year renewable lease for part (19 acres) of Cascade Station for roughly $14 million. Which goes to Trammel Crow.
Untangle it all and the public got screwed in every way possible, forever.
Other big boxes possible
“Besides Ikea, whose stores can cover more than 300,000 square feet, the new plan could accommodate other big-box stores, such as a Costco, a Target or a Wal-Mart Supercenter.”
None of which needed MAX or the $200 million Urban Renewal boondoggle which failed miserably to create the intended ped/bike/transit mini-city.
Did I miss something or is Steve Schoop posting again here under a different name?
Adron I’d have a problem with all of these JK points out if the Federal, State, and Cities of this nation had not spent about 130 Billion dollars last year on roads, and still they are starting to crumble faster than they can be rebuilt.
JK: 130e9 / 4,432,327e6= $.03 per passenger mile for roads. That is pathetically small and a heck of a lot less than what we waste on toy trains and mas transit. That “should be obvious to anyone with partial cerebral usage.” see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Docs/VM1/vm1.htm
Adron All the while artificially removing millions form their homes, displacing billions of dollars of wealth, causing sickness that can’t even be measured in totality yet, and the almost complete destruction of the great cities of America with BAD planning, especially bad city & transportation planning. But I digress, I just wanted to point some things out…
JK: And if we all switched to the toy train, you would still need the same space because toy train tracks are the same width as a lane of traffic and carry about the same number of people. BTW how about freight – someone with even “with partial cerebral usage.” should have thought of that.
Adron * Trimet releases boarding counts as riders with no explanation that one person may count as 2-4-6 or more “rides” on a single trip.
Yup, this is true. It should be obvious to anyone with partial cerebral usage. The FHA and such also count each trip made in a car, even if it is the same car and same person driving as a “ride” or “trip” or whatever the flavor of the month for that descriptor.
JK: If it so obvious, then how come the newspapers always call them riders when the data is boarders?
Adron * Trimet brags of increased ridership (boardership?), but never talks of market share which is hardly increasing (0.1% per decade 1990-2000)
Unfortunately baordings aren’t part of overall revenue. :( But it is a good example of replaced “auto” based trips. It is definately true of SOV auto trips. The market share, for the entire area might be low, but between the west hills and about 120th to downtown the trips are a much much larger number.
JK: Transit is losing market share even downtown where the travel to work by transit DECREASED by 9% to 43% over the last 5 years. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/VibrantDowntown.htm
Adron If it dissappeared the number of lanes that would need added to get the workers into and out of downtown would be so great multiple $6 billion dollar bridges would be needed and multiple billion dollar parking garages would be needed to accomodate them. To put it in better context, downtown COULD NOT EXIST without the transportation options.
JK: Only 37% (and going down) of the workers get downtown by transit. Considering that the top 3 (or 4 or 5?) Employers are government, downtown is not very important anymore anyway.
Adron * Trimet still claims that MAX carries as many people as 1.2 lanes of US26, without admitting that most of those would be in a bus, had they not spent 1 Billion building that line.
Yeah, if those bloody interstates that carry just slightly more cars hadn’t consumed what now would easily be worth billions in property, removed thousands from their homes in the north (maybe hundreds south of the city) for construction, and manipulated people socially by the mere “freeway” perpetuation maybe that billion to build (I admit it wasn’t done in what I’d consider the smartest way) would sound a lot worse.
JK: Those interstates carry about 4 times as many commuters as the toy train PER LANE. The transit lobby specializes in comparing a rail full of transit vehicles with a lane full of Single Occupant Vehicles. If you do transit on both and look at the real world, not a transit salesman’s pitch, you find that one lane DOES carry around 40,000 people per hour (NYC) while the best toy train carries about 2000 per hour.
Adron But considering ODOT/WSDOT want to build a bridge now that will exlipse every single cent of transit money spent to date – ON A FREAKING BRIDGE – that one billion to move 90 thousand plus people into and out of downtown every day is well worth the money.
JK: It is a being proposed mainly to trick us into putting the toy train across the river. For just cars it is not required – there are other better solutions. Some details:
* Cost 2-6 Billion
* Bridge: 1-2 B
* Ramps: 1-2 B
*Transit: 1-2 B
Note the proposal to spend up to 2 Billion on more non-useful transit that is projected to carry only 2% of the people across the river.
Further, when you allocate the cost of the bridge and the width, you get about $100,000,000 for the bike lane. A $100 MILLION BIKE LANE. This will be the foundation for a campaign to end bike’s free ride in Oregon.
Adron * Trimet still claims that rail is less expensive to operate than the bus. But the comparison is of the very most productive routes with all routes since they only build rail on popular route while buses are prevented from serving the most profitable routes. The lowest cost bus line is actually cheaper to operate that the average MAX line.
Rail is less expensive to operate on high usage lines than busses, for operations. They’re not lying, they just aren’t stating the whole cost.
JK: Please show us this data for the TriMet system.
Adron No road has shown even remotely good ROI in comparison. Especially with “public funding”.
JK: Show us you data. Be sure that is includes costs per passenger mile.
Adron * Trimet leaves out construction costs from the rail cost figures (that alone would more than double the reported per ride cost)
Yup, and they usually state this. Most people don’t read any of that crap anyway. I’ve informed dozens as to how much it actually costs (1-2 bucks a mile)
JK: Or more.
Adron but also coridally remind them that it costs (1.20-5) a mile for an automobile of any decent nature.
JK: You are just plan wrong here. National data show that cars cost $0.294 (veh.-mi.) – about 1/10 of what you claim. Per passenger-mile, they cost $0.185 for the national average of 1.57 people per vehicle. see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm Of course, you could drive up thiose numbers by choosing a BMW etc. but a better comparison to transit would be a 10 year old piece of crap car.
Adron …but I digress. Mixed modes is what we need more of. Not auto-centricity. Empirical evidence in America and Europe is starting to prove that.
JK: No it doesn’t. Even Europeans abandoned mass transit years ago. Transit was down 20% over the last 20 years. Auto passenger-miles are at 78.3% of personal travel. The European model is one of private cars and has been for years. It is only the planning class that continues to ignore this and other realities.
Adron …and if we can just clean up those combustion based engines we’ll be on a roll. :)
JK: Done years ago. Guess you didn’t notice. Oh, sorry I just realized that you were talking about cleaning up diesel buses. Well maybe someday Trimet will care about the air.
Thanks
JK
Mel –
You’ve levelled several accusations against me and my methods which I’ve proven false. The best of which is that you accused me of not even “thinking” of posting the day of my visit to the park & ride lots or whether there was an event at the expo center, when in fact I did, and I had already provided you with a reference. You characterize my remarks as “inane” and sully the motivations of others. This makes it very difficult for me to swallow any of your other assertions or debating points.
(Come on, Mel, do you really think that a Park & Ride lot filled with primarily Washington plates with no local events going on at the racetrack or expo center is going to be filled with non-commuters? If I go stand out there from 5:30am to 8:30am will it change your mind?)
This is a sad state of affairs, because there are areas we probably agree upon (albeit limited areas.) For example, had you not been berating me, perhaps we could have discussed how I actually agree that Park & Ride lots are not a practical solution to congestion, and how a full Park & Ride lot might eliminate one vehicle per minute from a nearby freeway — I feel it is better to provide development around station areas, improve walkability, and allow the bulk of passengers to make their trips entirely on transit.
But Mel, given your performance in this comment thread and in others, I get the perception that you are here to rant, bemoan, and dismiss — not to debate or discuss. Personally, I’d like an apology — not that I’m sure I’ll get one — but I’m pretty much through with you at this point.
– Bob R.
Richard,
great response!! You’re sure do seem to have a vehemently angry issue with IKEA locating at Cascade station. I’m sure you’re right about IKEA getting a sweet deal to locate at Cascade Station. Based on your response, I’d say you’re less interested in the success of Cascade Station than taking an opportunity to slam tri-met for what you percieve as a failure. I’d also say that a lot of citizens of Portland don’t quite share the cynical viewpoint that you’re expressing.
I’m ecstatic that IKEA is coming to Portland, and I look forward to taking the train out to shop there and then have IKEA deliver their goods directly to my home. I’m sure that you will never take the train there, but many citizens of this city will. From an economic perspective, IKEA is astutely aware of the transit oriented leanings of many Portlander’s and will utilize this fact to their advantage.
I observed something wierd on a Metro Bus that I took to meet up with a job at the temp agency yesterday. This route I have rode several times around Renton and it was rarely over half-full. In Bellevue, the 240 was pretty much full. I thought that local service on the Eastside of Lake Washington would be a waste of money, myself. Turns out in some cases, the local routes work great. Plus, breaking up the old route 340 did wonders. It used to be a long route from Shoreline to Sea-Tac Airport. Now it is several short routes. Probably the $2.83 cents a gallon for regular I saw is helping to spur a ridership boom. Seattle always had some form of good transit, so there was an established route structure in place to help. Metro had to pretty much build a system from scratch for the suburbs because Metropolitan Transit Co. was small(the private company that did the suburbs), and had a fleet of around 50 buses, hard to do local service in a growing area with that much. They have been at it for 30 years, but are getting much better.
Also, another sign that ridership is up, is SOUNDER Commuter Rail. 2 of the trains have had to be lengthened, with what spare cars they had. 140 more seats per train, without needing to add any crew. A 40ft bus seats about 40 passengers.(A few years ago, I remember seeing something where Community Transit in Snohomish County did a little demo. They had a 40ft bus pull 40 cars to simulate the potential the bus had to remove traffic. They did it at Paine Field, so it was a controlled Demo. Of course they would not do it on I-5) To equal the capacity of one SOUNDER coach would require 3-4 buses, requiring 3-4 more bus drivers at the least. Now to make room for more passengers during the September service change, they will be taking some cars from other areas of the country. They will recall their Gypsy Fleet.(Sorry if I offended any on the board) These are cars that they could not put into use due to delays in track improvements, plus no space in the King Street Coachyard to store them, so they leased them(at cost, could not charge interest) to other agencies. I know some ended up in Virginia and Los Angeles, and have heard that some have ended up in San Francisco and Albuquerque. Most likely, they will get them from the ones lent to Virginia Railway Express, which has finally bought some new cars for the first time in a few years.(They bought used from Chicago, and leased the SOUNDER cars.)
EvergreenTransitFan Says: To equal the capacity of one SOUNDER coach would require 3-4 buses, requiring 3-4 more bus drivers at the least. Now to make room for more passengers during the September service change, they will be taking some cars from other areas of the country.
JK: How does the cost, per passenger-mile of SOUNDER compare to high volume bus lines and private cars ($0.185)? Be sure to include construction costs (which is included in the $0.185 for cars)
Thanks
JK
I want to know where we’re magically going to get more space for cars and parking in the metro area?
And for traffic flow?
EvergreenTransitFan Says: To equal the capacity of one SOUNDER coach would require 3-4 buses, requiring 3-4 more bus drivers at the least. Now to make room for more passengers during the September service change, they will be taking some cars from other areas of the country.
JK: How does the cost, per passenger-mile of SOUNDER compare to high volume bus lines and private cars ($0.185)? Be sure to include construction costs (which is included in the $0.185 for cars)
Thanks
JK
DC,
You completely miss the point. Seemingly deliberately.
I have zero “angry issue with IKEA locating at Cascade station”.
Quite the contrary. It’s great.
The core issue here is the spending of over $200 million to create a ped/bike/transit oriented mini city failed miserable. That’s not my perception.
Cascade Station was meant to also prohibit BIG BOXES.
Cascase Station as intened will never be a success. It will be a BOG BOX CLUSTER with BIG PARKING LOTS for cars.
Just because you are goin to ride the MAX out there and IKEA plays the political correctness music doesn’t mean squat.
Most of the $200 million was wasted and the public asset real estate is gone forever, just like our shipyards and dry docks.
All caused by gross mismanagement and official malfecience.
TriMet deserves to be slammed. They are a conflicted and functionally corrupt agency.
So are their conspirators Metro, PDC and the Port.
A lot of citizens of Portland don’t quite share my cynical viewpoint because, like you, they aren’t aware of the tremendous waste and failures that have been perpetrated.
It’s fine that you are ecstatic that IKEA is coming to Portland. I’m sure most people are.
Relatively and proportionately speaking very few will be riding MAX to shop there.
I mean come on, think about it.
Why do you think officials and planners were so adamant about having no big boxes there?
Why did they wait years in hopes of something other than big boxes showing up?
Now it’s just swell that big boxes will dominate the Station?
IKEA is astutely aware of the political correctness around here. They already utilized it in the deal they made.
But you and I will never get a full and clear accounting of what was really spent or given away. Because along with the insidious political correctness around here is the rock solid wall of corruption that hides the schemes.
But then you don’t really care to know do you.
It’s all good.
I just have some problem with IKEA?
JK –
Time and time again you bring up your figure of 18.5 cents per passenger mile (which is not the figure used by any national organization or agency), and time and time again it has been debunked here on PortlandTransport.
Here’s a rehash:
Starting with a very cheap, compact car with a good warranty: The Kia Rio Sedan, 4dr, Manual. This is Kia’s lowest-priced car. Dealer invoice is $10,350. City mileage is rated at 32MPG — assuming the driver always gets the EPA average.
I’m going to assume the vehicle lasts a full 150K miles, above average for a Kia, and that the driver drives more miles per year than average (which lessens the impact of fixed monthly insurance costs), 15K miles. This makes the vehicle lifespan exactly 10 years.
Also assuming the buyer pays cash and has no cost of financing, and gets the vehicle at invoice price, no dealer extras or destination charges, etc.
Further assuming this person is a dedicated individual who does their own oil changes, at a cost of $15 per oil change, is a very safe driver with no accident or ticket history, and gets a dream insurance rate on this relatively unsafe car of $100/month.
Assuming brake pads and tires last 30K miles (all city driving, lots of stop and go) and clutches last 50K miles.
Cost of car: $10,350
Cost of 10yrs of insurance: $12,000
Cost of 150K miles of fuel at 32MPG at $2.50/gal: $11,718
Cost of oil changes at 5K intervals @ $15: $450
Cost of 2 additional clutches @ $300: $600
Cost of 4 brake jobs @ $150: $600
Cost of 4 tire replacements @ $150: $600
Incidental cost allowance (wiper blades, headlights, new batteries, misc maintenance): $500
Total cost: $36,818
Cost per mile @ 150K miles: 24.5 cents/mile.
Cost per passenger-mile (using ODOT figures of 1.27 occupancy for Portland area): 19.29 cents/passenger-mile.
Even the cheapest car out there with very generous assumptions (no finance costs, no unforeseen repairs, self maintenance, MPG rating absolutely achieved) is not getting 18 cents per mile. And that’s the cheapest car.
Your assertion that this hypothetical 18.5 cent car pays its own way is also false: 44%+ of the Interstate Highway system, for example, is paid for with revenue sources other than gas taxes (according to the feds), and that doesn’t include external costs such as health care due to pollution, stormwater management, and military costs to defend our interest in oil resources around the world.
By the way, what’s your cost per passenger-mile? Anywhere close to 18.5 cents?
– Bob R.
Most of the $200 million was wasted and the public asset real estate is gone forever, just like our shipyards and dry docks.
I agree, Ikea was not the kind of store envisioned and probably would not have been allowed if it had been Target instead. The same way the New Seasons parking lot on Interstate next to a MAX stop would not have been allowed for a Safeway.
However, there remains Max line that goes to the airport which was the public benefit to begin with. The problem now is that there may be a huge traffic generator adjacent to the airport, which is not really a great idea.
Bob R. Says: Time and time again you bring up your figure of 18.5 cents per passenger mile (which is not the figure used by any national organization or agency), and time and time again it has been debunked here on PortlandTransport.
JK: There is nothing to re-hash. Nothing to debunk. 18.5 cents per passenger-mile is the real USA driving average cost of user-operated transportation for 2001.
It comes from applying grade school math to federal data as follows:
User-operated transportation (2001)(line 69)………$818.3e9
Person Miles of Travel (2001) Table VM1….. 4,432,327e6
Do the division:
$818.3e9 / 4,432,327e6 = $0.185
Details and links to the federal data are at: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit-Details.htm
Bob R. Says: Here’s a rehash:
Starting with a very cheap, compact car with a good warranty: The Kia Rio Sedan, 4dr, Manual. This is Kia’s lowest-priced car. Dealer invoice is $10,350. City mileage is rated at 32MPG — assuming the driver always gets the EPA average.
……..
Cost per mile @ 150K miles: 24.5 cents/mile.
Cost per passenger-mile (using ODOT figures of 1.27 occupancy for Portland area): 19.29 cents/passenger-mile.
JK: Of course the topic was Seattle transit, so you really should use a Seattle occupancy if you are such a stickler for details.
Bob R. Says: Even the cheapest car out there with very generous assumptions (no finance costs, no unforeseen repairs, self maintenance, MPG rating absolutely achieved) is not getting 18 cents per mile. And that’s the cheapest car.
JK: Perhaps you didn’t notice but 19.29 is only 4% higher than 18.5, IE the same for practical purposes. But more interesting is if you adjust your calculation to the USA average occupancy, to be directly comparable to the number I am using, you actually get a lower number than the number I have been using:
24.5 c/mi / 1.59 USA average = 15.41 Cents per passenger mile.
So we really can recommend that people save money, energy and pollution by getting a small. new car instead of using transit.
Bob R. Says: Your assertion that this hypothetical 18.5 cent car pays its own way is also false: 44%+ of the Interstate Highway system, for example, is paid for with revenue sources other than gas taxes (according to the feds),
JK: Of course there are other user fees too and they are all included in the federal numbers above. Do you have a credible source otherwise?
BTW tell us all what % of transit costs are “paid for with revenue sources other than” riders.
Bob R. Says: and that doesn’t include external costs such as health care due to pollution, stormwater management, and military costs to defend our interest in oil resources around the world.
JK: All of which are worse with transit because transit uses more energy per passenger mile than cars and thus use more imported oil and military. If you want to talk about electrically powered transit then we must talk about uranium, thorium and mercury pollution of the air.
Thanks
JK
If you leave out all the subsidized highways, probably not. Still, what SOUNDER runs today, is not what they had at start up. They had only two round-trips, and they left at hours not competitive with bus or car. At the time, the afternoon Rush Hour runs left King Street Station after 5PM. On the Tacoma-Seattle run, the 4 afternoon trips leave between 4:20PM and 5:40PM. They have not released the times that the 5th one will use, nor the times the first reverse trip will leave. Unfortunately those begin in September. Interstate 5 between Spokane Street and the Interstate 90 Interchange is approaching 50 years old, and it is getting a good birthday treatment this August. This elevated portion is going to get all-new expansion joints, and to get it done within the month of August, they are going to do daytime lane closures. It will be down to 1 lane. Extra cars are going to be added to SOUNDER trains, and they are going to need them. Thankfully the BNSF North-South Main is not part of I-5. If only the Service Change could occur in July instead of September. When this portion of I-5 was completed, Seattle Transit was still doing o.k financially and ridership was not dipping that steep at the time. That started in 1963 with the mass dieselization. It was not reversed until the Metro takeover in January, 1973. They were begining to build the system when the Oil Shock happened. They got a small increase. Then again in 1979, 1990-91(the slight bump in gas prices due to the First Gulf War), 2000(Still don’t know why Metro hit 100 million that year, they should not have, gasoline was only around $1 per gallon, and I-695 had taken away the MVET and some routes were cut-back a little and some outright eliminated), 2005, and 2006.
Now there is one new Commuter Rail line about to start that I am suspicous of, and that is because of their frequency. FrontRunner in Salt Lake City will be on near-bus like frequencies, using locomotive-hauled rolling stock on weekdays. Then again, they had something ST does not have, and that is ownership of the right of way. UP had some trackage leftover from the mergers with Southern Pacific and Denver and Rio Grande Western. They sold it to the Utah Transit Authority. Now, if Gas Prices keep their volatility, maybe FrontRunner will work great. ST was taken for $300 million by BNSF. You see, BNSF was content with the North-South Main just the way it was, even with traffic from Asia picking up, they did not mind their container trains going only 40MPH. Now they might get up to 79MPH, and they did not have to pay. I was reading about BNSF upgrading their former Santa Fe route through the Southwest. They are spending their own money to double and triple track the entire route.
Even the cheapest car out there with very generous assumptions (no finance costs, no unforeseen repairs, self maintenance, MPG rating absolutely achieved) is not getting 18 cents per mile. And that’s the cheapest car.
That’s not the point.
The point is that TAXPAYERS are footing 0.03 cents/passenger-mile for the highways, and are footing much more for public transit.
Whether or not someone chooses to pay 20 or even 30 or 40 cents a mile of their own money and of their own accord to own, maintain and operate a private vehicle is besides the point – anyone is free to spend their money how they choose. Some people choose to own two, three or four vehicles – I personally own only one (partially because of the economics), but the lost opportunity cost that has resulted due to being stuck with poor transit service has made be reconsider my decision to own only one auto.
But high capacity transit, beyond the 40 foot transit coach, can take on a variety of roles – whether it be a Streetcar, MAX, BRT, or even simply going to a 60′ articulated coach. The 60′ artic has the same benefits that EvergreenTransitFan brought up – it doesn’t require any more labor yet carries 50% more passengers. Unlike rail-based solutions, the artic doesn’t require dedicated infrastructure.
Rail CAN be cheaper when use appropriately, but the capital costs must be considered. There are little if any capital costs for busses – they use existing infrastructure that is shared with private autos and trucks. MAX from Portland to Beaverton makes sense – it “replaced” a half dozen bus routes (54, 57-Forest Grove, 58-Sunset Highway, 60-Leahy Road, 88-S.W. 198th Avenue, 92-Walker Road Express, as well as several unnumbered, pre-MAX express routes), several of which used articulated busses (which TriMet retired after westside MAX opened) and offers more frequent and reliable service.
On the other hand, that segment also required the massive Robertson Tunnel – the costs of that tunnel aren’t allocated to MAX operating costs.
Recently ST was trying to winnow down the field of potential projects for Phase II, and one bone of contention was the proposed I-5 Industrial Way Direct Access ramp and extension of the SODO Busway to it. The SODO Busway was a side project around the time of the Bus Tunnel being built. It runs from the tunnel to Spokane Street, built in the right of way of the old route into Union Station(which the bus tunnel’s International District Station is next to). I remember it used to be straight, but re-routing Utilities in the area for Light Rail Construction created some bulges(plus the stations). Also, by moving some jersey barriers(K-rails or whatever they call the dividers), they were able to create some off-street layover points for ST, and CT buses. King County Metro routes often use 6th Ave next to Atlantic Base to layover. The only one on the board advocating it was the State Secretary of Transportation(the only 1 of 18 board members that is not an elected official at some level), and he was proposing it for congestion pricing, using tolls on HOV lanes as a way to fill up capacity. I recently had a temp job in the area around that particular street, and noticed something. Utility relocation would be costly. It is not a neighborhood feeder line, but a major transmission line heading into one of Seattle City Light’s main substations! The big towers for those lines are in the median of Industrial Way.
I also noticed that some of the cheapest rail options are ones that don’t go anywhere. Such as 2 up here, the Waterfront Streetcar and the new South Lake Union line. The SLU will terminate next to the South Lake Union campus of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. I have seen a city study extending it to the UW(which has a few plans for some research labs there), but the UW is a hard neighbor to please, and they are worried about electro-magnetic interference from overhead lines affecting their research labs, even though several frequent trackless trolley routes, including the 43,44,49, and 70. Now if that worked, there is one other problem, besides money. The University Bridge was designed for streetcar use back in 1919, but an upgrade a few years ago messed it up. According to a city study, the draw-span can handle streetcars, but the approaches for some reason cannot due to reconstruction a few years ago. At the time, the SLU line was just speculation.
Last November, there were no estimates out on how Metro ridership was doing, perhaps to please the Public Disclosure Commission. Metro had a sales tax hike on the ballot, and they could not take a side. The PDC is strict about that, I remember Intercity Transit in Olympia being on the wrong end of that rule a few years ago. Now would the ballot measure have got more than 55% of the vote if the voters had known how much ridership had been on the system, I don’t know. The proposal included 5 Bus Rapid Transit routes, including two on SR99. One coming from the South on the segment called Pacific Highway, and another on the North end of the highway, which is Aurora Ave. The idea would be to convert the parking lanes to Buisness Access-Transit lanes, where the motorists can only use them to turn into a business. They already do it in some places at Rush Hour, as two of the heaviest-used suburban trunk routes use them. ROute 358(Aurora Villiage-Downtown Seattle) and route 174(South Federal Way-Sea-Tac Airport-DOwntown Seattle). Now the RapidRide BRT route for the former would probably terminate at the airport and feed into Light Rail. The bus improvements cannot afford cost overuns like rail often has. Metro is out of Sales Tax authority now, they hit the cap, .9%. They are the second system to do so. The other is Community Transit, which is also proposing a BRT route on Aurora between Everett Station and Aurora Village Transit Center.
Bob R. said:
“You are wise to be skeptical of presenters potential for bias when evaluating claims. However, please also be aware of your own biases as well, which may unduly prevent you from changing your views in the face of new evidence.
As near as I can tell, you think my biases are those of a “rail lover” and should be discounted. As I have shown you before, in fact I support using the appropriate mode for the job in a variety of circumstances. You, on the other hand, appear to have been opposed to every current rail system in Portland and all current proposals, and support only BRT and standard buses. Thus, I will take your bias into account as well when you make clams.”
>>>> My BIAS is that of a Trimet rider who does not drive. Also, that of 50+ years of transit experience in a VERY heavy rail environment (NYC), and exposure to various other transit properties (Boston, Chicago, et al).
Portland, IMO, is not a metro area suited for rail operations by virtue of its density and layout. This is what most of the railfans around Portland seem to refuse to face because of their emotional attachment to their hobby (I’ve been there myself). Rail is a major league modality, best suited for major league or compact/dense metropoli. Even Wendell Cox agrees on this!
Plus, every time a new rail operation goes into effect around here, it seems that service is degraded for many riders by means of slower trips and additional transfers. Naturally, I have developed a bias.
Don’t get me wrong, I do know people who like MAX, but, looking at their situations, I see that they live in the right spot and are going to the right spot. However, I look at the lost potential for many other riders.
And you and Jim K. are very amusing with your arguments: see what I mean by “statistics” being presented by both sides to make their cases?
nick Says: And you [Bob R.] and Jim K. are very amusing with your arguments: see what I mean by “statistics” being presented by both sides to make their cases?
JK: It pretty much looks like we agree that the real cost of driving is in the neighborhood of 18-20 cents per passenger mile. Hopefully we also agree that the cost of the best Trimet bus is $0.34, light rail costs $0.434 and the average bus line costs $0.835 per passenger-mile (neglecting right of way costs, unlike cars)
Bottom line: driving costs less than the cost of the lowest cost bus line in Portland, ½ the cost of light rail and 1/8 the cost of the streetcar, all based on cost per passenger-mile.
Thanks
JK
“Bottom line: driving costs less than the cost of the lowest cost bus line in Portland, ½ the cost of light rail and 1/8 the cost of the streetcar, all based on cost per passenger-mile.”
And if you believe that, I have a nice bridge across the Columbia River that I’d like to sell you ;) Give me a call JK baby, we can do a deal.
JK wrote to Eric, addressing the dispute over costs between JK and me: It pretty much looks like we agree that the real cost of driving is in the neighborhood of 18-20 cents per passenger mile.
No JK, we don’t agree. I’ve shown that putting every assumption in your favor, there is no new car available today which meets your 18.5 cent target, and certainly no midsize car, minivan, pickup or SUV meets your target, either.
I’ll ask a third time: What is your cost per mile on your vehicle? What do you drive?
There’s a reason that AAA and other groups put the cost much higher — and AAA is not exactly a pro-transit lobby, ya know.
– Bob R.
If you’ve been reading local transit blogs and forums, Bob, you’d know that his car can best be described as a “hoopty”.
Bob R. Says: No JK, we don’t agree. I’ve shown that putting every assumption in your favor, there is no new car available today which meets your 18.5 cent target, and certainly no midsize car, minivan, pickup or SUV meets your target, either.
JK: ONCE AGAIN. 18.5 cents is the REAL national average cost of driving, including all direct user expenses. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm for details of how it comes from Federal databases.
Why do you keep trying to bring up red-herrings when real data is readily available? Calculated, theoretical data is pure baloney when real data is available.
Thanks
JK
(Continued)
JK: Why do you keep confusing the issue by introducing new cars or midsize cars, or minivans, or pickups or SUVs?
The 18.5 cents per mile was never represented to be new cars or midsize cars, or minivans, or pickups or SUVs. Instead, 18.5 cents is the REAL national average cost of driving the real mix of all kinds of personal vehicles, including all direct user expenses. It comes from the Federal databases by simple dividing two numbers: User-operated transportation cost and Person Miles of Travel. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
Thanks
JK
Instead, 18.5 cents is the REAL national average cost of driving the real mix of all kinds of personal vehicles, including all direct user expenses. It comes from the Federal databases by simple dividing two numbers: User-operated transportation cost and Person Miles of Travel. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
Sorry, JK, you can divide those two figures all you want but that’s not the real cost-per-passenger-mile.
You’ve been asked to show any one car that achieves that cost over its lifetime, and you can’t do it.
I’ll give you a hint (again): A $15,000 new car, cash price, no financing, lasting 150K miles, costs 10 cents per mile JUST FOR THE CAR. At 30MPG with $2.50/gal gas, those 150,000 miles will cost another 8.3 cents per mile. We’re now at 18.3 cents and haven’t figured in the cost of a single repair, the cost of insurance, regular maintenance (oil changes, new tires), replacement of major parts such as alternators, starters, clutches, batteries, etc.
Your figures are simply bogus, and reputable organizations such as AAA peg the costs at more than double yours, and that still doesn’t include external costs such as pollution, stormwater runoff, military involvement to the extent it relates to oil, etc.
You claim to rely on federal statistics, but the Bureau of Transportation Statistics completely disagrees with you — they put the cost over 50 cents per mile (which even if you figured the highest possible average occupancy results in a figure way above yours).
See the BTS chart here.
Is it time for a DebunkingDebunkingPortland.com web site to counter the incorrect “data” you keep posting on your web site?
– Bob R.
By the way, JK, the federal government also cites the National Automobile Dealers Association average price for a new car as $28,400. (I believe this includes cost of financing — looking for a reference.)
Over 150,000 miles, that’s about 19 cents, again, JUST FOR THE CAR, without any other costs, including fuel.
– Bob R.
Bob –
Your numbers are the cost of operating a vehicle. But the average number of passengers would change the passenger-mile cost wouldn’t it? What’s not clear is whether JK is using the correct figures. I don’t care enough to find out because I don’t think it is very important.
The question is how much would it cost to use an automobile for a trip taken by transit. And JK’s figures don’t even being to address that.
Ross –
JK claims his figures include the average number of passengers.
I did refer to vehicle occupancy (parenthetically) in my comments, above.
I agree that JK’s figures don’t even begin to address comparing local auto trips to local transit trips.
My point is that we can’t even begin to have that discussion if JK can’t acknowledge the fact that official government figures and the figures from reputable organizations are way, way higher than his.
If agreement can’t be achieved on something as simple and well-tracked as average vehicle ownership costs, then I don’t believe any of JK’s subsequent points can be taken seriously, which is too bad because I am very open to a discussion of real costs, sources of funding, etc. for all modes of transport.
– Bob R.
Bob R. Says: Sorry, JK, you can divide those two figures all you want but that’s not the real cost-per-passenger-mile.
JK: Why isn’t it?
Bob R. Says: You’ve been asked to show any one car that achieves that cost over its lifetime, and you can’t do it.
JK: I don’t have to – the number is an average of all American’s costs.
Bob R. Says: I’ll give you a hint (again): A $15,000 new car,. . .
JK: You keep tying to bring up irrelevant distractions. We are not talking about new cars we are talking about the national average.
Bob R. Says: Your figures are simply bogus, and reputable organizations such as AAA peg the costs at more than double yours,
JK: AAA cost is based on AAA members, not the average American.
Bob R. Says: You claim to rely on federal statistics, but the Bureau of Transportation Statistics completely disagrees with you — they put the cost over 50 cents per mile (which even if you figured the highest possible average occupancy results in a figure way above yours).
See the BTS chart here.
JK: That chart is based on the AAA method – new car every 5 years etc. It is not the typical American. Had you followed the reference you would find the AAA explicitly mentioned.
Bob R. Says: By the way, JK, the federal government also cites the National Automobile Dealers Association average price for a new car as $28,400. (I believe this includes cost of financing — looking for a reference.)
JK: You keep trying to introduce expensive new cars instead of using the average American car.
Bob R. Says: I agree that JK’s figures don’t even begin to address comparing local auto trips to local transit trips.
JK: Interesting subject. Once you have a car, the actual cost of a ADDED trip is much less that 18.5 cents per passenger-mile because fixed costs such as depreciation and insurance are already paid for up front. The more you drive, the cheaper it is PER MILE because the fixed costs get spread over more miles. For comparison to transit, we should really be looking at the cost of the smallest, most cramped, crappiest car out there – that would better match the transit experience. (Can you still get the Trident?)
Bob R. Says: My point is that we can’t even begin to have that discussion if JK can’t acknowledge the fact that official government figures and the figures from reputable organizations are way, way higher than his.
JK: You keep citing figures for people who buy new cars constantly, instead of the average American.
Bob R. Says: If agreement can’t be achieved on something as simple and well-tracked as average vehicle ownership costs, then I don’t believe any of JK’s subsequent points can be taken seriously,
JK: You are the one who refuses to accept reality and keeps bringing up the cost of new cars which in not the American average car..
Bob R. Says: which is too bad because I am very open to a discussion of real costs, sources of funding, etc. for all modes of transport.
JK: So start with the real average cost of cars. note the word REAL.
Thanks
JK
You keep tying to bring up irrelevant distractions. We are not talking about new cars we are talking about the national average.
When I use a new car in my calculations, I am dividing all of the figures across the car’s entire lifespan. If you wish to include used cars, you are just shifting the costs to the depreciation experienced by the first buyer. Life cycle costs are what matter.
The Kia example was chosen for a reason: It proves your national “average” figure is wrong, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE:
1. The average new car costs less than a Kia Rio (it doesn’t.)
2. The average new car lasts more than 150,000 miles (it doesn’t.)
3. That all new car buyers pay cash and incur no financing costs (they don’t).
4. That all car owners pay less-than average for insurance (they can’t.)
5. That all car owners never experience unexpected major repairs out-of-warranty.
Aside from that, your numbers (which I still don’t accept as valid for the above reasons and all the other dozens of reasons I’ve given you which you’ve dismissed as too many words of “babble”):
A. Aren’t used by any other major organization or agency involved in transportation research.
B. Include (by your own admission) all rural miles driven. Rural miles are less expensive per-passenger-mile than urban miles by nature, but you’ve been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.
Come up with a reputable figure for cost-per-passenger-mile of urban trips of an average length of 5 miles, including parking, and then we can compare costs directly to transit. Until then, your figures (wherever they come from) are useless for the purpose of comparing autos to transit. And I suspect you know this.
– Bob R.
“For comparison to transit, we should really be looking at the cost of the smallest, most cramped, crappiest car out there – that would better match the transit experience. (Can you still get the Trident?)”
If we want to aspire to match the “transit experience” as accurately as you, we should also be looking at the cost of a car that, among other things, brings you to your destination without having to drive, that requires no parking spaces on either end of the journey, and that is just as safe if you’ve had something to drink, are reading, or sleeping. In other words, we would have to include the cost of a full-time, on-call driver.
Bob R. Says
A. Aren’t used by any other major organization or agency involved in transportation research.
B. Include (by your own admission) all rural miles driven. Rural miles are less expensive per-passenger-mile than urban miles by nature, but you’ve been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.
JK: I have not “ been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.” – the national average data includes rural miles, but is not all rural miles as you claim.
No amount of minor tweaks to the data is going to make up the THREE TO ONE cost difference between transit and private cars.
Bob R. Says Come up with a reputable figure for cost-per-passenger-mile of urban trips of an average length of 5 miles, including parking, and then we can compare costs directly to transit.
JK: Now you are changing tactics. You now want every detail of the trip simulated. You left out the monetary value of NOT sitting next to a person who talks to themself. Of NOT ding panhandled, of NOT being offered drugs, of NOT waiting in the rain for a transit vehicle. ETC. Get real, cars average cost is 1/3 that of average transit.
Bob R. Says Until then, your figures (wherever they come from) are useless for the purpose of comparing autos to transit.
JK: They are not useless. No number in this field is going to to be exact, but when you have a 3:1 ratio, you can be pretty sure that you have the direction correct. So what if it is really 4:1 or 2:1? Transit is still much more expensive than driving. And that is not even counting the cost of the roadbed for transit,
Thanks
JK
JK wrote: I have not “ been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.” – the national average data includes rural miles, but is not all rural miles as you claim.
A. I never claimed that your figures were _all_ rural miles. Not ever. In fact, earlier in this thread, I broke out the percentages for you. Thanks for reading. I did say that your figures include all rural miles driven. This is true. The word “include” is inclusive doncha know?
B. Yes, you have been using these rural miles. You even admit it, over in this thread: “If you want the actual cost of the average American’s driving, use the real number that you get buy using national average Total Rural and Urban miles and national average User-operated transportation”
So, first you quote a figure which includes all rural miles, then you accuse me of stating that you were using only rural miles, which I never did.
– Bob R.
Bob R.: Not ever. In fact, earlier in this thread, I broke out the percentages for you. Thanks for reading.
JK: I seem to be unable to find this – please give me the time and data of that posting in this thread.
JK: Here is what you said:
Rural miles are less expensive per-passenger-mile than urban miles by nature, but you’ve been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.
Note the phrase:“but you’ve been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.”
No, I have been using data that includes both rural and urban, not just rural as you statement says. To be accurate you should have said “you data includes rural data.
But also note that Trimet is not just downtown Portland, it also serves rural areas, so maybe it is appropriate to include rural data. But you are still picking nits because the ration of 3:1 is not going to change by much. Transit still costs a bunch more than driving.
BTW: Do yo have a source for you claim that “Rural miles are less expensive per-passenger-mile than urban miles by nature” – lets put a number on this and on the percentage of miles that are rural.
Thanks
JK
JK “But you are still picking nits .”
Best I can tell JK you are nit free because you are the best nit picker I’ve seen. The reason you probably lost Bob’s points in the thread is because you continue to not answer questions that are simply put to you. If this is really a debate about policy and not politics/philosophy, please offer up YOUR sources and data. Soon.
Thanks.
If this is really a debate about policy and not politics/philosophy, please offer up YOUR sources and data. Soon.
I have and you have been ignoring them.
See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
and follow the links. Its all there.
Thanks
JK
I refuse to go to a website paid for and run by unknown sources and I do not trust data from such a source. Please place the direct sources for the “data” you have been sharing here if you have them. If you don’t, then please just be clear about that.
JK,
I couldn’t help myself. I went to your so called website. Sorry, my friend. None of your “statistics” links to an actual source. Instead they link to general websites and not specific studies. Are you being misleading on purpose because you are a paid lobbyist or because you don’t understand basic research and statistics?
It’s unclear to me, but for now you are Jim Spamlock for me because I see you adding very little truth and policy debate here.
So what if a car is more expensive to operate; it means nothing to me, as I do not drive. And I don’t trust the figures given from either side in the debate: too much bias involved, so I expect numbers to to cherry-picked and skewed.
To me, the big issue is what kind of transit are we going to have. Millions of dollars have been spent on things like LRT that are not appropriate for the region, and a lot of Trimet’s operation is pretty piss-poor.
As an example of the above, coming home from NE last night, the 11:07 PM #15 bus to Mont. Park never showed up. Fortunately, I was above to walk over to MAX two blocks away. The train left Pioneer Sq. North 3 minutes late, but at least it appeared. Stuff like this seems to happen quite frequently.
And, speaking of “statistics”…
Based on my experiences with the system, I have developed a strong suspicion that Trimet is lying about their on-time performance record, and I intend to start logging my travels to see if it is true. BTW, most of my trips are in non rush hours.
hey jk,
here’s what bob r actually said
“Aside from that, your numbers …
B. Include (by your own admission) all rural miles driven. Rural miles are less expensive per-passenger-mile than urban miles by nature, but you’ve been using these rural miles to compare costs to urban transit systems.”
it’s very convenient how when you quoted him you left out the bold part, and then told him that he should have said “you (sic) data includes rural data”.
let me outline the sequence for you:
1. your numbers include all rural miles driven.
therefore
2. you’ve been using these rural miles [to compare costs to urban transit systems].
if 1 is true, then it is logically impossible for 2 not to be true as well.
Aside from the question of rural versus urban, there are plenty of urban miles that are for auto trips not served by transit. It seems to me the question is how much does it cost to provide a trip on transit compared to that same trip using an automobile.
The reality right now is that we provide the most transit when/where there is enough use to keep costs down and where is will replace the most expensive auto trips. Averages don’t tell you much about the relative costs of those trips. And when you look at new transit, you have to compare the cost compared to the comparable cost of using an automobile for that particular trip.
The people who only supported the bus component of Sound Transit(and as such opposed it at the ballot because of the rail) say that the bus component is the only one that did not go over budget(completely ignoring the Direct Access HOV Ramp on the Eastside that due to a construction mistake, they had to tear the ramp down and start over again). The buses cost about $10 per rider, while local buses are different. KCM’s average is around $3 per rider. That is an average of urban Seattle routes, and suburban and rural county routes. The Seattle routes were cheaper, because they make more stops, and the average rider rides for short distances, and standing passengers are common. Nobody wants to stand on a freeway bus. THe ST Express buses make few stops, and in some cases, they are several miles apart. Like ST Express Route 594 from Lakewood to Seattle, it makes a few stops between Lakewood and Tacoma Dome Station, then once it is back on I-5, the next stop is when it gets off Interstate 5. A few ST Express routes promised in Sound Move had to be cut, but not because they needed the money for rail. The ridership for those buses just was not there. Route 505 between Northgate and Lynwood/Everett was one, and Route 585 between Auburn and Lakewood via SR167 and SR512(avoiding Tacoma completely). Route 585 had never been tried before, but I am not using that as excuse for it’s failure. SOUNDER has got riders from Puyallup and Sumner to Seattle, and that type of commuter service had never been contemplated before with a bus. THe last time before the 2000 start up of commuter rail from Sumner to Seattle that they had rail service to Seattle during rush hour was 1928, when the Puget Sound Electric Railway ceased operations.
Don’t forget when comparing transit to owning your own car to include the booze-breath stinky bums and vomit on the floor.