Applying Metcalfe’s Law to Transit


In the Sunday O, Dylan Rivera’s article about the imminent Green Line opening notes that each time a new MAX line opens, overall ridership on MAX goes up by more than the ridership of the new line:

For example, the Red Line, opened in 2001, initially connected downtown Portland to the airport. So when TriMet extended Red Line service west to the Beaverton Transit Center two years later, planners thought it would add convenience for a sliver of the population. The Blue Line had served the area since 1998, so presumably anyone who wanted to commute on the MAX had already adopted it.

Instead, weekday ridership jumped 49 percent in the corridor.

“We thought we’d already got as many as we could get,” Hansen says. “That kind of a thing almost defies logic. I think we’re going to see more of that throughout the system.”

As a systems engineer by training, I think I see Metcalfe’s law – originally formulated for computer networks – at work. Paraphrased, Metcalfe’s law says that value of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of nodes.

That means that as we add about 20 new Green Line stations to the existing 75 or so MAX stations (don’t hold me to exact numbers, I did a very quick count), that means the value of the network increases not by 26% (20/75) but by 60% (95^2/75^2 – 1).

Of course I’m not making any numerical claim, because the analogy is not that exact. The ‘distance’ between nodes (stations) is made greater by transfers, etc., so all nodes are are not equally connected as Metcalfe’s law assumes. And to be really accurate, of course we need to factor in the bus network, which is certainly a critical part of the transit network.

But the point I want to emphasize is clear – each addition to the system creates a value much greater than that of the new line itself.

I’m just a computer geek at heart…

, ,

58 responses to “Applying Metcalfe’s Law to Transit”

  1. Chris,
    I really don’t see that as surprising. Given the convenience of transferring–in exchange for the modestly higher all zone fare—usage of other MAX lines would seem to be a natural and economical choice. I don’t think that rules out seeking some improvement over MAX that is more cost effective.

  2. Chris: But the point I want to emphasize is clear – each addition to the system creates a value much greater than that of the new line itself.
    JK: Either that or they are miscounting somewhere. Perhaps transfers.

    Thanks
    JK

  3. Yes, there is a difference between a “boarding ride” and an “originating ride”.

    I think that the green line will be a success, but agree with those who are concerned with the drain on TriMet’s resources over the short term.

    Let’s say, just for this discussion, that the line’s operating cost is $10 million annually and that it brings in an impressive 5,000 new riders daily for 70,000 additional originating rides weekly and who knows how many new boarding rides. [Does anybody know how many of WES’s less than 600 (week)daily riders are “new”?] TriMet’s June monthly report shows the average originating fare at about $1.12. Therefore the line would bring in $1.12 x 70,000 x 52 or a little under $4.1 million annually. So even with these numbers, the line would increase TriMet’s annual operating loss by almost $6 million.

    Considering the current hard times and TriMet’s service cutbacks, it’s going to be a while before TriMet will have a chance to absorb the losses generated by the green line and WES. Of course, by then we’ll also have eastside streetcar, Milwaukie MAX, and the Lake Oswego streetcar extension, none of which have prospects as bright as the green line.

    Eventually, additional riders mean additional subsidies required (i.e. taxes or elimination of other services). We voters have accepted the status quo so far, but there’s no guarantee that will remain the case. I don’t think we will give TriMet carte blanche forever as more and more people feel the impact of the most wasteful transit projects such as WES and the LO extension.

  4. Hmm…. I guess I’d see that as fairly obvious. A bus line or train route with only two stops isn’t very useful.

    But the point is a good one. When we analyze the effect of new transit routes (especially rail ones), we shouldn’t view ridership changes in linear terms, i.e. 10% more stops = 10% more traffic.

    The richer the network, the more useful it is to everyone on the network.

  5. To put it another way: A line from A to B is created and then a line from B to C is added. Now, besides carrying people from A to B and B to C, the line can also carry people from A to C.

  6. MAX has gone way over its limit as a cost effective solution to transit needs. It seems to have now turned into a mechanism to continue a political patronage system. “Usefuleness” must always be balanced against investment expense, thus yielding an ROI formula. Any formula with a low ROI should be suspected as political intrigue concealing an agenda.

    A recent article in the Portland Tribune indicated a total of $20 Billion in new MAX routes were being considered. Probably not all of these are likely projects—OTOH who is to say that the investment costs for any of them might not rise higher before they are built? Why? Are we trying to stimulate population growth by using federal tax dollars for projects that are constantly in the red?

    And if the ROI is justified by certain economic figures, who is to say that the sociological result —an increasingly crowded environment—is desirable? Leave crowding to New York City, Miami and LA.

  7. Ron: MAX has gone way over its limit as a cost effective solution to transit needs.

    Based on what? MAX is by far the most cost-effective mode of transit operated by Tri-Met.

    It seems to have now turned into a mechanism to continue a political patronage system.

    And on what basis do you make this charge? Any evidence? Or is this yet another instance of “I can’t think of any use for it, therefore it must be corruption” rearing its head?

    “Usefuleness” must always be balanced against investment expense, thus yielding an ROI formula. Any formula with a low ROI should be suspected as political intrigue concealing an agenda.

    However, when you are dealing with public agencies, a dollar of capital expense and a dollar of operational expense, are NOT equivalent. Ideally, that might not be true–the agency would get a certain level of funding, and carte blanche to allocate said funds however it thought best. But there are BIG pots of money out there available to build transit infrastructure, but which cannot be used to buy things like gas, electricity, or pay for guys like Al. Some of these pots of money are, from the local perspective, “free”–and while its true that federal funds ultimately come from our wallets, they get taken from us whether we get transit dollars, or some other city does.

    A recent article in the Portland Tribune indicated a total of $20 Billion in new MAX routes were being considered. Probably not all of these are likely projects

    Beyond Milwaukie MAX, which is in the queue, it’s hard to say any of them is “likely”.

    OTOH who is to say that the investment costs for any of them might not rise higher before they are built?

    Who knows? At this point, none of these projects beyond Milwakie MAX have any funding. If/when the time comes we find costs have gotten even further out of hand, then that might mean they don’t get done.

    Why? Are we trying to stimulate population growth by using federal tax dollars for projects that are constantly in the red?

    I don’t think anybody is trying to STIMULATE population growth. Deal with it perhaps–people still seem to be moving INTO the region, not out.

    And the reason that we are seeing service cuts is because Tri-Met doesn’t GET to operate “in the red”–its books have to balance. If you are referring to the fact that it requires a tax subsidy for operations (operational costs not being covered by fares)–so? How much money does I-5 directly generate for the state? Zero. If that’s your beef, then you should want more of MAX–it loses less money than other modes do.

    And if the ROI is justified by certain economic figures, who is to say that the sociological result —an increasingly crowded environment—is desirable? Leave crowding to New York City, Miami and LA.

    That’s the problem with being a desirable locale–people want to move here. Equilibrium is reached when a place is either a) too expensive (NY, San Francisdo, LA to some extent), or b) not desirable any more, i.e. Houston, Kennewick, Mobile, AL. While we can all chuckle about Tom McCall telling folks to visit but not stay, the fact of the matter is that a nice place to live attracts more folks in.

    Portland still sees a net influx of residents.

    Perhaps the solution to the problem is to not build; to find some way of preventing anybody from moving into the area (not without someone else leaving at least). A moratorium on new housing construction, for instance–if we had that, than further transportation projects would have a higher threshold for construction.

    But we don’t have that, and are unlikely to get that.

    Tri-Met has, in the past, done some stupid and questionable things. WES may go down as one of them; the service has yet to live up to its admittedly piss-poor expectations. But MAX has been nothing but a smashing success wherever it has been built, and is operationally the most cost-effective mode Tri-Met operates.

  8. Is it possible that we would have a better transit system if there weren’t all these big federal buckets? Or at least if local operators would have more discretion on the ops v. capital question?

    Who knows how that would effect WES since it has absurdly high operating expenses. But I think we’d have blue, green, and (for a different reason, of course) red, but maybe not yellow. For certain we wouldn’t be planning the LO extension because nobody would be able to parlay a $2 million ROW purchase into a $142 million federal grant. Oops, almost forgot, it’s now an earmark. Anyway, without the prospect of federal money, it should be far, far down the pecking order from its current position.

    I may be alone on this one, but I think the most cost effective rail project “operated by TriMet” is the original Portland Streetcar to PSU. That thing is crowded and much cheaper to operate than MAX. Yes, it’s “free”, but it’s got to have the cheapest cost per boarding ride.

  9. But we don’t have that, and are unlikely to get that.

    Without a secession from the rest of the US, it’s unlikely to happen. You’d also need to enforce a 2 children per couple rule, or something similar.

  10. EngineerScotty Says: MAX is by far the most cost-effective mode of transit operated by Tri-Met.
    JK: Except for the bus lines that MAX replaced. I asked for the cost of the lowest cost bus lines. It was Line 33-McLoughlin at $0.34 per passenger mile. Light rail costs $0.43 at the time. If you count capital cost, it costs over $1.00 pr passenger-mile. Autos cost around $0.25 including ALL EXPENSES and ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

    Also note that this line will probably be replaced by Milwaukie LRT.
    See: portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit%282005%29.htm

    EngineerScotty Says: It seems to have now turned into a mechanism to continue a political patronage system.

    And on what basis do you make this charge? Any evidence? Or is this yet another instance of “I can’t think of any use for it, therefore it must be corruption” rearing its head?
    JK: How about political campaig donations by builders, bankers and operators:
    see: /www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/WhoWantsRail.htm

    EngineerScotty Says: “Usefuleness” must always be balanced against investment expense, thus yielding an ROI formula. Any formula with a low ROI should be suspected as political intrigue concealing an agenda.
    JK: Over $1.00 per passenger mile when you include “investment” (as in construction) is a NOT low ROI compared to autos at around $0.25.

    EngineerScotty Says: However, when you are dealing with public agencies, a dollar of capital expense and a dollar of operational expense, are NOT equivalent. Ideally, that might not be true–the agency would get a certain level of funding, and carte blanche to allocate said funds however it thought best. But there are BIG pots of money out there available to build transit infrastructure, but which cannot be used to buy things like gas, electricity, or pay for guys like Al. Some of these pots of money are, from the local perspective, “free”–and while its true that federal funds ultimately come from our wallets, they get taken from us whether we get transit dollars, or some other city does.
    JK: Right on. Without all that Federal pork, we would not make wasteful decisions like light rail. IT simply costs too much and does too little.

    EngineerScotty Says: How much money does I-5 directly generate for the state? Zero. If that’s your beef, then you should want more of MAX–it loses less money than other modes do.
    JK: I5 is a Federal Interstate. Gas taxes pay for all of its construction and maintenance and most of transit. See portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm

    EngineerScotty Says: That’s the problem with being a desirable locale–people want to move here. Equilibrium is reached when a place is either a) too expensive (NY, San Francisdo, LA to some extent),
    JK: Or after the local politicians have driven out too many jobs. I do hope everyone notices that Oregon constantly has a high unemployment rate.

    EngineerScotty Says: or b) not desirable any more, i.e. Houston, Kennewick, Mobile, AL.
    JK: Last I looked, Houston is growing faster than Portland. Had lower unemployment, higher income, lower housing prices (by almost 50% – 3.8 years of income vs 7.98years) and less congestion. Note the congestion chart, it shows you could go further in ½ hr than you could 15 years earlier. Just the reverse in Portland. See: portlandfacts.com/Houston/Houston.htm

    EngineerScotty Says: Perhaps the solution to the problem is to not build; to find some way of preventing anybody from moving into the area.
    JK: A good start would be to quit promoting Portland to the rest of the country.

    EngineerScotty Says: But MAX has been nothing but a smashing success wherever it has been built, and is operationally the most cost-effective mode Tri-Met operates.
    JK: Correction: “operationally the most cost-effective mode Tri-Met operates. ” except for bus lines that it replaced.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. It would probably be beneficial to Oregon were fewer local tax dollars to go to Washington, in exchange for fewer federal grants. IIRC, we’re one of the states that sends more to DC in taxes than we receive back in government largesse. The fact that we have so few military institutions has a lot to do with it–but even when it comes to infrastructure, there are lot of states in better position to command pork than Oregon.

    The Streetcar, being popular, is certainly cost-effective. MAX is even more cost-effective, when its full. Of course, MAX provides a level of service which results in significant trips with few passengers (off-hour travel, mainly), lowering its cost-effectiveness.

    And many busses run empty most of the time, as well.

  12. “I may be alone on this one, but I think the most cost effective rail project “operated by TriMet” is the original Portland Streetcar to PSU. That thing is crowded and much cheaper to operate than MAX. Yes, it’s “free”, but it’s got to have the cheapest cost per boarding ride.”

    I would really like to see what could be done with the Westside Shoreline route to Lake Oswego–and try to hold that as an example of what CAN be done. OK, scratch off the absurdly low initial expense for the route. But the plain fact is they do have a functioning trolley system for practically zero additional capital cost. Now, why don’t people use it?

    Probably too sparse a schedule for any real commuting. So, let Lake Oswego figure out what to do, they’ve got the taxbase to throw some public money into figuring it out. Maybe they need a park and ride and some better promotional advertising. And there’s lots of other older passenger cars around here……

  13. What adding the Red Line between downtown to Beaverton did was reduce headways by 50% between those points and eliminated a transfer downtown.

    Reduce wait time and eliminate transfers more will use it.

    The Millennium Line in Vancouver has headways in peak of 2-4 minutes. That’s frequent!

  14. JK:

    First of all, you need to be much more careful with your quoting–many of the things you have me saying were said by Ron, not I.

    To specific points:

    1) It is problematic to compare a particular route (such as the #33) with MAX as a whole. If a MAX line were to replace a bus line with similar headways, and attract no riders other than prior bus riders–the bus would be more efficient as the train would only be 1/4 full, assuming a full bus before. But the experience with MAX is that it attracts riders who won’t ride the bus, for whatever reason.

    2) While fuel taxes pay for much of the Interstate system, much of that tax comes from fuel not burned on the interstates. Most fuel is probably burned on local streets paid for with general fund tax dollars. Roads ARE subsidized, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

    3) If and when the unemployment rate drives people away, we’ll surely note that when we see an exodus of people leaving–at which point re-thinking our infrastructure may be appropriate.

    4) Houston is a fine example of a city which is benefitting from light rail construction.

  15. One of the advantages that Vancouver’s skytrain system has is that it is driverless (sorry, Al). Being driverless also means that it is fully grade separated, and thus pretty much immune from service disruptions.

    Eliminate the need to pay the driver’s salary, and transit can get very efficient very quickly.

    Fortunately for Al’s job, MAX (being a largely at-grade system) is unsuitable for driverless operation–too many chances of a vehicle or person on the tracks.

  16. JK:“Last I looked, Houston is growing faster than Portland. Had lower unemployment, higher income, lower housing prices (by almost 50% – 3.8 years of income vs 7.98years) and less congestion. Note the congestion chart, it shows you could go further in ½ hr than you could 15 years earlier. Just the reverse in Portland. See: portlandfacts.com/Houston/Houston.htm”

    ws:

    1)Mean income is not a completely worthy statistic. First off, Houston is rich in the energy industry and will have a higher portion of very high wage earners. Secondly, Houston’s median incomes (a better tool for a large base of people) are not as high as Portland’s, but for all intensive purposes, both cities have similar income levels.

    Portland Statistics ACS 2007:

    -Median household income (dollars): 53,935
    -Mean household income (dollars): 70,319
    -Median family income (dollars): 66,077
    -Mean family income (dollars): 83,076
    -Per capita income (dollars): 27,999
    -Median nonfamily income (dollars) 34,431
    -Mean nonfamily income (dollars): 45,249
    -Median earnings for workers (dollars): 30,094
    -Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers (dollars): 47,803
    -Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars): 36,563

    Houston 2007 ACS:

    -Median household income (dollars):51,685
    -Mean household income (dollars):73,030
    -Median family income (dollars): 60,188
    -Mean family income (dollars): 82,387
    -Per capita income (dollars): 25,862
    -Median nonfamily income (dollars):34,265
    -Mean nonfamily income (dollars): 47,350
    -Median earnings for workers (dollars): 28,451
    -Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers (dollars): 42,190
    -Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars): 34,402

    Portland”>http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3307&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=31000US38900&-format=&-_lang=en>Portland ACS Census

    Houston”>http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=31000US26420&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3307&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=>Houston ACS Census

    A quick glance reveals that Portland has a higher concentration of wage earners in the middle to upper incomes too. It also has fewer low wage earners.

    Houston is very rich (energy industry) and very poor (migrant workers) at the same time.

    2) By any indication of travel time, Houston has more congestion that Portland. It would be nice if you used an up-to-date map of congestion for both cities (your map ends @ 2001).

    Houston ranks 4th in worst congestion times from 2000-2005 for very large cities.

    Portland ranks 30th in worst congestion for large cities.

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_64.html

    3) Portland’s housing prices, while higher than Houston’s, has more to do with desirability than over-powering land use laws and restrictions. Let it be known that Houston has plenty of regulations. Views = more money.

  17. People can complain about Portland or Seattle all they like, but I’ll still love that I drove a U-Haul up to UW for a friend, and was able to get an Amtrak ride back for $34, followed by $2 for the 17 to get me home. (My last post was from my laptop via my cell phone tether to Verizon.)

    Maybe subsidies are the devil, but could I catch a flight for that price (and time savings) through PDX without the federal subsidies for airport expansion that have allowed PDX to be what it is?

  18. Dave,
    That would depend upon what you value your time at. I don’t even know if for the average wage earner having to wait for the next day, or at least several hours, would be worth the savings of AMTRAK over a flight. And certainly not for a high paid professional.

    But there is the consideration that if more people were flying we would be faced with more expensive airport expansions. AMTRAK does have the advantages of minimal infrastructure…. at this point. I am leary of high speed rail and what it would cost, although I agree with the principal of it. However, I have also taken an express Greyhound on that route and it did it in less than three hours city center to city center. I think the double decker mega bus could work well in the I-5 corridor and possibly on some recreational routes. With an express route they could certainly get enough passengers (90 max) to make it turn a profit. (Assuming there are no overhead clearance problems)

  19. We had this conversation some time ago after the yellow line opened.

    The claim was that “more” people were riding the yellow line than the old 5 line.

    I don’t remember the details of the discussion at this point but I do remember that the conclusions were highly suspect.

    I never trusted any of these figures and I still don’t.

    This whole rail system can crumble if something happens to that bridge.

    As far as “driver-less” vehicles, I said this many times, why pay anybody a livable wage?

    Read my lips:

    TRIMET IS A LAND USE AGENCY MORE THAN A TRANSIT AGENCY.

    And that’s the real story of all the rail lines being put in at the cost of the bus service.

  20. we: Secondly, Houston’s median incomes (a better tool for a large base of people) are not as high as Portland’s, but for all intensive purposes, both cities have similar income levels.
    . . .
    By any indication of travel time, Houston has more congestion that Portland. It would be nice if you used an up-to-date map of congestion for both cities (your map ends @ 2001).

    JK: Ohh, Ohh. Sorry.

    I forgot to mention that I was comparing Metropolitan Statistical Areas, not just the namesake city. That is pretty plain from the link I included where the commute time chart is the whole Portland area and the link to a page where each entry contains: “Metropolitan Statistical Area”

    And, as I said, “the last time looked”. But I guess that you will inform all of us if that changed since the 2005/06 data on my web page.

    Of course my point is to counter claims that Houston is such a rotten place no one would want to live there. And I note that you did not find fault with my claim of more affordable housing by a margin of about double and higher growth rates.

    Thanks
    JK

  21. Dave H Says: People can complain about Portland or Seattle all they like, but I’ll still love that I drove a U-Haul up to UW for a friend, and was able to get an Amtrak ride back for $34, followed by $2 for the 17 to get me home.
    JK: Glad you like bring on welfare for your trip home.

    Thanks
    JK

  22. al m Says:
    I never trusted any of these figures and I still don’t.

    This whole rail system can crumble if something happens to that bridge.

    Read my lips:

    “TRIMET IS A LAND USE AGENCY MORE THAN A TRANSIT AGENCY.

    And that’s the real story of all the rail lines being put in at the cost of the bus service.
    JK:
    Right on!

    Thanks
    JK

  23. I am disappointed that one of the most important posts in months has degenerated into a debate that ignores the point.

    Kari Chisolm thinks the point is obvious, yet it has been largely ignored in Portland for the past 20 years.

    Approximately 35 years ago, based on the knowledge of the smartest transit planners of the day (people like Tom Matoff, Greg Thompson, Jas Kooner, etc.), Portlanders Jim Howell, Ray Polani, and a group called “Citizens for Better Transit” spent a lot of effort promoting the benefits of a well-designed, interconnected, “multi-destinational” transit network.

    The timed transit system in Washington County in around 1980 was a result of this effort, as was the “Central Eastside Transit Improvement Plan” (CETIP) of about 1984 in which TriMet rationalized many of the east side bus routes into more of a grid, partly in preparation for the 1986 opening of the first MAX line.

    The “system” that Dylan Rivera talks about in the Oregonian article that has grown since then, has essentially ignored system principles, and has concentrated on building more routes on the old hub-and-spoke concept, because that is the way the Federal government funds light rail.

    It may be a half-way decent system compared with some other cities, but it is far below its potential in providing connectivity and integration between bus and rail, and in the effective use of the various modes available.

    Let us hope that the knowledge of folks like Robert Cervero, (and I hope some upcoming generation of younger planners) quoted in the article, are applied more consistently in the planning of future rail lines.

    Regarding the so-called “transfer penalty”, Prof. Nigel Wilson at MIT has done “observed preference” studies that show that when transfers are well-designed, there is no penalty (in terms of ridership) beyond the actual time consumed by the transfer. This is in contrast to anecdotal “stated preference” studies that claim transfers cost far more in ridership, per minute of transfer, than do walking and waiting time.

    Hopefully, continued rigorous research, combined with more observation of the “obvious” will provide the incentive for better system design in the future.

  24. Al,

    I’m not advocating for driverless trains–simply noting that they greatly reduce the operational cost. For a route to be driverless, though, it needs to be designed with such in mind–and completely grade separated (elevated or subway). MAX will never be driverless.

  25. I just wish it was possible to use transit to get from anywhere in SE Portland to PDX in time for a 6:30 wheels-up flight on a Sunday.

    To accomplish this, I need to either get a ride from someone, take a taxi to the Hollywood TC to catch the red line, or put my car in long term parking.

    What a hassle.

  26. Couldn’t agree with you more, Fred.

    It’s a little hard to imagine a realistic scenario when we could get owl service again or (at a minimum) earlier runs throughout TriMet’s service area connecting with a red line run arriving in time for security checks for one of the many early flights…at least not for a long, long time.

    This is one area where the Las Vegas bus system is very impressive. They have (had?) many lines going all over town throughout the night. Makes perfect sense down there with so many people working every conceivable shift.

    A couple of things my wife and I have done when connecting with the first leg of overseas trips:

    1. Walked four miles from Lake Grove to King City with our luggage to catch the 12 because there was no weekend service to Lake Grove, and it wasn’t all that much farther than the 78. (We since moved to within 1/2 block of the 35.)

    2. Connected from the 35 with the last red line to PDX and mostly played gin until departure about six hours later.

    I have to concede that a big part of the reason that we were open to such measures was that we were on long cross time zone trips and would never do it for a hop to BC or California.

    —–

    The point is, in relation to this topic, that nodes in the time dimension are just as significant as those in a two dimensional system map.

  27. JK:“Ohh, Ohh. Sorry.

    I forgot to mention that I was comparing Metropolitan Statistical Areas, not just the namesake city. That is pretty plain from the link I included where the commute time chart is the whole Portland area and the link to a page where each entry contains: “Metropolitan Statistical Area””

    ws:I didn’t use namesake cities, I used MSAs for Houston and Portland. Had you actually looked at my source you would have realized this.

    Please understand the issue before commenting your already biased opinion.

    Portland MSA 2007 ACS

    Houston MSA 2007 ACS

  28. Ideally, Tri-Met would do well at providing both types of service–good connections within neighborhoods, as well as connections between communities.

    MAX is better at the latter. Busses are probably better for the former (streetcars as well, for those neighborhoods who want a nicer ride and are willing to pay for it).

    What is the topology of MAX right now? Currently, it’s a bit hub-and-spoky, I suppose, with three distinct lines (sets of tracks, not designate routes) converging on downtown, with a fourth set to start construction fairly soon. But looking at the present situation along I-205, and with a lines in the longer-term future that DON’T head downtown, you can also see a bit of a grid emerging.

  29. “Instead, weekday ridership jumped 49 percent in the corridor.”

    >>>> So what the big deal? First, I agree with Al M. that Trimet’s figures are suspect. Second, I frequently ride and see very lightly loaded Red Line trains coming to and from Beaverton during the off-hours.

    “Metcalfe’s law says that value of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of nodes.”

    >>>> This would apply even more to a well designed flexible busway/BRT network with higher quality vehicles.

    The Oregonian is just part of the ‘old boys club,’ and of course is spouting the pro-MAX party line in this article.

  30. JK: Glad you like bring on welfare for your trip home.

    Or I could have flown back, and used the subsidies that are given to the airlines as well as for commercial airports by the FAA.

  31. “MAX is by far the most cost-effective mode of transit operated by Tri-Met.”

    >>>> Not if you added in the requisite amount of fare inspectors, ticket machine mechanics and security personnel necessary to properly police the system.

    What about the cost of the Beaverton police officer I saw on duty at Beaverton TC one night?

  32. “But MAX has been nothing but a smashing success wherever it has been built, and is operationally the most cost-effective mode Tri-Met operates.”

    >>>> Sounds like real ‘railfan’ talk to me.

  33. The local police are paid for as police are always paid–out of general fund taxes. Police services to transit (or to busses) are no more a “cost” of either of these things than police services are a cost of any other entity-public or private–which occasionally needs a law enforcement presence.

    Besides–how much police time is spent parked on the side of a highway with a radar gun, rather than doing other things? Surely traffic enforcement is a “cost” of the roads…

    Regarding Tri-Met’s numbers–how are they “suspect”? Are they tabulated improperly–comparing apples to oranges? Are you suggesting they are fabricated in some fashion? I’m a bit curious why Al doesn’t trust the numbers–does he have numbers of his own? Is someone comparing a crushloaded bus with a half-empty train, and thinking the bus has more passengers?

    A question for the Tri-Met geeks, though: How are fare inspection and vending allocated to transit mode? (And conversely, how much driver time is wasted while passengers board busses single file, and the driver keeps track of who puts what in the farebox?)

    The “railfan” remark I’ll ignore as nonsense.

  34. nicktheoldurbanist:“What about the cost of the Beaverton police officer I saw on duty at Beaverton TC one night?”

    ws:What about the 6,024,000 motor vehicle crashes in 2007 alone that required police response, possible firetruck, and other related emergency response systems?

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_17.html

    How about the 700 million dollar economic cost tallied for there mere 426 fatalities in Oregon in 2008?

    How about the need for traffic courts, traffic cops, and other related public services that are shelled out to keep automobile drivers safe “free” of cost? Have you ever seen the jail list at the county jail for traffic related incidents?

    Care to dance more?

  35. ws:
    JK:”Last I looked, Houston is growing faster than Portland. Had lower unemployment, higher income, lower housing prices (by almost 50% – 3.8 years of income vs 7.98years) and less congestion. Note the congestion chart, it shows you could go further in ½ hr than you could 15 years earlier. Just the reverse in Portland. See: portlandfacts.com/Houston/Houston.htm”

    ws:
    1)Mean income is not a completely worthy statistic. First off, Houston is rich in the energy industry and will have a higher portion of very high wage earners. Secondly, Houston’s median incomes (a better tool for a large base of people) are not as high as Portland’s, but for all intensive purposes, both cities have similar income levels.

    JK: So you agree with my original statement. I did, however check the latest data at those links and found:

    Per capita income from bea.gov:
    2008 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA……….$39,436, rank #73
    2008 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX ………………$48,259, rank #20
    From: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/mpi/2009/pdf/mpi0809.pdf

    BTW, Houston’s person income was up 3.8% last year compared to Portland’s 1.5%.
    BTW, I noticed you did not mention unemployment, so here is the update:
    Portland, July 2009…..11.5
    Houston, July 2009…….8.0
    From: link at portlandfacts.com/Houston/Houston.htm

    We are doing great – per capita income 22% below Houston, unemployment 44% higher and ranked #73 compared to #20.

    I wonder when Houston will see the light and adopt Oregon’s totally screwed up policies, so they too can fall to the bottom.

    ws: A quick glance reveals that Portland has a higher concentration of wage earners in the middle to upper incomes too. It also has fewer low wage earners.
    JK: Well, of course, Portland’s progressive policies have been forcing low income people out for years.

    ws: 3) Portland’s housing prices, while higher than Houston’s, has more to do with desirability than over-powering land use laws and restrictions. Let it be known that Houston has plenty of regulations.
    JK: Oh, yeah, I forgot about desirability:
    Lower per capita income
    Higher un-employment.
    Higher housing prices
    Sure that’s why people come here.

    You planners always forge that demand does not drive up prices it is the interplay of supply and demand. Like most areas, we have the demand, but government policies restrict supply, causing prices to rise.

    Thanks
    JK

  36. “Care to dance more?”

    Definitely!

    >>>> For starters, please note that I am a full time transit user, do not have a driver’s license, and have never owned a car. So much for my assumed pro-car stance.

    Trimet is opening a new police transit police precinct at the south end of the Green Line, ostensibly to provide security for the Green line. Beaverton, Gresham and Hillsboro police patrol MAX and check for fares.

    Those police costs should be charged to the MAX operation. Also hiring more ticket machine mechanics and enough fare inspectors to service MAX properly: their costs should be charged.

    So one can see that corners have been cut and bogus figures have been produced for MAX operational costs.

  37. “And conversely, how much driver time is wasted while passengers board buses single file, and the driver keeps track of who puts what in the farebox?”

    >>>> Conversely, how come MAX doesn’t seem to be much faster than a bus, despite this supposed advantage?

  38. “The “railfan” remark I’ll ignore as nonsense.”

    >>>> Except that I was in the ‘hobby’ for a long time, and can tell by the tenor of the pro-rail posts where you guys are coming from: your sentimental attachment to anything that runs on steel rails, and not what’s most efficacious for Portland (mode fetish, a phrase I found on the Seattle transit Blog).

    Furthermore, when you have people like David Bragdon, Jim Howell and Ray Polani, railfans all, influencing policy around these parts, I can see why Portland is obsessed with rail.

  39. JK: Light rail has a higher fatality rate than autos.

    Still peddling that misinformation?

    We already established, based on your numbers, that an average of one person per year has been involved in a fatal accident with a MAX train, going back to 1986.

    Your statistical comparison is meaningless.

  40. Those police costs should be charged to the MAX operation.

    So who do we charge when police show up anywhere other than MAX? MAX didn’t cause the crime, it didn’t entice someone to commit a crime, it is simply a way for people to travel.

    Should the gas tax go to the local police agencies that conduct traffic stops?

  41. The “railfan” charge is nonsense, and inflammatory nonsense at that. It’s a rubbish argument, Nick. I don’t think there’s anyone here at portlandtransport.com who is opposed to busses and/or wish to get rid of the bus system. There are, however, several folks here who seem to be categorically opposed to rail (or various forms thereof), for whatever reason. And a few who dislike transit altogether.

    Most of us, though, are multi-modists (is that a word?)–we want what works best. For some transit applications (rapid transit), rail is by far the best solution; for local service, the bus is the most efficient. (I tend to view streetcars as “premium” service that has operational advantages at high volumes, as well as a higher level of ride comfort–but I view the default vehicle for local service to be the bus).

    MAX, being a hybrid application (some characteristics of rapid transit, some characteristics of local service downtown) probably could be replaced with BRT line (meaning one with a dedicated ROW). Given MAX’s volumes, though, you’d have to replace it with 2-3 times the number of busses–which would improve headways (good) but cost a LOT more money in operational expense (bad). And that’s assuming that the switch wouldn’t drive riders away–for whatever reason, some folks simply won’t ride a bus. (No, I’m not one of them).

    But calling people “railfans” is asinine. The term usually refers to those who engage in activities such as model railroading, trainspotting, or participation in things like historical societies or museums. At least one short line in the state (the Oregon Pacific, aka “Samtrak”) is run by a rail enthusiast as a hobby.

    Granted, Jim Howell is a professional rail advocate and lobbyist–and one who has many strong (albeit informed) opinions. He is not, however, a public official. I’ve never heard Bragdon suggest that the bus system be dismantled–he’s well aware that many MAX riders connect to a bus at one or both ends of their journey.

    But unless you use “railfan” to mean “someone who thinks rail is a useful mode of public transit”–I don’t see any of ’em here.

  42. JK:“You planners always forge that demand does not drive up prices it is the interplay of supply and demand. Like most areas, we have the demand, but government policies restrict supply, causing prices to rise.”

    ws:Based off of real numbers, what makes you believe there is a supply issue? I do not see a supply issue, unless you want to talk to the developers themselves who will willingly admit that they have a saturated supply.

    Hello, have you heard about the housing bubble? Or do you not read the news?

    Please, prove there is a supply issue in the Portland metro area.

  43. JK:“Light rail has a higher fatality rate than autos.”

    ws:Knowing that the 400+ fatalities in Oregon had an economic impact of 700 million dollars, what is the economic impact of the fatalities associated with LR in Portland metro area?

    Thanks
    ws

  44. JK:“BTW, I noticed you did not mention unemployment, so here is the update:

    Portland, July 2009…..11.5
    Houston, July 2009…….8.0”

    ws:Don’t get sloppy on me, Jim. Houston’s July 2009 unemployment is actually 8.4. You certainly can fudge numbers like the best of them.

    http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx_houston_msa.htm

    Are you sure you should be hosting websites that try and debunk transit systems and global warming knowing your numbers are constantly corrected for?

  45. JK:
    Right on!

    That’s the problem with Jim, he actually not insane!

    That’s the whole problem with the conservative movement, they make sense on many levels.

    Man, if you miss a day or two on this blog your hopelessly lost in terms of the ongoing discussion!

  46. Nick theoldurbansit:
    Trimet is opening a new police transit police precinct at the south end of the Green Line, ostensibly to provide security for the Green line. Beaverton, Gresham and Hillsboro police patrol MAX and check for fares.

    Those police costs should be charged to the MAX operation. Also hiring more ticket machine mechanics and enough fare inspectors to service MAX properly: their costs should be charged.

    ws:I don’t disagree with this notion at all. Users should pay their mode, but we can’t expect one mode to pay their way, and not another.

    My point was, if auto users had to actually pay for their safety services (police, fire, courts, jails/prisons, environmental cleanup, etc.), would as many people be driving the way they do? Would we use as many miles to ship our goods on roads?

    These are rhetorical, but decisions are made on their costs alone. All I ask is to make all costs transparent to the end-user; do not hide them behind hidden property taxes or transit taxes (though, at least with transit taxes you see what you’re paying).

  47. Don’t get sloppy on me, Jim. Houston’s July 2009 unemployment is actually 8.4. You certainly can fudge numbers like the best of them.
    JK: Fudge? I got my number from the link on my web page:
    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?la+48
    Here is the data:
    2009Jun283223826051662270728.0
    2009Jul2854967(P)2615805(P)239162(P)8.4(P)

    It appears that the Jul number was revised. That (P) means preliminary.

    Thanks
    JK

  48. “ws: I don’t disagree with this notion at all. Users should pay their mode, but we can’t expect one mode to pay their way, and not another.”

    >>>> My point here was not about MAX vs. autos, but MAX vs. buses. If the new South precinct police are primarily oriented to policing MAX (as compared to buses), then their cost should be included in MAX’s operating costs. Ditto for Beaverton and Hillsboro. (I read that Beaverton has two full time officers patrolling MAX.)

    Thus, MAX cost of operation per rider won’t look so great compared to buses.

  49. The interesting question: How much, if any, is MAX likely to be more susceptible to crime (beyond the issue of fare enforcement) than busses running on the pay-as-you-board system? One theory has it that scofflaws and troublemakers are more likely to be found on vehicles with less driver interaction (and where it’s easier to board without a fare) than on busses. A few high-profile security incidents on MAX in years past have resulted in increased security, of course–but the busses have had their share of incidents as well.

    A few questions, though:

    * At whose behest are cops riding transit? The transit agency? The police agency?
    * What are they doing? Fare inspection? Looking out for criminal behavior? Simply riding transit as part of a beat?

    At any rate, two cops will probably pale in operational cost compared to dozens of drivers. If this is an argument against trains, its a pretty weak one.

  50. Nick theoldurbanist Says: If the new South precinct police are primarily oriented to policing MAX (as compared to buses), then their cost should be included in MAX’s operating costs. Ditto for Beaverton and Hillsboro. (I read that Beaverton has two full time officers patrolling MAX.)

    Thus, MAX cost of operation per rider won’t look so great compared to buses.

    JK: Just the tip of the iceberg of shifting LRT costs to bus. See:
    http://www.PortlandFacts.com/Transit/TrimetAllocations.htm

    Thamks
    JK

  51. “Autos cost around $0.25 including ALL EXPENSES and ROAD CONSTRUCTION.”

    No, they don’t.

    [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]

Leave a Reply to al m Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *