Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

METRO FINGER POINTING

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The finger pointing concerning the METRO Red Line Wreck is in high gear.

There is one area of concern that you will not hear about in the MainStream Media:

Dysfunctional human settlement patterns in the METRO station areas.

The failure to evolve supporting settlement patterns (aka, ‘land use’) in the station areas is the primary reason that “most of the METRO trains leave most of the METRO stations mostly empty most of the time.”

No shared-vehicle system can operate efficiently pumping one way in the morning and the other way at night PERIOD.

If there was Balance between the station area travel demand and the METRO system capacity there would then be far more revenue to keep the system maintained and far more citizen support for the absolutely necessary stable funding sources.

There would also be no need to push the system beyond it’s capacity to serve peak demand.

Of course, there would also be far fewer wrong size houses in the wrong locations with underwater mortgages – but that is another story – see last post.

Want the details on what needed to be done and what STILL needs to be done? Read EMR’s 1989 report “It Is Time to Fundamentally Rethink METRO and Mobility in the National Capital Subregion” most recently revised and updated 18 October 2004.

Want to see a clear ‘blueprint’ for where and how Fundamental Transformation could be done? Google “Blueprint for a Better Region.”

And before anyone gets off their hay wagon and tries to pitch cheap shots about how the ‘real problem’ is building a heavy rail based shared-vehicle system in the first place, read the full analysis of one of the leading anti-rail quacks recent scribblings summarized in this abstract:

“Clifford Winston and Vikram Maheshri attempt to use benefit-cost analysis to make a definitive
statement about the social desirability of urban rail transit in the United States. Their argument is
deficient on several elementary analytic and statistical grounds. They underestimate total benefits, and therefore net benefits, and their failure to examine the suitability of their data and to pay attention to the usual caveats associated with benefit-cost analysis further undermines their
assertions. As a result, these findings should not be used to inform either the debate or decisions
about investment in urban rail systems.”

The study can be found at www.vtpi.org

Lets point the fingers at solutions, not the villains or the strawpersons. It has been 20 years and time is running out.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

28 responses to “METRO FINGER POINTING”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "As a result, these findings should not be used to inform either the debate or decisions
    about investment in urban rail systems.”

    Oh really.

    Always consider the source when considering the source.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There is one area of concern about the Red Line Wreck that you will not hear about in the MainStream Media:

    Dysfunctional human settlement patterns in the METRO station areas.

    "The failure to evolve supporting settlement patterns (aka, ‘land use’) in the station areas is the primary reason that “most of the METRO trains leave most of the METRO stations mostly empty most of the time."

    Well, leaving mostly empty most of the time is one way to prevent a lot of deaths and injuries. Is that howfunctionla settlement patterns tie to the wreck?

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "No shared-vehicle system can operate efficiently pumping one way in the morning and the other way at night PERIOD."

    Not if you run it all day long and far into the night. That is why we PARK our cars when not in actual use. You very seldom see a totally empty auto running around during the day.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "There would also be no need to push the system beyond it’s capacity to serve peak demand."

    Not true.

    We still go to work in the morning and home in the evening, so you still have rush hour, only now it is both directions and you still need to serve peak demand. Either you build it to meet peak capacity and it is underused the rest of the time or else you push the capacity beyond its limit to meet peak demand.

    C'mon, EMR, just a little bit of common sense, please?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Google “Blueprint for a Better Region.”

    And have a few good laughs. The blueprint is not a blueprint but a list of WIBNI's. Totally unrealistic ones, at that.

    (WIBNI: Wouldn't It Be Nice IF…)

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "one of the leading anti-rail quacks recent scribblings summarized in this abstract:"

    Clifford Winston is not a leading anti rail quack. He is an economist with degrees from Berkeley, London School of Economics, and Berekley. He taught at MIT transportation divison, dept of civil engineering for five years before moving to Brookings where he is now a senior fellow. Much of his writing has to to with airlines, the performance of governemt regulations, and road pricing, not with railroads per se.

    How this makes him a "leading anti rail quack" is beyond me.

    However his one book on transportation that includes analysis of rail and other systems concludes that most of rail transit it should be shut down, except where the settlement patterns will adequately support the service.

    That sounds like a reasonable conclusion and not a quack conclusion to me.

    His Brookings study publishe with Maheshri is available at:

    http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/delhibrts/metro/Metro/on%20the%20social%20desirability-brookings.pdf

    Should anyone care to read it and decide if these are quacks. It includes statements such as this:

    "Rail transit’s fundamental problem is its failure to attract sufficient patronage to reduce its high (and increasing) average costs. This problem has been complicated enormously by new patterns of urban development.

    Rail operations, unfortunately, are best suited for yesterday’s concentrated central city residential developments and mployment opportunities; they are decidedly not suited for today’s geographically dispersed residences and jobs."

    I think even EMR would have a hard time disagreeing with that.

    And Winston goes on to describe BART as a financial and social success, so it isn't impossible to do, he only points out that most cities do it badly. One light rail system is reportedly so bad that you could have bought every single rider their very own Prius and had a billion dollars left over.

    I like trains, too, but let's not be blind about what they are and what they are not.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "And before anyone gets off their hay wagon and tries to pitch cheap shots about how the ‘real problem’ is building a heavy rail based shared-vehicle system in the first place"

    Look, you can build a very nice heavy rail system and support it economically – if you first build a place like Hong Kong to support it.

    Building a place like Hong Kong, just so you can have a workable heavy rail system (which STILL does not meet all of Hong Kongs needs) stikes me as a truly massive form of subsidy. And we all hate those, right?

    You are not going to build Hong Kong – Tysons any time soon so you will have to struggle by with "inadequate, and unprofitable" rail systems (if any) for a long time, until you reach critical mass.

    I don't have anything against rail systems, or autos and truck, or bike paths. What I have a problem is people who think the right answer is one or the other, instead of the right balance of each.

    Even in my hayfields I sometimes use a whole train of haywagons, and sometimes I just need a pickup truck.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "To all those who think government subsidies don’t jumpstart new industries: How subsidies started the Toyota Prius

    http://gas2.org/2009/06/23/govt-picks-a-winner-tesla-gets-465-million/

    quoting that:

    The Japanese government had no such qualms when they saw a winner in the developing Prius, back in the 90’s.

    They boldly subsidized Toyota’s first Prius by paying for a sizable portion of the early models.

    So if you drive a hybrid, you have the Japanese government’s willingness to pick a winner early on to thank for the extra pennies in your pocket, even if your hybrid is not a Prius.

    Because the followers certainly would not have followed without that first government money enabling hybrid development."

    —————————

    Comment by Susan at Environmental capital.

    Now compare that experiment in government subsidy (or the new US government subsidy to NISSAN) with the 30 year government subsidy experiment with METRO.

    When, exactly, do you decide that time has run out on this particular debacle?

    Instead, what we will see as a result of this tragedy is new calls for a "Dedicated Source of Revenue" for Metro. I guarantee you that that "Dedicated Source" will be the pockets of everyone who DOES NOT ride Metro, which means 96% of the population.

    RH

  9. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Man, the more I read EMR's posts the more confused I get. I thought the idea behind functional balanced communities was to have jobs, houses and business all together so we can get rid of those nasty autonomobiles.

    Then I read this post where EMR gripes about heavy rail pumping one way in the morning and the other way in the evening. There should be BALANCE, he says, in having these rails transporting passengers in both directions at once.

    But EMR, if we have balanced communities, wouldn't the rails have no pumping at all? In fact, if we all worked where we lived, there would be no more need for rails that the cursed autonomobile.

    Am I missing something here?

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Darrel's partly right. If you do as I have suggested and find a way to move the jobs where people live (glad to see EMR is finally on board, now that it is happening anyway, somewhat) then several things happen. a)The peak load commute is reduced on both Metro and Major Arteries, because more people can work closer to home. b)the peak load on those routes will be smaller, but both directions as more people have more options. (Options is the magic word in transportation, right?) c) We need more transportation between the edge communities, purple line and more roads like FFX county Parkway to connect edge communities. d) Metro cannot possibly fulfill the new requirements for transportation options and it becomes the new Stonehenge. Or maybe it gets privatized and runs just the central circuit whare it might actually work.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…members of the audience continued to ask me the hard question “Is Public Transit a Good Investment?” I presume they were asking me for my “expert opinion” on whether this investment passes a cost/benefit test. While I agree that this is an interesting and important question, I wimped out! I refused to answer this question because as an empiricist I don’t feel like we know enough yet. Let me give some examples:

    On the Benefits Side:

    1. When new rail transit such as Boston’s Red Line gets built, some bus riders substitute to the faster rail mode. How much time do these bus to rail switchers save? How much do they value their time? How many people fall into this category?
    2. When new rail transit allows people who work in the center city to commute by public transit rather than car to work, how much do past car commuters gain in consumer surplus by this mode switching?
    3. If more people ride public transit rather than drive, how much are local environmental problems such as smog mitigated? How much do urban residents value this pollution reduction? How much less greenhouse gases are emitted if people use public transit rather than driving? How much do we value a ton reduction in greenhouse gases? (One study by Kirk Hamilton of the World Bank values a ton of carbon dioxide at $20)
    4. How much extra profits do commercial firms (think Starbucks or restaurants) earn when they are close to fast, clean public transit? (My work with Nate only looks at residential commuters and not “fun non-work trips” or how businesses are affected by public transit expansions)
    5. Under what circumstances can we simply use changes in home prices near new rail transit as a summary measure of the localized capitalization benefits of improved rail transit?

    On the Cost Side:

    1. What is the marginal cost of producing urban infrastructure? The Boston Big Dig’s cost over-runs highlight the importance of distinguishing ex-ante expected costs versus ex-post “actual costs”. In unionized cities, are the costs of producing such urban infrastructure much higher as powerful unions grab the money and pad their payroll? What role does corruption in construction and maintenance of these complicated systems play in raising costs?

    If you give me answers to all of these questions, then I would feel more comfortable sitting down and presenting you my answer to this important cost/benefit question!"

    Matthew Kahn, professor of Economics and author of "Green Cities" (Brookings Institution Press).

    Notice that the sample questions he poses are similar to the ones I claim need to be answered before we can make any blanket statements about the real value of Mass Transit.

    I don't happen to think Kahn is a quack, either.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Privatization of Canadian National Railway

    This article uses cost-benefit analysis to estimate the welfare gains from the privatization of Canadian National Railway (CN) in November 1995, one of the largest rail privatizations in history. It also shows how these gains have been distributed among consumers, producers, and government, and between Canadians and non-Canadians. The article uses the costs of Canadian Pacific Railway to create a more credible comparison t h a n in previous privatization studies. Based on a conservative counterfactual, we estimate that CN's privatization generated welfare gains of at least $4 billion (in 1992 dollars). However, the welfare gain was possibly as high as $15 billion. The Canadian government captured almost half of these gains, while CN shareholders captured most of the rest."

    That "quack" Cliffor Winston suggests that our rail systems (such as we would have left) would operate at a profit if they were privatized.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From an interim cost benefit analysis of Seattle Link, light rail.

    Projected budget is over 100% more than the Original proposed budget.

    Operating expenses show larger grwoth than expected and fare revenues show smaller growth.

    National recovery raton of light raill operating expenses from fare revenues is a whopping 3.6%. At that rate you could probably SAVE money by not collecting the fares at all!

    The NPV valuation for Link rail is alrady negagive $1.5 billion and will increas to over $5 billion when complete. How much sense does it take to stop now?

    And, After calulating social benefits You STILL come up with a $2 billion negetive net present value.

    To break even you would need 200%more riders, and on top of that a 10% annual increase, You would need a gas price of $9.78. and you would need an hourly wage invcrease of 617% to na average rate of $100/hour.

    file://VANAS50/users/HydeR/Other/seattle_light_rail.ppt#277,25,A Hypothetical Break-Even Scenario

    Conclusion: Mass transit isn;t worth it on paper.

    And no, these "Quacks" ar not Clifford winston, either.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Duck hunters ALERT

    "Anonymous RH" has discovered that via the Internet one can finc flocks of quacks.

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'm will Darrell…

    " But EMR, if we have balanced communities, wouldn't the rails have no pumping at all? In fact, if we all worked where we lived, there would be no more need for rails that the cursed autonomobile."

    yup – if there were already jobs allocated across the region to start with – why would folks not find work closer to where they live rather than commuting?

    So EMR is actually advocating commuting from home to work and back – but he wants it "in balance" so that people commute equally …"in balance".

    We've been having this discussion down my way about the "benefits" of Commuter Rail (which is ALL about "pumping" one way in the morning and the opposite way in the evening and we hear that Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax support Commuter rail even though.. there are few stations in these jurisdictions.

    And the reasoning is: " that by providing VRE Commuter rail, these jurisdictions "take cars off of their roads" – that is the cars that would originate in the Fredericksburg/Manassas areas and end up commuting to their jobs in the northern locales.

    So.. VRE.. commuter rail is just doing pretty much what EMR was complaining that METRO is doing.

    Both Metro and VRE are "pumping" rush-hour home-to-work-to-home commutes.

    right?

    just like I-95, I-495, I-66, I-395 are doing… "pumping" at rush hour..

    even the HOV is configured to flow in opposite directions to support this "pumping"

    in order for EMR's "balance" to occur two things would have to happen:

    1. – we'd have to control where the jobs were… i.e. too many jobs and the govt steps in and says "no more at this location".

    2. – no more Metro, VRE or highways to support commuting

    i.e. they will be built to handle bi-directional capacity only – not "pumping".

  16. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Here, I'll throw this one in for free:

    " EXURBAN GROWTH GREATER THAN CENTRAL GROWTH: CENSUS BUREAU"

    The US Bureau of the Census has just released an analysis of suburbanization showing that the nation continues to suburbanize, despite the consistent media “spin” that people are leaving the suburbs to move to core cities.

    The report, Population Change in Central and Outlying Counties of Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000 to 2007, goes further than our previous 2000 to 2008 analysis that showed strong domestic outmigration from central counties to suburban counties and beyond."

    http://www.newgeography.com/content/00868-exurban-growth-greater-central-growth-census-bureau

    Here's the age-old question.

    Do you build commuting infrastructure to serve the folks who have already moved and in the process – encourage more of it…

    …or Do you stop expanding the existing commuting infrastructure and in essence make it less and less easier to commute… a "disincentive"?

    We get this argument with Commuter Rail and with adding additional highway infrastructure.

    We are told that we need to add more funding to VRE so we can move more people who are going to move here – because of "affordable" housing and the availability of commuting facilities such as VRE.

    VRE is heavily subsidized. It's been reported that each rider receives as much as $20 a day for their ride and who do they receive this largess from?

    They receive it from a tax on gasoline used by commuters in autos.

    EMR ought to like that part at least.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "So.. VRE.. commuter rail is just doing pretty much what EMR was complaining that METRO is doing."

    I don't think that is really EMR's baseline complaint. His real agenda is that VRE and Metro promote sprawl and disaggregated building that might use land where some quack, or mouse could live – and not need any infrastructure.

    RH

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    EMR wants METRO (large public vehicles) that runs full in all directions all day/all night long rather than "pumping" at rush hour – right?

    or does he want the large public transport vehicles to shut down/reduce service at night or outside of normal work hours?

    VRE is – for better or worse – "pumping" on steroids because… in the mornings there are NO trains bound from Washington to Fredericksburg and in the evening there are NO trains bound from Fredericksburg to Washington.

    ALL PUMPING!

    but even inter-city rail is NOT serving ALL stations at ALL Hours…

    in fact EXPRESS inter-city rail only runs at certain hours at certain stations…

    for that matter – Bus Rapid Transit is little more than a rubber tire version of VRE – right?

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here's TOD, Mixedu Use and Walkable Communities in practice, as opposed to dreams.

    TMT

    MetroWest project returns
    Fairfax County
    By Kali Schumitz
    Source: Fairfax County Times
    TUESDAY, JUNE 16 2009

    One of the most controversial development projects in recent memory is once again drawing the ire of some Fairfax County residents.

    Pulte Homes, developer of the MetroWest project near the Vienna Metrorail station, is now asking the county for permission to reduce the number of apartments it builds, in favor of adding office space.

    MetroWest, the first major mixed use, transit-oriented project in Fairfax County, was originally slated to include about 2,500 townhouses, condos and rental apartments. It was also to include some office buildings and shops and restaurants on the ground floor of the high-rise buildings.

    However, the project was approved in 2006 and, given the current housing market, Pulte is now asking for permission to swap 700,000 square feet of planned housing for an equivalent amount of office space.

    This proposal raised concerns among the project’s neighbors, who have long feared that the project will make traffic in the already-congested area near Interstate 66 worse, despite plans to encourage Metro use. They believe that offices will generate even more peak hour traffic.

    “We always have concerns about their traffic studies,” Jane Seeman, mayor of the neighboring Town of Vienna, said of the developer. “Some of their facts and figures are a little suspect, we think.”

    Town officials have scheduled a meeting with the developer, she said.

    The Fairfax County Planning Commission decided June 10 to move the project forward, with some restrictions – namely that the project cannot increase the amount of traffic it produces.

    “The community essentially struck a bargain in getting MetroWest approved in the first place,” said Commissioner Ken Lawrence (Providence). “The developer has to respond to the market … but what the community wants is to hold up that bargain.”

    Before making the switch to office, Pulte must perform another transportation study and demonstrate that it can hold the number of car trips to the agreed-upon levels from its initial rezoning. If that is not possible, then the developer can only increase the office component by an amount that does not increase the number of trips.

    The planning commission language will go before the Board of Supervisors for another public hearing and final decision later this year.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We always have concerns about their traffic studies,” Jane Seeman, mayor of the neighboring Town of Vienna, said of the developer. “Some of their facts and figures are a little suspect, we think.”

    And if the neghborhood community wanted to, they could hire their own traffic engineers and have their own study which would also be suspect – by the other side.

    That's why you need to have some kind of independent, disinterested agent to do the study, if there is such a thing.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The Fairfax County Planning Commission decided June 10 to move the project forward, with some restrictions – namely that the project cannot increase the amount of traffic it produces."

    This is essentially a condition that is impossible to meet. Even if I put up a larger hay storage barn here in jepip, it would increase traffic because I would need more customers to empty it.

    The town is settin gth edevelopers up to fail, but it is like the story from "The Little Prince" in which the king points out, "If I order you to jump over the mooon, and you don't do it, whose fault is that?"

    If the town or community really doesn't want any traffic there, then they should buy it and turn it into a forest.

    "Oh, well, we can't afford to do that."

    Well then, what makes you think the developer can do it for you? Because that is the only way you will get zero traffic growth.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…in the mornings there are NO trains bound from Washington to Fredericksburg and in the evening there are NO trains bound from Fredericksburg to Washington."

    That is correct, they use dedicated trains and PARK THEM in the city all day. (I think there are acouple of early trains that make the round trip twice befor they are parked.)

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…in order for EMR's "balance" to occur two things would have to happen:

    1. – we'd have to control where the jobs were… i.e. too many jobs and the govt steps in and says "no more at this location"."

    Well, why not? Government seems to have no trouble restricting housing, why not jobs, too? This is what is happening at Metro West, no?

    The "Why not" of course, is the idea that commmercial pays and residential doesn't, but that is just another way of saying the tax siystem is lopsided. Or as EMR would say Everyone should pay their own full costs, and no more.

    In order to do that we are going to have to figure out who is getting what, for what money. In other words, better property rights.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The Oklahoma Highway Patrol says a routine criminal investigation is under way."

    After nine people were killed on an Oklahoma turnpike. I doubt there will be anything routine about NTSA's investigation of the Metro accident.

    RH

  25. ramesh Avatar
    ramesh

    very informative
    http://www.source2know.com

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The idea of shifting [from a gas consumption tax] to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the "best path forward" to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.

    The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group's chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission's work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.

    The problem with a mileage tax is it provides no incentive for increased fuel efficiency. That's why two years ago I proposed a Fuel Efficiency Payment that provides incentives for higher fuel efficiency AND fewer miles driven."

    from Environmental Economics

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "So consider two car types: a gas guzzler (GG) and a fuel efficient car (FE). Suppose the gas guzzler has an EPA MPG rating of 15 mpg city and the FE car has a rating of 35 mpg city. The per mile fuel efficiency payment for the gas guzzler will be $0.067 per mile drive (1/15) and the per mile fuel efficiency payment for the fuel efficient car will be $0.029 per mile driven. If a driver of each type of car drives 12,000 miles a year, the GG driver will pay an annual fee of $804, and the FE driver will pay an annual fee of $348.

    The Fuel Efficiency Payment has a couple of nice features:

    1) It places a higher burden on those driving less fuel efficient vehicles–that should satisfy those blaming the SUV drivers for all of the problems*.

    2) It places a higher burden on those driving more. By increasing the marginal cost per mile driven, total miles driven should decrease.

    3) Assuming fuel efficiency and income are negatively correlated–that is, the rich tend to drive larger, more expensive, less fuel efficient cars–the Fuel Efficiency Payment places a higher burden on higher incomes.

    4) It provides an incentive for drivers to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles.

    Now that I've hopefully convinced you that a fuel efficiency payment will act as a type of gas guzzler tax that would be less of a burden on lower income drivers, would provide incentives for decreasing miles driven and would encourage a switch to more fuel efficient vehicles, I'd like to point out that the fuel efficiency payment is algebraically identical to a $1/gallon GAS TAX** that many economics including John and me think would go a long way toward solving many of the transportation related externalities. "

    From Environmental Economics.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    At least one company s vacating Tyson's on account of present and impending traffic. I missed the name of th ecompany, but they are moving to Bethesda.

    Also, more evidence that toll roads will not be managed for maximum throughput, but for maximum revenue. Greenway has increased its revenue 15% while higher tolls have diverted 8% more traffic to Route 7 and other roads.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More