Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

TAMU AGAIN

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

A quick review of the newly released “TAMU 2007 Urban Mobility Study Based on 2005 Data” (aka, TTI ‘07) indicates:

This version has the same basic flaws as the earlier ones that are outlined in our 20 September 2004 column “Spinning Data, Spinning Wheels.” TAMU’s 2007 version is:

1) Based on two year old data

2) The data is provided by Agencies who have competitive and professional interest in low balling the congestion numbers

3) The area of coverage appears to still be the Census “urbanized area” which, especially in disaggregated New Urban Regions such as Washington – Baltimore, leaves out most of the area of the MSA and does not address CMSA conditions – to say nothing of New Urban Region reality. This means those with the longest commutes and most of the Community, Village and Neighborhood scale congestion outside Radius = 20 Miles is not considered.

4) The study is authored by, paid for by, reviewed by and the information distributed by those (including MainStream Media) who have a professional and financial stake in not addressing the root cause of the Mobility and Access Crisis.

The root cause of the Mobility and Access Crisis is, of course, almost exclusive reliance on Large, Private Vehicles and a Large, Private Vehicle Support system with which citizens are expected to achieve mobility and access in an urban, technology driven society.

There must be a Balance between the travel demand generated by human settlemetn patterns and the transport systems provided to achieve mobility and access. That Balance is not possible relying primarily on Large, Prvate vehicles. It is a matter of physics, not policy.

The Crisis is perpetuated by a failure to fairly allocate the cost of location-variable goods and services. As Jim Bacon points out, a free, well informed land market is part of the solution. However, without a fair allocation of the costs and a democratic process to evaluate any tweaking of the system (aka, subsidies), Business-As-Usual rules as mobility and access tends to entropy at an accellerating rate as documented by TAMU.

Obfuscation is compounded by the those with a variety of agendas. The imagination of Peter Gordon and other anti-anti-Autonomobile apologists is nearly beyond comprehension. See “A Different Take on TTI” below.

While some understand the need for change, most who have access to the data and are willing understand the metrics involved also recognize the personal and organizational economic impact of considering Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns and Fundamental Change in governance structure vis a vis the Mobility and Access Crisis and thus stonewall rational discussion.

In spite of these and other problems raised in our 2004 column, the TAMU study is the “best available” information on the scope and cost of the Mobility and Access Crisis.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

12 responses to “TAMU AGAIN”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Of course it’s based on old data. Surely you don’t expect someone to analyze all that overnight.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Obfuscation:

    “While some understand the need for change, most who have access to the data and are willing understand the metrics involved also recognize the personal and organizational economic impact of considering Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns and Fundamental Change in governance structure vis a vis the Mobility and Access Crisis and thus stonewall rational discussion.”

    This is classic EMR. If you don’t like the facts as presented, then just redefine them.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “This means those with the longest commutes and most of the Community, Village and Neighborhood scale congestion outside Radius = 20 Miles is not considered.”

    So what? The bulk of the congestion and the bulk of the waste is in the urban areas studied.

    I have a relatively long commute. 34 miles. I get 50 mpg, or close to it. I have almost no congestion on my commute, because I don’t go to the congested areas. I go the other way.

    I defy you to show me congestion in Delaplane, at the village scale, unless there is a train involved.

    I could share a rideto work, maybe, but I’d have to drive ten or twenty miles further to do it.

    It doesn’t pay.

    I recognize there is a need for change, but it is only going to happen when it pays to do so. So, when you are willing to pay for the changes you want, you may start to get them.

    Or, you can just slap it to the other guy.

    That brings us to fair allocation of costs. Your sponsor, PEC, and others, frequently claims that farms pay twice as much in taxes as they receive in services.

    I have yet to hear your opinion of fair allocation in regards to that.

    Metro riders pay less than half of their true costs. I have yet to hear your opinion of fair allocation in regards to that.

    I will freely admit, that auto drivers cause some externalities. Congestion is one of them, but at least it is egalitarian. We all externalize each other equally.

    So, maybe I owe a little more for my long commute which congests almost no one, but I’m pretty sure I could cover the extra costs if my farm taxes were cut in half.

    When you give up your two SUV’s and revert entirely to shared vehicles, we can have a rational conversation, any time you want to walk to the farm to have it.

    RH

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …just because something is inefficient does not mean it will go away… even in a free market

    .. because it it delivers something of value that cannot be obtained in a more efficient or cheaper way.. it will continue to be used.

    For an example.. take the ordinary light bulb… which, in fact, does have a cheaper alternative but because the CP version is quite a bit more expensive on the purchase price … people still buy incandescents…

    this is.. even though.. they’d save money in the long run – and more importantly, depending on what you want to believe – a high level of adoption in the 80-90% range would stave off the need for new plants and new powerlines.

    so back to the car – and personal mobility….

    It’s by far more expensive than using the multi-vehicle alternatives and there is no question that even with the high congestion levels.. AND the increasingly unreliability of the commute time – it’s still preferred.

    Even most the folks who do use multi-passenger vehicles would prefer to NOT have to alter their schedules to get them to mesh with multi-passenger transport.

    So, let’s admit.. that the preferred mode of transportation for almost everyone is personal mobility.

    and let’s further admit that even though it is grossly inefficient and more expensive – that in the context of other expenses – that it is not a make or break item in most folks personal budgets.

    so.. just back to the original point which was that just because something is inefficient and expensive does not mean it will go away.. and/or become a precursor to “fundamental change”.

    … in other words.. market forces will not likely foster.. fundamental change…

    .. that leaves governance.. which EMR claims he does not advocate a government-directed approach even though he feels that if we change the way we geographically govern – that such change would result.

    .. I am a skeptic of this.

    I am a skeptic that even if we changed geographic/governance boundaries that people would THEN CHOOSE multi-passenger vehicles over private vehicles..

    You can draw as many boundaries as you want – but the basic human being is going to want (and get) as much personal mobility as they can afford – and until the price of the commute goes up substantially – this behavior won’t change.

    Final thought – Congestion pricing WILL result in more expensive commutes .. that may well affect some behaviors… that, in turn, may well alter congestion and commuting in ways that are beneficial – WITHOUT .. fundamental change….

    (or even WITH fundamental change.. if you want to think about it THAT way).

    so.. call me a skeptic with respect to fundamental change.. in and of itself… fostering change in personal commuting patterns…

    disclaimer: this IN NO WAY means that I agree with RH’s view of the world. 🙂

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The study is authored by, paid for by, reviewed by and the information distributed by those (including MainStream Media) who have a professional and financial stake in not addressing the root cause of the Mobility and Access Crisis.”

    Risse,
    What evidence is there that the MainStreamMedia (definition?) paid for the study, reviewed it and distributed it?
    If you can’t provide convincing evidence of some type of collusion you should avoid these statements. Your writing is hard enough to undertand as it is.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well, Larry, in this case your comments are mostly correct, from my view of the world.

    I would only say that the evidence is not conclusive that autos are more expensive. Consider that Metro operating costs are $0.85 per passenger mile.

    We could make autos a lot less expensive, if we didn’t insist on 200plus HP and two tons of steel. Even so, I’ll concede that autos have serious problems. When we come up with something that is really better, as opposed to claiming to be better, I’ll switch.

    I also don’t buy the argument that distance traveled contributes to congestion. Suppose we magically movved all the people outside R20 to inside. If they all try to arrive at work at the same time, you still have the same problem.

    RH

  7. NOT ED RISSE Avatar
    NOT ED RISSE

    For many commuters, time in a single occupant vehicle is quality time out; listening to music, talk radio, or books on tape.

    It isn’t necessarily wasted time or a crisis.

    Frankly, the location variable costs to add density with billions in more Metro construction and subsidies are continuously ignored by those who think the sky is falling thanks to individual mobility.

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, I quite agree, people place a high value on their personal mobility. They will not easily trade in their cars. That’s why I’m skeptical that mass transit will ever serve as more than a niche transportation mode. But we’re experiencing the problems that untrammeled personal mobility can bring — we just can’t build roads fast enough? Why because, as a society, we don’t want to double our transportation spending.

    Balanced communities are part of the solution. Balanced communities won’t take away peoples’ desire for personal mobility. But they will enable people to reach their desired destinations on a daily basis with fewer and shorter car trips. (Balanced communities also might make it possible to implement more effective mass transit solutions, but I’m not banking on that.)

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Not Ed Risse, I don’t know who you’re referring to when you allude to “those who think the sky is falling thanks to individual mobility,” but speaking for myself, I have been a loud and vocal critic of the Rail to Dulles Metro project. It falls far short of the beneficiary-pays principle for transportation funding.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There is nothing wrong with mass transit being a niche. Let’s work on finding out what niches actually work, the ones that are well used and cost effective, and concentrate our transit efforts on those.

    Once we figure out what that is, we can work on creating new niches from scratch, based on known principles and guidelines that work.

    But, as long as we are hell bent on putting lipstick on a pig (oops, sorry Jim, let’s pick a different metaphor) diapers on a Hippo, we are going to be mired in the muck.

    If it was just rail to Dulles, we could run it down the median and be done with it. You might even have a trip from the airport to downtown that didn’t have all those butt numbing stops.

    I think there might be a chance for transit to work on a string of pearls concept, but we need to recognize from the outset, that it has to work in concert with the auto and not as a replacement.

    Same with balanced communities. We need to both move jobs out of placeswhere they are overpopulated and make more attractive housing close to the jobs. It isn’t going to be cheap. Or we can double our spending on transportation, and continue to endlessly shuttle millions back and forth.

    We all want someone else to do something for us, in this case, it is to get out of the way. My experience is that when I want someone to do something, I have to pay. I don’t see how we can say that X is a good thing for society, and then claim that society can’t afford to pay for it. Can’t afford it is just another way of saying that the benefit of X is not worth the price.

    There is nothing wrong with wanting something for nothing, just don’t expect to get it, unless you are willing to steal.

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    you know.. every major city.. in the entire world.. has transit and a subway…

    and as far as I know.. not a single one has every decided that transit was something that cost far more than it was worth – and shut it down.

    and as far as I know.. not a single one of them operates at a “profit”…

    and yet.. we talk of transit being a “niche”…. mode of transport…

    I don’t get it… Is there a rational self-consistent philosophy here.. ???

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Not a single one has every decided that transit was something that cost far more than it was worth – and shut it down.”

    Maybe they have never looked at it. Just because they have not decided that it costs more than it is worth or just because they have not realized it yet, doesn’t mean that it isn’t so.

    “not a single one of them operates at a “profit”…”

    Are we talking operating profit, or net social worth? According to Winston, BART has a net positive social worth after all externalities: the only rail system in the nation that does. This shows that it is possible to show a real, after subsidy, “profit”.

    If we are talking operating profit, then the riders ought to pay enough to make it break even. If we are talking social benefit, then the list of users in the sense of beneficiaries gets a lot larger, and all the beneficiaries ought to be expected to pay (a realistic amount) for what they (actually) get (as opposed to the hype that subways are supposed to provide).

    Under that scenario it is a real stretch to think that someone in Idaho should be contributing to Metro, unless you think Metro contributes to the efficiency of the federal government and generates federal tax dollars that would not happen otherwise.

    But, as long as the net social benefits are higher than the net social costs, there is no reason the beneficiaries should object to paying – if the ROI is high enough to compete with other demands or better options for the money. You would hate to have the trains running on time while people are dying for lack of health care, maybe.

    For at least some of those systems, the net social benefits might be lower than the net social costs. If that is the case, then those cities are millions of dollars poorer than they would be without the subways. They just don’t know it yet, don’t care to know, or haven’t looked.

    Or else, they know it and they have made a political decision, not a financial one. If there is some politician who is deliberately making his city poorer than it might be otherwise, then his constituents are responsible fo their own fate.

    It could be that many cities have subways, have not shut them down, and they are just being stupid. Or, there could be powerful political influences at work: influences that benefit from the system even though they know it is a dead social loss. Those would be the people who are willing to steal in order to get something they want for nothing.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More