Ben Cardin, Maryland's junior Senator, is emerging as one of our great transit advocates in the United States congress and he gives good interview to Grist's Kate Sheppard. It's great to see mid-Atlantic legislators like Cardin and Delaware's Carper repeatedly showing leadership on these topics. But what about DCCC honcho Rahm Emmannuel with his Chicago district, or his Senate counterpart Chuck Schumer of New York? In a country where most legislators don't represent transit-friendly areas, transit-friendly policy is always going to be a tough sell but I'm pretty sure it could be done (the total amount of money involved in realistic policy changes isn't that huge) if legislators who do represent such areas would all start pulling.
« Feedback | Main | Not Ideas About the Festival, But the Thing Itself »
Ben Cardin, Transit Hero
01 Jul 2008 12:26 pm
Comments (27)
In a country where most legislators don't represent transit-friendly areas, transit-friendly policy is always going to be a tough sell but I'm pretty sure it could be done (the total amount of money involved in realistic policy changes isn't that huge) if legislators who do represent such areas would all start pulling.
Yawn. Transit has maybe a 1% share of total surface transportation passenger-miles. Cars have about 96%. Even if you could somehow double transit's share--twice as many subways, twice as many light rail systems, twice as many commuter rail systems, twice as many buses--you'd only be at 2%. It's meaningless. We're never going to build even a small new subway system, let alone duplicate the entire network.
And someone needs to tell the congressman that transit is, at best, only marginally more energy-efficient than cars, and that even a large shift from cars to transit could not possibly have more than a small impact on energy consumption or carbon emissions.
Emmanuel is no longer head of the DCCC. It's Chris Van Hollen, a Marylander like Cardin who represents DC suburbs and is/should be familiar with transit.
"a large shift from cars to transit could not possibly have more than a small impact on . . . carbon emissions"
Um, existing technology allows for (1) all electric transit options and (2) electricity production which is much less carbon-intensive than internal combustion engines. So, while very, very unlikely for many, many reasons, "could not possibly" is extreme bunkum.
Passenger miles is the wrong metric; the relevant one is trips.
Overall trips is also the wrong metric, as most transit use is during the morning and evening peak commute. Since traffic congestion doesn't increase linearly with volume, but in quantum leaps as volume hits certain tipping points, removing even a limited number of cars from the road at those periods serves to vastly impove traffic conditions.
Transit is "only marginally more energy efficient" (another way of saying "more energy efficient" based on low levels of ridership. Ridership in 2007 set records, which 2008 is now smashing, too.
You don't double trasnit ridership with "as many subways, twice as many light rail systems, twice as many commuter rail systems, twice as many buses." You do it mainly by adding cars to the end of trains that are already running, or by scheduling more trips by trains that already exist along rails that are already in use.
Somebody's been reading the product put out by libertarian faux think tanks, instead of learning about the subject from sources that focus on transportation rather than politics.
Cardin has a reason for advocating mass transit. Having many constituents who are federal employees that get a $115 mass transit stipend, it's a no-brainer to advocate more public transit to alleviate the maddening taffic in DC during the rush hours. Even stalwart Republicans such as Tom Davis love the Metro. All politics are local.
joe from lowell,
Passenger miles is the wrong metric; the relevant one is trips.
No it isn't. Transportation needs are obviously a matter of both the number of trips and the number of miles of travel.
Overall trips is also the wrong metric, as most transit use is during the morning and evening peak commute. Since traffic congestion doesn't increase linearly with volume, but in quantum leaps as volume hits certain tipping points, removing even a limited number of cars from the road at those periods serves to vastly impove traffic conditions.
Transit generally works best for commuting, but you can't simply ignore non-commute travel when evaluating transportation needs. And even for commuting, transit compares unfavorably to cars. The average commute time by transit is almost twice as long as the average commute time by car.
Transit is "only marginally more energy efficient" (another way of saying "more energy efficient" based on low levels of ridership.
No, it's based on technology and load factors, not level of ridership. Most transit buses and some transit trains have low energy efficiency because they are powered by diesel. Transit in general has low energy efficiency because the need to provide frequent service and accommodate large variations in demand at different times of the day and at different points along a route means that most seats on the transit vehicle are going to be empty most of the time.
You don't double trasnit ridership with "as many subways, twice as many light rail systems, twice as many commuter rail systems, twice as many buses." You do it mainly by adding cars to the end of trains that are already running, or by scheduling more trips by trains that already exist along rails that are already in use.
No, you don't. Train lengths are already limited by platform lengths, and there is little scope to expand train or bus routes that already run at or close to capacity during peak times. Even where there is unused peak-time capacity on existing routes, a fundamental obstacle to large-scale expansion of transit use is that there just aren't enough routes. Transit doesn't go to enough places where people need to go. To achieve anything like a doubling of transit's market share, you would need to massively increase the number of routes, which means new track, new trains, and new bus routes.
Somebody's been reading the product put out by libertarian faux think tanks,
Someone hasn't been thinking through his ideas very carefully.
Posted by Mixner | July 1, 2008 12:58 PM
Even if you could somehow double transit's share--twice as many subways, twice as many light rail systems, twice as many commuter rail systems, twice as many buses--you'd only be at 2%. It's meaningless. We're never going to build even a small new subway system, let alone duplicate the entire network.
This is why any libertarian worth their salt will be out there pulling for a reversal of the heavy subsidization and regulatory mandates supporting the Cars-or-Nothing system, and allowing more freedom of choice.
As Mixner points out, obviously we will not be able to offer real choice to the majority of Americans by "doubling down all around". Rather, it will be more along the lines of 10% more subways, 50% more commuter rail services, 1000% more regional rail services, 10,000% more light rail lines, 500% more buses with 50,000% more bus routes effective integrated with dedicated transport corridors.
If the original establishment of the car transport system on the back of single-use zoning mandates and massive "development" subsidies for green field development instead of redevelopment and intensification had not been such a case of heavy handed top-down government decision making that one suburban sprawl development system was all that the country needed, then we would today have a much greater variety of transport options in place in the context of a much greater variety of settlement systems, and be in a much better position for those local areas who were better able to cope with no-longer-dirt-cheap crude oil riding high, and the rest of the country running to catch up.
But it was and we don't, and now those who are accustomed to the free ride subsidies for cars are going to moan and cry about the infrastructure investment required to catch up for three decades of short sighted government policy mandating a car-based transport system.
As Mixner points out, obviously we will not be able to offer real choice to the majority of Americans by "doubling down all around". Rather, it will be more along the lines of 10% more subways, 50% more commuter rail services, 1000% more regional rail services, 10,000% more light rail lines, 500% more buses with 50,000% more bus routes effective integrated with dedicated transport corridors.
Your posts are always good for a laugh, Bruce. 100 times as many light rail lines as there are now? 500 times as many bus routes? Where are you going to put them all? You better get busy building new roads for all those new buses. Let me know when you've secured the funding.
B-b-b-but....if low density suburbs are how we live now, shouldn't there be lots of land available for new rail lines? Bra-a-ak! Does not compute! Does not compute!
As usual, the thread is being hijacked down the old Mixner switchback trail to insanity.
You better get busy building new roads for all those new buses.
Because every bus needs a dedicated road. BruceMF is playing loose with the percentages there, but his point is well taken. There are small cities and towns that do not currently have transit systems that might benefit from them. Hence an increase in the percentage of such systems.
Lots of small towns are dying very fast right now. Barring a magical, overnight replacement for cheap gas, its reasonable to assume a lot of metro areas will gain population over the next ten years or so. It is also reasonable to assume many residents in these metro areas would gladly trade the expense and stress of driving into town for a transit option. Particularly if that time can be productive. I mind riding the bus a lot less once I got a smartphone.
Mixner never makes much sense to me, but that business at 2:31 is beyond me. Did he miss Bruce's point or did was he actually trying to respond? Never mind -- serial c. explained it.
Mikulski has pushed hard for the maglev too. She's a little rough to interview, but she's been pretty solid on transportation. Also, I think Biden takes the train to DC every day, although his focus is elsewhere.
Because every bus needs a dedicated road. BruceMF is playing loose with the percentages there, but his point is well taken. There are small cities and towns that do not currently have transit systems that might benefit from them. Hence an increase in the percentage of such systems.
If they don't already have at least some kind of bus service, they're unlikely to be large enough or dense enough to have more than a minuscule impact on transit's market share, and everyone in them will already be relying on cars. If demand for the bus service is so low that the bus is mostly empty even at "rush hour," the route's probably going to be cancelled. All the low-hanging transit fruit has already been picked.
Lots of small towns are dying very fast right now. Barring a magical, overnight replacement for cheap gas, its reasonable to assume a lot of metro areas will gain population over the next ten years or so.
The old, dense transit-oriented metro areas are mostly in decline. The metro areas that are gaining population are the new, sprawling car-oriented ones in the south and west, where transit makes even less sense than it does in denser cities.
B-b-b-but....if low density suburbs are how we live now, shouldn't there be lots of land available for new rail lines?
100 times as many light rail lines, plus 500 times as many bus routes? Unless you're planning to build them through people's front yards, no.
Or is the plan to build them where no one actually lives, cross your fingers, and hope the demand materializes some day?
The old, dense transit-oriented metro areas are mostly in decline. The metro areas that are gaining population are the new, sprawling car-oriented ones in the south and west, where transit makes even less sense than it does in denser cities.
New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and their surrounding regions are doing just fine, thank you very much. Folks may have left the cities in these places, but not the metro areas.
The steel and auto shocks were certainly bad news for transit-friendly rust belt cities and areas. Massive, rapid job losses ensued and took a long time to recover from. A lot of places that got hit in the 1980s have made recent gains and have pretty bright outlooks going forward. The auto shock is fresher, but there is no reason that Detroit can't recover as well as Pittsburgh has eventually. The boom burbs from the 1990s have their own problems and more serious ones on the horizon that will limit their growth.
So assuming the North East doesn't pack its bags in entirety to go die of thirst in the sun belt, does extending transit in these areas make sense?
robotic,
New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and their surrounding regions are doing just fine, thank you very much.
Philadelphia is losing population, like most of the dense old northeastern cities. Boston is just barely maintaining (0.3% growth between 2000 and 2006). New York City is really the only old, dense northeastern city that's growing, because it is such a magnet for immigrants. But all the real action is in the south and west.
Folks may have left the cities in these places, but not the metro areas.
To the extent that people are staying in those metro areas, they are shifting out of the cities and into the lower-density suburbs, where there is less transit and more travel by car.
The auto shock is fresher, but there is no reason that Detroit can't recover as well as Pittsburgh has eventually.
Between 2000 and 2006, Pittsburgh lost population, workers and housing. According to the post you just linked to, its unemployment rate also increased. That's a "recovery?"
Transportation needs are obviously a matter of both the number of trips and the number of miles of travel.
Neither the retreat into meaningless generality, nor the use of the word "obviously," is going to change the fact that denser, older urban areas have shorter commutes in miles than sprawling areas. A commute in eastern Massachusetts is probably about 15-20 miles, as opposed to Phoenix, where it's about 30-35 miles. Nonetheless, the two contribute the same amount to traffic congestion and take the same amount of time, because eastern Massachusetts is denser than Phoenix. The fact that the passenger miles per trip are lower in Massachusetts is irrelevant; it's the number of cars on the road, the number of trips, that matter.
Transit generally works best for commuting, but you can't simply ignore non-commute travel when evaluating transportation needs. Good thing nobody's doing that then.
And even for commuting, transit compares unfavorably to cars. The 90% of people who choose to take trains and buses into Manahattan every morning, instead of cars, disagree with you.
average commute time by transit is almost twice as long as the average commute time by car. Apples to oranges. The average commute by transit takes place in a much denser region, where the same commute by car would take even longer, or be impossible.
No, it's based on technology and load factors, not level of ridership. The unit used to measure the energy efficiency of a transportation system is (Unit of Energy)/(Passenger served). That second figure is what we call a "denominator."
Most transit buses and some transit trains have low energy efficiency because they are powered by diesel. So, in other words, the variable isn't transit vs. driving, but engine types. See, this is a discussion about transit vs. driving.
Transit in general has low energy efficiency because the need to provide frequent service and accommodate large variations in demand at different times of the day and at different points along a route means that most seats on the transit vehicle are going to be empty most of the time.
The massively superior ass/vehicle ratio enjoyed by transit during its peak hours more than compensates for this. That is why you had to write "not much more energy-efficient" instead of "less energy efficient."
Train lengths are already limited by platform lengths, Most of which can accomodate longer trains. Completely missed here are 1)fuller trains, 2) more frequent trains, 3) the vast difference in cost between extending a platform and adding lanes to a highway.
and there is little scope to expand train or bus routes that already run at or close to capacity during peak times. Actually, transit ridership has been setting two years in a row.
Someone hasn't been thinking through his ideas very carefully. Yes, you're right. Maybe if you complete the masters program I went through in this shit, you could do better.
The metro areas that are gaining population are the new, sprawling car-oriented ones in the south and west, where transit makes even less sense than it does in denser cities.
Houston is adding a rail system. Phoenix is adding a rail system. Dallas is adding a rail system. Los Angeles is expanding its rail system. Atlanta is expanding its rail system. Las Vegas is adding...
Or is the plan to build them where no one actually lives, cross your fingers, and hope the demand materializes some day? Worked for the highways. But no, the plan is to build them in already-growing areas that are already planning on big transportation projects.
People moving into low-density areas increases those areas' ______________.
First one to post the correct answer gets a cupie doll.
Gawd what a pathetic sight. Mixner has stayed up late memorizing AEI talking points until his eyes are blurry, and he's forgotten that diesels are more efficient than gas engines, not less.
Mixner, you could do the short form, which is that elephants are about as big as land mammals will ever get. If you don't know why, just fill a balloon with water at your kitchen sink. Eventually you'll figure it out.
Joe from Lowell,
denser, older urban areas have shorter commutes in miles than sprawling areas.
Shorter in distance, perhaps. But not in time. As I said above, the average commute by public transportation takes almost twice as long as the average commute by car. And New York, the most transit-oriented state in the country, also has the longest average commute time.
A commute in eastern Massachusetts is probably about 15-20 miles, as opposed to Phoenix, where it's about 30-35 miles. Nonetheless, the two contribute the same amount to traffic congestion and take the same amount of time, because eastern Massachusetts is denser than Phoenix.
This is nonsense. Congestion is a function of the number of cars per unit of road length or width, not trip length or number of trips. And where are you getting your figures on average commute distance from?
The 90% of people who choose to take trains and buses into Manahattan every morning, instead of cars, disagree with you.
No, they don't. Commutes into Manhattan are obviously not remotely representative of commutes in the nation as a whole. The overwhelming majority of commutes are made by car, not train or bus. And the average commute by car takes far less time than the average commute by train or bus.
The average commute by transit takes place in a much denser region, where the same commute by car would take even longer, or be impossible.
Good point. That's one reason why our new cities look like Phoenix and Houston, rather than like Manhattan and Boston. Lower density allows the comfort, convenience and flexibility of commuting by car, plus much shorter commute times.
The unit used to measure the energy efficiency of a transportation system is (Unit of Energy)/(Passenger served).
No, the standard measure of transportation mode energy-efficiency is unit of energy per passenger-mile.
Between 2000 and 2006, Pittsburgh lost population, workers and housing. According to the post you just linked to, its unemployment rate also increased. That's a "recovery?"
Sure is. The city is still losing people today. But its not losing jobs. There's an important distinction. The (small) increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment reflects a shift in basic industries that hasn't fully settled itself yet. Manufacturing has the same issues it does everywhere. The kinds of jobs that are growing in Pittsburgh are in health care, education, tech, etc... Stuff that's not outsourced and is fairly recession resistant. The out migration of younger people was surpassed by immigration of younger people in 2000-2001 and is trending higher every year. The population declines today are the result of old people dying. Sad, but thanks for all the nice houses for young families.
The population as a whole is one of the oldest in the country. Aging boomers are starting to retire, opening up a bunch of new employment opportunities. And they're not moving to Phoenix and Miami in numbers like they do in other places so their money stays here. Besides Houston, what other major metro area has experienced an increase in average home values over the past couple of years?
This is OT, and I apologize to others, but it serves to illustrate that trends can and do change, those old dense cities are not dying as fast as you might think, and the people living in them would benefit from expanded transit.
Joe from Lowell,
So, in other words, the variable isn't transit vs. driving, but engine types. See, this is a discussion about transit vs. driving.
No, as I said before, the "variables" (the primary ones, anyway) are technology and load factor. Transit is barely competitive with cars in terms of energy efficiency because of both transit vehicle engine type (typically diesel), and transit vehicles' low load factors (high average number of empty seats).
The massively superior ass/vehicle ratio enjoyed by transit during its peak hours more than compensates for this.
No it doesn't. The relevant load factor (or "ass/vehicle ratio" to use your quaint term) for the overall efficiency of a transportation system is its average load factor, not its peak load factor. If you could always run your buses and trains full, they'd be very efficient. But you can't. Because demand varies so dramatically across different days of the week, different times of the day, and different stops or stations along the transit vehicle's route.
Actually, transit ridership has been setting two years in a row.
Total number of riders is likely to increase as total population increases, and in response to sudden rapid increases in gas prices. But transit's market share is minuscule--about 1% of total surface passenger-miles. Even a doubling would only to take it to about 2%. And even that's not remotely plausible. The places where transit is most cost-effective--old, dense cities like New York and Boston, with employment concentrated in relatively compact central business districts--already have it. Most of the country isn't like that. Employment is much more decentralized. Cars just make much more sense for the vast majority of commutes than transit.
Joe from Lowell,
Houston is adding a rail system. Phoenix is adding a rail system. Dallas is adding a rail system. Los Angeles is expanding its rail system. Atlanta is expanding its rail system. Las Vegas is adding...
Yeah, small light rail systems that can substitute for only a minuscule fraction of all car trips within those cities. The vast majority of travel in those cities will continue to be done by car, and housing/infrastructure density will continue to reflect that overwhelming dominance of the automobile.
"zaleriana" (just how many pseudonyms do you have, exactly?)
Um, existing technology allows for (1) all electric transit options and (2) electricity production which is much less carbon-intensive than internal combustion engines.
Um, existing technology also "allows for" all-electric cars.
So, while very, very unlikely for many, many reasons, "could not possibly" is extreme bunkum.
No, your claim is extreme bunkum. Since transit is such a small share of total transportation, and total transportation contributes only about 25-35% of total carbon emissions, even if we could magically make all transit carbon-free it would have only a small impact on total carbon emissions.
As oil moves from 1% to 5% to possibly 10% and beyond of GNP, the love affair between cars and suburbs will grow pale and specter-thin and die.
At that point, some of the newly unemployable will return to urban tenement life where they'll walk everywhere. When they're not huddling in alleys or mugging the unsuspecting in their swank high rises, that is. Others will join roving packs of outlaws, like in Mad Max, out in ex-urban desert communities and make a grim living by waylaying gasoline transports.
Makes as much sense as anything.
Comments closed July 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In a country where most legislators don't represent transit-friendly areas, transit-friendly policy is always going to be a tough sell
Is that actually true? What metric are you using to deem an area or region as transit friendly?
Posted by BFR | July 1, 2008 12:41 PM