From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:57:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.230704.2696@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.230216.21279@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>|> When was the last time you saw--or heard of--*any* heavy rail system
>|> normally using 2.5 minute headways?
>
>At home I have an excerpt of the schedule of trains departing the Transbay
>Terminal.  There are something like 130 trains and/or streetcars in a 2-hour
>span.  The Transbay Terminal is one hell of a high throughput train station.

I'm not so sure you've got quite the effect you think you have.  There
were rather more than one set of rails inside the Terminal, and the
street cars still run (last time I was by) *outside*.  It's more like
the ends of two different systems meeting.  

>It had a design capacity to handle something like 55,000 people per hour!

That 55,000 per hour was probably primarily transfers between trains
and street cars.

>Factiod: the removal of 2 rails from the Bay Bridge reduced the people-
>carrying capacity of the Bay Bridge enormously at the expense of vehicle
>moving capacity.  Shouldn't we focus on moving people, not vehicles?

More capacity loss than one might expect.  The trains ran on the lower
deck and until around 1960, very few cars did.  Prior to lowering the
upper deck through the YBI tunnel (and post-Key System) the lower deck
traffic was almost exclusively trucks.

I agree--moving people is probably more important than moving
vehicles--from many standpoints.  I think this gets back to the
'efficiency' bugaboo.  What is *felt* to be 'efficient' to
individuals.  Remember that we're talking about moving *people*, not
cattle or coal.  Cattle do what they're 'told'.  People will do what
they *want*.

>|> Time and again in this forum you've seen folks agree that raising gas
>|> taxes to pay the way for car-connected expenses is reasonable.
>
>Yeah, I hear Clinton is getting closer to doing just that: raising the
>federal gas tax.

Perot came out quite strongly for making significant increases in the
gas tax.  I told friends during the campaign that I'd be far more
inclined to vote for him if I  knew *less* about him....

>|> Why should the drivers be asked to pay for the roads--which they use
>|> *and* the mass transit which they don't?
>
>Drivers "use" mass transit in that those that do are getting out of the
>drivers' way and alleviating the need for that new lane or interchange
>or bridge or whatever.  

I agree that this is a valid point.  Unfortunately it is a very *poor*
way to sell a system.  It tends to look like a 'tax', plus you're
asking for folks to pay for something for 'the other guy'.  It's
saying--how much will *you* pay to get *him* off 'your' road?  As
systems come on line and traffic does *not* show dramatic
improvements, this gets to be a harder and harder sell.  It's been
noted that what BART did (by and large) for the Bay Bridge was to keep
things from getting *much* worse than they already were.  Net result
is that the initial claim--things will get better by spending all this
money (*plus* ongoing operating subsidies!) doesn't pan out.

Similarly, programs to make major increases in bridge tolls to *force*
folks off the bridge have those who can't afford the higher tolls
feeling like second class citizens (and you can imagine how they'll
vote on anyone who is tagged as having supported the idea...) and the
ones who *can* afford it looking of dramatic traffic improvements on
"my" roads.  In practice, unless the increase is truly dramatic (say
$20), most will grit their teeth, pay the toll and scream about how
there was no perceptible effect...

>Also, I think society, drivers included, benefit
>when there's something for people to ride when they can't or don't want to
>drive because they're too young/old/poor/drunk/scared/tired/incompetent/
>disabled/nervous/upset or tired of traffic or parking or driving itself.

I think this is a *very* risky way to push transit systems.  The
systems need the buy in from those who are paying the bills--and
you've listed a lot of people who aren't.  This approach is--in
effect--lumping transit systems in with welfare, and we all know how
popular *that* is.  This approach is also telling those who pay for
the systems that they *don't* want to ride it--that it is full of
people they feel superior to, full of the 'human trash' they don't
want to associate with....  Let's face it--anyone reading and
commenting on this network is *probably* paid reasonably well and is
reasonably bright.  Do you *really* want to 'share your space' with
drunks, rowdies, and incompetents?  Does that sound like a pleasant
way to spend an hour?

>Getting around is a key part of being a fully functioning, productive,
>happy, autonomous member of society.  Good mass transit ensures that
>people can get around even if they can't or don't want to own and operate
>a car.

This is a circular definition.  If whatever transit system exists does
*not* provide these opportunities, then it isn't a "good" one.

>|> And media reports suggest that *in*spite*of*the*costs* some of the
>|> supposed 'transit utopias' are following the US lead.
>
>I don't think so.

Look at what folks in Tokyo will spend to get a parking space so that
they're *allowed* to register a car, for one example.  Yet Japan in
general and Tokyo specifically is held up as some sort of transit
paradise....

>|> to explain *why* people appear to prefer to drive--in spite of all
>|> that is done (both carrots and sticks)--to get them onto mass transit.
>|> Until the 'transit lobby' *understands* what makes those drivers tick
>|> the systems will suffer from all the noted faults.
>
>Good point.

It's the best point I've got--and one that seems to be totally ignored
by both transit advocates here and by transit system operators.  I
dispair that anyone will ever consider this approach to fixing some
very broken systems.  It is why I issued an unanswered challenge last
year--strong transit advocates should be able to articulate of
coherent case for roads and against transit expansion.  If you cannot
make a sound case for your 'opponents' position, then you don't
understand the issues well enough to make your *own* case.

>|> think of me as dense....  Could you be more specific?  Is it NIBYism?
>|> Is it politicians that won't pay more money into subsidies?  Is it a
>|> lack of convincing ridership projections?
>
>The CalTrain/BART "question" is part of it.  There are many who hold out
>(false, IMO) hope that BART will come to the rescue "someday soon".  It
>is hard to gauge the effect of this but it *definitely* is a factor at
>all levels (right on up to the top deciscion-makers).  As long as the
>CalTrain/BART "question" is unresolved, there is a certain reluctance
>to invest in a system that some feel will be replaced "someday".

Well....  My academic background (such as it is) is in Engineering.  I
firmly believe in redundancy.  I'd like to see *both* BART and
CalTrain running down the Peninsula--and along separate (as widely
separate as possible) ROWs.  That way, if one system goes down for
more than a trivial amount of time, the other can pick up at least
some of the load.  I don't think it should be an "either-or" choice.
It will certainly take a lot of 'selling' to make that happen, though.

>CalTrain also has an image problem and has poor visibility at all levels
>when compared to it's sleeker-looking, sexier competition.   CalTrain
>doesn't have as many political champions or as large a constituency.

Nostalgia doesn't sell too well does it?  I sometimes wonder about
some of the posts here....  How much of the fondness for CalTrain is
just that?  I like trains too.  I also like steam engines, but I don't
seriously expect anyone to build a new interurban rail system around
them.

>The bigger something is the more support it has because more people
>are "touched" by it in some way.  They have some sort of interest in it,
>be it monetary, or practical, or psychological, or otherwise.  That's
>part of why the DOD likes to subcontract out big controversial projects
>all over the place...  Kind of like BART's directors and supporters want
>to do with BART... As do CalTrain supporters with CalTrian... etc.

A very good point.  It nicely parallels the psych. issues about
drivers and riders.  If you have a lot of your reputation tied up in a
system (not to mention, money)--you're more likely to want to see it
succeed.  Perhaps folks should try to make some of these system *more*
expensive....  :-)

>|> None of us can judge if the studies are correct  or not until the
>|> experiment is tried.  The question becomes (I think) is--are the
>|> studies *convincing* to the folks with the purse strings?  If not--all
>|> the studies in the world won't help.  Try appealing to greed or other
>|> forms of self interest.  History suggests it's much more effective.
>
>Exactly.  CalTrain doesn't appeal to greed and self-interest nearly as
>much as the sleeker mega-bucks BART system does.  There isn't as large
>a constituency for CalTrain as for BART in the Bay Area.  Since CalTrain
>is viewed as a relatively infrequent commuter service, even many San
>Mateans and Santa Clarans are relatively indifferent to it.  Everybody
>knows BART runs frequently, etc., and that CalTrain doesn't.  So
>naturally your average "everyman" wants BART.  There aren't as many
>votes and photo-ops and ribbon cuttings and ceremonies and big bucks
>and political "capital" in "merely" upgrading CalTrain as there are in
>building a new BART line/extension.

I suggest an experiment on the Penisula....  Get the loan of enough
rolling stock to run a high-frequency service for about 90 days.  See
what happens to ridership.  If it does show a consistently *sharply*
rising line, then (I think) you can bet the riders aren't really
there.  If it *does*, then the experiment can be used to justify
buying enough stock to make a permanent improvement.

>|> No doubt CalTrain knows where folks get on--but do they know where folks
>|> get *off*.  Wtihout the later datum, the 'miles' part of the equation is
>|> pure guesswork.
>
>If I remember the statistics correctly, the average CalTrain rider rides
>about 22 miles while the average BART rider rides something like 11 miles.
>I don't know how CalTrain figured this out, but I understand that they
>do conduct passenger surveys and on-board passenger counts and with a
>little statistical analysis, it seems like you can figure such stuff out
>pretty easily.

This also assumes that people tell the truth on surveys...

>|> If the knowledge in the transit businesses in the Bay Area mirrors
>|> the statements made here, the operators are clueless about why their
>|> systems are running empty so much of the time.
>
>Yeah, I'm afraid you're probably right.  (In most cases, anyway.)

One sees a lot of really clueless remarks from transit system
spokescritters.  Unfortunately, ones sees too damn many clueless
remarks from otherwise quite intelligent transit advocates.  It hasn't
been just lots of fun playing Devil's Advocate.  I *hope* a few folks
are starting to think seriously about *why* the rosy projections
aren't believed and why systems do as poorly as they do.  I done my
best to see that this group isn't just 'preaching to the choir'.

>|> >This, of course, will lead to rapid abandonment of all mass transit.
>|> 
>|> If the operators can do no better--then that's as it should be.  I
>|> would have hoped for better, but spending good money after bad is
>|> hardly a way to build an effective transit infrstructure.
>
>But I think we (collectively) generally want mass transit.  

I don't think so.  What we want (collectively) is to be able to move
about freely and easily.  For some, mass transit will do that job.
For others it will not.  To say that we want mass transit is, I think,
to put a specific solution in place of a general wish.  One could as
easily claim that we (collectively) want bicycle paths everywhere.

>I happen to
>think that we *need* it and that without it this would not be as nice a
>place to be and live and work, etc.  

I agree with this point.  For any number of reasons, we *need* good
mass transit systems.  The alternative is to going around asking for
'volunteers' to leave the area.  (The economy is--to a degree--doing
just that, but not to the extent it would take to ease current
conjestion.)  Even if the population of the Bay Area were half what it
is today, we'd still need transit systems for the folks you cited who
can't or shouldn't or won't drive.

>So rather than abandoning it all
>because it isn't run so great, let's work to improve it (sort of vague,
>I know).  But even if the smallest fraction of people took an active
>interest in watching over and watchdogging transit operators and the
>regional agencies like MTC, transit would be much, much better.  But
>then that could be said for anything the government does...

I have 24 hours in each day.  Beating up on transit agencies to do
things right competes for that time.  In general--it loses out on a
'time slot'.  (I.e. There are a *lot* of things I rather be doing.)  

>There are constantly obvious examples of inefficiency and waste in the
>military or in NASA or whatever agency ... do you advocate their
>abandonment too, since, as you said, "spending good money after bad
>is harldly a way to build an effective <fill-in-blank>"?  That seems
>a bit too simplistic to me.

It is and it isn't.  It's non-trivial to decide which
projects/agencies have the potential to succeed simply of more money
and more effort is poured into them and which will fail no matter
*how* much money is poured down that particular drain.  Regretably,
one doesn't generally find out which ones are productive until *after*
the money is spent.  Note that for all the money spent on BART (and
the complaints in this forum about cheaper alternatives *not* being
funded), it has a--comparatively--high fare-box-recovery ratio and is
a generally "successful" system while the competing systems are not
viewed in as positive a light.  "If only we had adequate funding..."
isn't a terribly persuasive argument.  "Look what I've done with what
I've gotten..." is better (though still weak).

>|> CalTrain will go the way of all those companies that competed with
>|> IBM in it's heyday.
>
>For the sake of taxpayers, transit users, and the region, I hope not.

One can argue that for the sake of the taxpayers, the systems should
fold--but I think that would be short-sighted.  On the whole you are
correct--we need an effective transit *network*.  But it's got to be
efficient from the standpoint of riding it.  Economical from the
standpoint of both users and those who pay for it.  And sufficiently
robust to help out in time of crisis.  (Possibly the best thing that
could happen for CalTrain would be a major 'quake affecting the
Peninsula--if and only if the rail line could remain operational and
the freeways didn't.  Look at the boost BART got after Loma
Prieta--though it probably saved BARTs collective posterior that the
Bay Bridge wasn't out of commission any longer than it was--BART was
starting to fail under the strain.)

>|> The same complaints wre made then--that IBM didn't make very good
>|> computers (compared to the competition) but they wre *great* salesmen.
>|> Well... IBM is still here (albeit, ailing), and most of it's
>|> competition isn't.
>
>It's a fairly apt comparison, I think.  The big dumb safe easy most
>conservative thing to do was to go out and just buy IBM.  Bucking
>this took a little more risk and guts.  You had to do a little more
>research and get into more details and justification.  It was a harder
>sell.  For your average person or politician, the same goes for BART:
>its the "obvious" (knee-jerk) choice for *all* our rail transit needs.

Then there's what happens when your 'better choice' is bought out by
another company or just goes out of the business....  Talk about egg
on face...

>|> The answer to politcs is to politic better than the other guy--and
>|> (from your response) it appears that that's just what CalTrain has
>|> signally *failed* to do.
>   ^^^^^^^^
>CalTrain's signals are working fine, thank you.  

So are BARTs--at least since they retrofitted back in some of that
100-years-of-train-technology they abandonded to build the system.

>But seriously, you're
>right.  CalTrain was entirely run by SP up until the early 80s (it
>wasn't called "CalTrain" then either).  SP didn't do squat for the
>service.  If anything they ran it into the ground.  They have a history
>of driving passengers away so that they could abandon passenger rail
>service that didn't fit their corporate image/goals any longer...

Cattle and wheat don't complain about the service.  Tehy don't bitch
about being half an hour late for work.  They don't complain about
dirty cars or drunks.  Cattle and wheat are a whole lot easier to
transport.  What with CPUC and Federal regulations, the paperwork to
get subsidies to run the system and all, I'm surprised that SP ran the
line as long as they did.  On the other hand.... Since carrying
passengers was a condition of getting the ROW in the first place it
would have been interesting to see the state tell SP "carry passengers
or forfit the ROW--free" instead of paying for it.  Ashen faces all
'round at SP, no doubt....

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation