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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:02:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.194258.16100@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.000033.5796@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>|> I've seen freeways run at or near capacity a lot more often than I've
>|> seen (or read) of rail lines doing the same...
>
>BART runs *at* capacity through the tube during peak periods.  I've heard
>that many peak period BART trains are standing-room only (that's what I'm
>calling "capacity" here, by the way) for a large part of their runs.

Agreed--but only for a relatively short period in the morning and
evening.  Then there are the trains going the other direction....

>I'm told that there are some CalTrain runs that it's difficult to find a
>seat on.  On the day after Thanksgiving, some CalTrains were reportedly
>so full that you could hardly get in the door!  I've seen some of the
>special 10-car special-event CalTrains that had damn-near *every* seat
>taken.

Great--CalTrain is jammed full one day a year.... How much extra
rolling stock should be purchased (and out of whose pocket...) to
support that?

>But, yes, full freeways are a far more common sight--especially in and
>around the major conurbations of California.

And notice the recent posting protesting increasing freeway capacity
out of gas tax funds.

>|> I'm glad you agree that the trains *don't* run full.
>
>Actually, that's the idea.  If you can help it, it's kind of nice to run
>a system that is never really *full*.  For obvious reasons, *full* trains
>aren't exactly something you'd want to ride as much as 50 or 75% full
>trains.  But remember, we were just playing a little game of maximum
>practical capacity--and yes, some assumptions were made...

I agree, but the maximum capacity cited for freeways is one that is
actually seen--indeed, isn't that capactiy determination from actual
measurement?--while the one for rail lines was based on the
theoretical maximum number of trains--a figure which isn't used in
practice.  When was the last time you saw--or heard of--*any* heavy
rail system normally using 2.5 minute headways?  Even BART only comes
near that figure for those parts of it's physical routes that carry
three 'logical' lines.  The closest headways anyone has even
expressed a *wish* for is 15 minutes--which is a far cry from 2.5
minutes.

>|> > So people don't/won't share an auto much.  Besides, it generally not
>|> > easy to do, even if you want to.  So forget 5(!) per car.  I doubt
>|> > we'll ever even see 2 per car (average, of course).
>
>|> There is actually quite a bit of informally filling cars up in the Bay
>|> Area.
>
>No single Bay Area county has anything even approaching 1.3 and as an
>aggregate we're somewhere around 1.15, at best--let alone the 4 or 5
>you were (quite correctly) suggesting are *possible*, but in theory only.
>Certainly, it's highly doubtful we're going to see trains running every
>5 minutes that are full all day long, but it isn't all that unlikely a
>scenario for peak periods.

I agree on both.  There are, however selected routes--Orinda to SF,
near North Berkeley BART to SF, Claremont and College in Oakland that
are known sites for informal car pooling.  Some of this is probably
driven by the time advantage to using car-pool lanes on the Bay Bridge
(which one can read as either a carrot *or* a stick) and some by a
preference for riding in a private car over riding in a bus--or even a
BART train.  

>|> trying to attract riders.  However, I *do* object to their attempting
>|> to force people to abandon other transport modes to do it.  Simply
>|> put--carrots are fine, but leave the sticks home.
>
>Be careful, a lot of those so-called sticks are just a matter of making
>motorists pay their fair share.  The trouble is that for so long they
>haven't been made to, so naturally, some of the proposals we've been
>hearing about sound like some pretty draconian "stick-type" measures.

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.

The objection (the 'stick' as it were) is expecting the drivers to pay
for the transit through gas taxes as well.  There was a posting this
morning bemoaning that transit projects are getting "only" 20% of the
recently added taxes on gasoline.  Why should the drivers be asked to
pay for the roads--which they use *and* the mass transit which they
don't?  (I can think of reasons I consider valid, but I'd like to hear
from our more vociferous pro-transit folks about why they think this
is equitable.)

If a measure is put on the ballot stating "We need more gas tax money
to pay for more/better roads", it will likely pass.   Put one on that
says "We want to tax gas to pay for transit"--and the outcome is much
less sure.

I am not trying to say (as a few here do) that transit is a bad thing.
I'm not even trying to say that transit *should* have to pasy it's own
way.  What I've been trying to do by taking a very unpopular (even an
"UN-PC") stance is to challenge the assumptions about *why* these
things should be done the way they are.  To some degree, I think I've
succeeded.  I've seen clearer analyses of the trad-offs in the last
year than in the first few months of ba.transportation when I sparked
the debate by using Jonathan Swift's technique.  (And oddly enough,
for a very educated group, no one noticed that Subject line harking
back to Swift when I started the debate.)

>The American motorist has been spoiled.  Of all industrialized nations,
>it is by *far* the cheapest to operate a motor vehicle in the USA.

And media reports suggest that *in*spite*of*the*costs* some of the
supposed 'transit utopias' are following the US lead.  I think this
suggests there are some psychological factors that transit palnners
have overlooked.  I have asked time and again for our pro-transit
commentors--and especially for the extreme pro-transit (and even the
'anti-car'--which is not the same thing as 'pro-transit') folks to try
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.

Look--after all--at the ballot proposition being put forth in SF.  To
insist that city workers (and especially, policy makers) ride the
local transit system.  If the Muni is so great--as folks have been
insisting here--why don't these very people ride it *now*,
voluntarily?  If you can't answer that question--you don't have a hope
in Hell of 'luring' people out of their cars.  If you can't answer
that question--there will come a time when the voters (most of them
drivers) will rise up and repeal the sticks at the ballot box.  Best
to figure out how to fix or at least ameliorate the problems with
carrots lest your sticks fail and break in your hands....

>|> > |> In addition, the need to run trains back to the start point empty in
>|> > |> many real-world scenarios ties up rolling stock, uses energy, wastes
>|> > |> crew time and has to be accounted for in the headways.
>|> > 
>|> > Oh, really?  Since we were talking about CalTrain, why don't you describe
>|> > this in a little more detail for me--especially the part about how it
>|> > "has to be accounted for in the headways".  Be as specific as you can.
>|> 
>|> Unless there is a near-balance in the number of riders going both ways
>|> on a given line (and given a finite amount of rolling stock) there
>|> will be a need to move empty or near-empty trains in the low-traffic
>|> direction.  Even if there is no one but the crew on the train, it
>|> still takes up a 'slot' in the available schedule.  A car parked by
>|> it's sole occupant isn't occupying a similar 'slot' on the freeway.
>
>You didn't answer my question.  Specifically, answer it for CalTrain.
>(Hint: there aren't a bunch of "dead-head" (non-revenue) runs, as your
>postulating might suggest.)  I mean, hey, I'll take a shot at lame
>criticism in the same vein and style as yours was: in addition, the
>need for car owners to procure and have their vehicles maintained and
>serviced ties up their car, uses energy, wastes their time and has to
>be accounted for in their lives...  

Sure.  Specfically for CalTrain it isn't done.  But then....
Specifically for CalTrain the trains don't run on 2.5 minute headways,
either.   The later condition would require the former--absent truly
awesome amounts of rolling stock being available.  Specifically for
BART--it effectively *is* done--and that's with 15 minute headways.

>|> > |> At least with the car--the don't 'dead head' half the time.
>|> > 
>|> > Well, it seems that since cars typically have no passengers and only
>|> > have *the* crew-member aboard, that they're "dead-heading" damn near
>|> > 100% of the time :-)  Or to view it another way, we could say the
>|> > typical SOV keeps it's single "passenger" so busy doing the "crewing",
>|> > that it renders him/her a dead head for the duration of the trip...
>|> 
>|> That's another apples-and-oranges comparison. [...defense deleted...]
>
>Of course it is!  I was just havin' a little fun.  (See the smiley face
>in there?  Maybe I should have put more of them in there...)

Hmmm....  Even with the smiley, given some of the folks that post
here, I thought it deserved a serious answer.  Cheer up....  At least
I'm not given to profanity, abuse, or (at least much) ad hominem
attacks.  Probably because I really am concerned about these issues
and I wish I had better answers for the problems....

>|> If there is that much demand--what's keeping CalTrain from running
>|> more trains?  (On the other hand--you *did* agree that the existing
>|> trains aren't full--so one has to cast some doubt on the claim that
>|> there is that much demand for additional service out there...)
>
>I said: politics.  

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?

>If BART (or light rail) was on that same right of
>way right now, there's little doubt in anyone's mind they'd run it more
>frequently than CalTrain.   The corridor is a great (under-exploited)
>market.  Studies have shown that if CalTrain frequency is increased so 
>will ridership--dramatically.  

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.

>Too high an operating cost can't be the
>problem either (as some might suggest/think) since CalTrain's cost per
>passenger mile (at *today's* ridership levels) is lower than BARTs.
>But, BART charges much higher fares and so is only subsidized ~50% vs.
>CalTrain's ~60%.

There's operating cost and there's operating cost.  When a bill is
presented, it's a set amoutn--not a 'per passenger mile' figure.  (If
it comes to that--what assumptions are built into the 'per passenger
mile' computations.  No doubt CalTrain knows where folks get on--but
do they know where folsk get *off*.  Wtihout the later datum, the
'miles' part of the equation is pure guesswork.  BART, at least can
tell how many get off at a given station which gives it a better
chance of getting accurate data, but there's still no guarantee that
their figure is much good.)

BART adavantage (probably) is that no one group sees the whole subsidy
as a lump sum out of their own budget.  Most of it (property and sales
taxes) is done on a pass-through basis, isn't it?

>The "well-the-trains-aren't-full-so-there's-no-demand-for-more" school
>of thought is really lame; it's just fallacious reasoning.  Let me play
>devil's advocate with this for a minute:  

And you did it very well.  Congratulations.  I think my efforts may be
working.  
>
>Hal's transit optimum transit frequency determination system: 
>
>Vehicles full      ---> add service
>Vehicles not full  ---> cut service; repeat until full or until no
>                        service remains :-)

The later course would certainly reduce service subsidies--in dollar
amount if not in percentage.  :-)

I would like to make a modification for the real world that not *not*
seem to occur--if the vehicles are full, then you'd better add more.
The alternative to cutting service when there is "excess" capacity is
to hustle up some more business.  Get those carrots out.  Try to
convince folks that they'd rather ride transit than drive.  Part of
such an effort ought to be to find out why they're *not* on the
transit system--for without that data you have no idea of what carrots
to try.  The last test has been a signal failure so far as I can see.
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.

>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.

>Yes, *sometimes* a non-full train or bus or boat is an indication that
>there isn't demand for more service.  But, as usual, things aren't just
>isn't as simple as all that.

And sometimes it is.  Absent a solid base of the *human* reasons for
all those full freeways and empty busses, mass transit is doomed and
the sooner the subsidies are cut off the cheaper it'll be.  If a
better understanding of the social dynamics are is developed, then
transit can take a rightful place as a successful part of multi-mode
transportation net.

Instead of complaining about how much BART costs and how much better
and cheaper Caltrain is--and blaming the difference on
'salesmanship'--wouldn't it be more effective to learn to sell
CalTrain as effectively?  Perhaps BARt has found *effective* ways to
sell itself to commuters that CalTrain has (virtuously) avoided.  If
so, CalTrain will go the way of all those companies that competed with
IBM in it's heyday.  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.  Think about Burroughs, or Univac, or
CDC or any of the other '7 dwarfs'.  If CalTrain is so great--why
isn't it successful?  "Politcs" is a damn poor answer.  You can blame
*anything* on it--especially failure.  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.  (And
remember--something perceived as a failure tends rapidly to become
one...)

Enough philosophy for one day.

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