Some people have been citing a report on "Commuting Alternatives in the United States: Recent Trends and a Look to the Future" (http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/CAUS.html) as a source indicating that public transportation will not solve the congestion problem. This report just made a statement of fact - public transportation ridership is down.

However, this is a report on commuting alternatives to DRIVING ALONE, not alternatives to public transportation! It makes recommendations on how to get people out of the "driving alone" category.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 14, 1999

Answers

Other than pointing out the obvious--the author(s) probably considers it a misuse of his or her work when someone uses the report as ammunition against transit agencies--I don't understand your point.

Since you've read the report, I think many of us would consider it a community service if you would provide us with some examples of how the statistics taken from the report have been misinterpreted or misused.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.

"Other than pointing out the obvious--the author(s) probably considers it a misuse of his or her work when someone uses the report as ammunition against transit agencies--I don't understand your point. Since you've read the report, I think many of us would consider it a community service if you would provide us with some examples of how the statistics taken from the report have been misinterpreted or misused. " Excuse me! Scientific reports stand (or fall) on their own merits. If the facts demonstrate a point, they demonstrate a point, regardless of the motivation of the author. If you think THAT reference is hostile to the future viability of transit, you should see the other outcomes research about transit. Fact, not wishful thinking, is the key to understanding the gradual demise of transit (except in certain niche markets) and why it is requiring increasingly unreasonable subsidies. Have a look: Another interesting Transit site. This one is struggling to be pro- transit (hey, it's the University of San Francisco) and presenting real bad news in the most face-saving way possible. http://www.cutr.eng.usf.edu/research/transit.pdf

Yet another: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/trends_reportl8.pdf

Selected quotes: The average commute was one mile longer in 1995 than in 1990. However, with somewhat improved commute speeds, the average commute time increased only slightly. Although having only slightly longer commute distances, those who used public transit spent twice as long on their commute as those who drove or rode in privately-owned vehicles (Figure 11).

People who rely on transit tend to view public transit more negatively than do others. For example, women, more frequent users, non-licensed drivers, and people without household vehicles perceive public transit more negatively than men, less frequent users, licensed drivers, and people with household vehicles, respectively. The average waiting time for all transit modes, 9.8 minutes, is about a quarter of the average travel time, 38.8 minutes. Accounting for waiting time increases total travel time and lessens overall speed of linked transit trips. In fact, accounting for waiting time increases average travel time to 48.7 minutes, while average speed falls from 19.2 miles per hour without accounting for waiting time to 15.3 miles per hour with accounting for waiting time.

If you are really interested in understanding WHY transit is losing market share and not capable of significantly helping decrease congestion, get into the demographics of traditional and current transit users. It isn't rocket science. It's demographics.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

TO PARAPHRASE JAMES CARVILLE, THE RAGIN
f CAJUN:

"IT
fS THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID"

The propensity of American households to travel more was evident regardless of where people lived (Table 6). However, where people lived did influence how people traveled. Not surprisingly, people in large metropolitan areas used public transit more often than those in medium and small areas. Nonetheless, the proportion of trips taken by public transportation decreased across all areas since 1990.

The most striking gender difference in travel is non-work travel. More than half of women
fs travel is for family and personal business (e.g., groceries shopping, taking children to school or organized sports.) The comparable rate for men is about 40%.

On average, an individual travels 39 miles per day (Table 11), which represents an increase of 4 miles per day since 1990. These data point to the fact that we probably have not reached a saturation point in travel. But, as evident in Table 13, there is a great difference between the travel of men and women. The difference in miles traveled is particularly telling given the fact that men and women take about an equal number of trips per day. Obviously women's trips are notably shorter than men's trips. Again, the greatest increases in miles traveled per person are by both men and women over 65 years of age.

The average vehicle occupancy, measured as person miles per vehicle mile, has decreased consistently over time. This trend is related to the increase in vehicle ownership, and decreases in household size.

Eighty percent of households in 1995 had at least one vehicle for each of their drivers, representing a slight decrease from 1990. Most American households continue to have one vehicle for each of its drivers.

The geographic dispersion of households without a vehicle becomes polarized from the perspective of population density. Almost one third of households in areas with a population density more than 10,000 per square mile do not own a vehicle. On the other hand, almost 70% of households in the least densely populated areas own more than two vehicles. The percent households in these areas without a vehicle declined by almost 40% from 1990 to 1995.

In 1995, elderly men drove on average 1,000 miles more than those in 1990. However, this increase in driving was not true for all age groups. The data show a reduction in teenage driving from the 1990 level, particularly for men. Possible explanations of this could be the recent graduated licensing program in some states and higher insurance premiums.

Travel statistics indicated that the population 65 and older was more mobile in 1995 than its corresponding cohort in 1990. On a daily basis, older drivers drove an average of 32% more miles, took 38% more trips, and spent 12 more minutes driving daily in 1995 than in 1990.

Regardless of household composition, women took more trips in 1995 than in 1990. Women with children between the ages 6 and 15, whether a single parent or in a 2-adult household, averaged more than 5 trips per day. The proportion of the trips women took to and from work increased from 1990 to 1995.

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Vehicle Ownership Rate Vehicles per Household Vehicles per Worker Vehicles per Driver Source: Table 3-2 Figure 3-2. Index of Changes in Vehicle Ownership Rates. Decline of Zero-Vehicle Households The number of households without a vehicle has decreased from almost 13 million to 8 million from 1969 to 1995 (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3). The number of one-vehicle households has remained almost stable over time, at approximately 30 million. The number of two-vehicle households has grown from 17 million in 1969 to 40 million in 1995. Forty percent of all U.S. households in 1995 were two-vehicle households. The most startling change in vehicle ownership has been in the number of households with three or more vehicles, which as grown from 3 million households in 1969 to 19 million in 1995.

Decline of Transit Market Share In contrast to this increase in overall personal travel, the proportion of person trips made on public transit has declined by almost half during the same period (Table 3-5 and Figure 3-5). It is interesting to note that this decline in the market share of public transit has been highly correlated with the decline in both the share of non- licensed drivers in the population and the share of zero-vehicle households among all households. Two characteristics of this decline are worth noting (Pisarski, 1992). First, in the general context of the decline of all alternatives to driving alone, transit has fared better than other alternatives, including carpooling and walking. This is true at least in the case for the journey to work. Second, this decline in public transit
fs market share has been uniform across all the traditional users of public transit: women; all age groups, especially younger and older travelers; geographic area types; and demographic groups. types; and demographic groups. Non-licensed drivers and zero-vehicle households declined not only in shares but also in absolute numbers.

-- The craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

AND IT
fS STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

From: SOCIETAL TRENDS: THE AGING BABY BOOM AND WOMEN
fS INCREASED INDEPENDENCE by Daphne Spain, Ph.D. Department of Urban and Environmental Planning University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 spain@virginia.edu December 1997 Final report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Order No. DTFH61-97-P-00314.

Access to Vehicles In 1995, 25 percent of older women lived in households without vehicles compared with 6 percent of older men. By comparison, baby boomers have extremely high vehicle ownership rates and differences by sex are practically nonexistent. Only 4 percent of female baby boomers lived in households without a vehicle in 1995 compared with 3 percent of baby boom men. If baby boom women keep their cars at the same rate as older men have, only 6 percent will live in households without a vehicle when they reach their parents
f age. Vehicle ownership has become almost as universal as licensing. The proportion of households with no vehicle declined from approximately 21 percent in 1969 to 9 percent in 1990. Since households without vehicles tend to be smaller than average, only 6 percent of persons lived in households without vehicles in 1990 (Lave and Crepeau 1994). The 1995 NPTS also reports 6 percent of persons without vehicles.

Older women make the fewest person trips per day (2.1) of any age-sex group (compared with 2.9 for older men), while baby boom women make the most person trips per day (4.5). Older women are less mobile than older men and are considerably less mobile than baby boom women. Part of this difference is due to baby boom women being in the prime working and family stages of the life-cycle. Older women travel about one-half as many person miles per day as older men (11 versus 19 miles) and only one-third as many person miles as baby boom women (32). (Baby boom women still travel fewer miles than baby boom men, who average 40 person miles per day.) If baby boom women make asmany trips and travel as many miles as older men do now, they will make 2.9 trips per day and travel 19 miles per day when they reach ages 75 and over.

Educational Attainment Access to vehicles . The more highly educated the woman, the more likely she is to live in a household with a vehicle. While educational attainment makes little difference in vehicle ownership for men until the oldest ages, it is quite important for women across all age groups.. In fact, the older the woman, the more pronounced the relationship. By ages 75 and over, 14 percent of women with a college degree live in households with no vehicle compared with 30 percent of those with high school or less. Among older men, 3 percent with a college degree live in households with no vehicle compared with only 8 percent of those with a high school degree.

GUESSING DON'T CUT IT. THIS INFORMATION IS OUT THERE, AND IT IS READILY AVAILABLE ON THE NET. IF THERE IS ANYTHING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOES WELL (AND THIS MAY BE THE ONLY THING) IT'S TO FUND STUDIES.

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

AND IT
fS STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID

Examining Trip-Chaining Behavior A Comparison of Travel by Men and Women Nancy McGuckin Travel Behavior Analyst Washington, DC Tel: (202) 366-8750 Fax: (202) 366-7742 E-Mail: Nancy.McGuckin@fhwa.dot.gov and Elaine Murakami Community Planner FHWA, HPM-40 Washington, DC 20590 Tel: (202) 366-6971 Fax: (202) 366-7742 E-mail: Elaine.Murakami@fhwa.dot.gov

Conclusions In this paper , we have used the NPTS to examine the kinds of trip chains made by adult men and women, traveling on weekdays. We have looked at the number and type of stops for four types of tours: home to work, work to home, work to work, and home to home. Most of the analysis of the purpose of the stops and examining the time spent at destinations focused on stops made between home and work or work and home. The greatest difference in the number, purpose, and time spent at activities related to the type of tour. Women consistently made slightly more stops, but men and women stopped for the same purposes, and men showed slightly longer times spent at the activities. Although the total amount of travel has changed over time, women's trips to support the household activities have always occurred. However, as women have entered the workforce in greater number, the workday has pushed these trips into the peak travel periods. TODAY, WOMEN WITH CHILDREN HAVE LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO TRAVEL IN PRIVATE VEHICLES. Their need to combine work with household and family responsibilities makes it likely that they will make one or more stops on the way between work and home.

Now Eugene, I can keep these coming for weeks. The FACTS don't change very much. Demographics trends are against transit. Social trends are against transit. It has a meager market share. It's rapidly losing that. This is the trend both in the USA, and in other countries. Even people WHO LIVE IN NO-CAR HOUSEHOLDS MAKE MORE TRIPS BY CAR THAN THEY DO BY TRANSIT. And there are fewer and fewer people in no-car households. Transit costs are huge. They get worse daily. Transit, on average, is slower than auto commuting. Even in congestion. Light rail is even LESS cost effective than regular transit. We aren't going to beat congestion through the use of transit. Now if you have FACTS that conflict with this, let's see them, and their source.

What this world needs is more civil engineers and fewer social engineers, IMHO.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

well, with an accredited masters degree in urban and regional planning from the only college with an accredited program in the state, I can tell you that there is no silver bullet. However, if you're comparing demand strategies to supply strategies, demand is clearly better. adding more lanes is only a short term fix. transit in conjunction with a number of other strategies like carpooling, telecommuting, light, and commuter rail and road pricing are by far the best methods to reducing traffic. but, they have to be done together. One mode of commuting ie. the bus, will never solve our problems.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Tpm-

Explain how light rail, at $100 million per mile capital cost, is a superior mode of travel to the bus. Not any faster. Operating costs PROJECTED to be 2 cents a passenger mile (about 4%) cheaper. Capital costs enormously higher. Which of these demographic trends that are detrimental to bus transit use are pro light rail use. If you read the above references, car pooling and walking are losing market share at an even faster rate than transit. Telecommuting clearly decreases commuting, but most travel is not for the purpose of commuting, even during commuting hours. Telecommuting from Casper Wyoming obviously would work. It wouldn't help much if you lived in the UGA. You would avoid the commuting trips, getting you down to only three trips/day per person. Since the transit share of these three trips is 1.8% (actually, less than that. Transit share of non-commuting trtips is even LOWER than it's share of all trips) you still add over a thousand trips per year per working age person. READ THE LITERATURE. IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID! (Not saying that you're stupid,Tom, just paraphrasing the Ragin' Cajun)

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

craig, don't have time to get into it right now, going out of town. All I was trying to say is that no one transit option is the cure to congestion, they all must be used in order to work. I can't tell you the site right now, but if you go to oregon's tri met page and seattles page that discuss their light rail there is some good info. We're talking two similar but different languages, you an engineer?? me a planner. you guys crunch the numbers, we look at the intangibles like polution and getting people to look at different options. clearly a train full of people is better on the environment than an equivilant number of sov's. but we're talking ridership here, and if there's no one on the train that is a different story.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

"me a planner" Oh yeah. You be de guys who thought that high rise public housing was a great idea. We'll be deolishing your billion dollar mistakes for decades. You not a planner, you a wisher. Why don't you listen to people rather than spend their money on what the people DON't want?

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

"me a planner" Oh yeah. You be de guys who thought that high rise public housing was a great idea. We'll be demolishing your billion dollar mistakes for decades. You not a planner, you a wisher. Why don't you listen to people rather than spend their money on what the people DON't want?

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

"but we're talking ridership here, and if there's no one on the train that is a different story. " At thee risk of sounding like "zowie" here, you actually PLAN these things on an "if we build it, they will come," philosophy? You don't do a reality check if there is any market for what you do first? You don't look at the demographics or likes and dislikes of your target consumers?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

"All I was trying to say is that no one transit option is the cure to congestion, they all must be used in order to work. " This is a PLAN? Kind of like, I can't hit anything with a rifle, give me a shotgun. Building EVERYTHING isn't a plan, it's what you do when you don't have a clue. If you can't describe the differences between the modes and why under given circumstances, one would be better than the other, you haven't convinced me that I ought to give you any of MY tax dollars. We can't, as a society, keep affording $4 billion dollar experiments like Sound Transit.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Actually having seen a Proposed Reduction in Service Plan from a Local Transit Agency, may I point out that most cuts in service will be during non peak hours and Sundays. No Transit Agency would cut services that yield the MOST revenue. A yes on I-695 in regards to Transit means that most Transit Agencies will begin to operate more efficiently. You will notice very little in the way of "traffic congestion", during commute hours. You will also notice fewer- near empty Busses.

I have yet to see a valid reason for voting no on I-695. If any Local Government or Agency needs more money, they can ask! Maybe we say yes, maybe no. I really hope it passes, I don't want to look dumber than a Minnesota voter.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

"No Transit Agency would cut services that yield the MOST revenue. " Marsha- For many transit agencies it just wouldn't matter. In this state they get FAR LESS of their operating expenses from farebox revenue than in most states. The big agencies are 80% subsidized by taxes. The smaller agencies are even more subsidized (Bellingham is about 94% subsidized). In Okanogan county someone indicated that the amount of the fares only equalled the marginal cost of collecting fares at all. These are not agencies that have ever been driven by user fees. They'd much rather swill at the public trough.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

Box 7-3. Trip Chaining A person-trip in the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) is defined as "one-way travel from one place (address) to another by means of transportation." This is a valid method of measurement for simple trips from one place to another, but does not fully capture the complexity of journeys involving multiple stops know as trip chains. People often combine trips into more complicated journeys by, for instance, stopping at the supermarket on the way home from the fitness club or dropping off children at school on the way to work. It has been estimated that 46 per-cent of all person-trips in 1990 were made in these trip chains, with 16 percent involving work as an origin or destination and 30 percent not involving work. (Strathman and Dueker 1995) Research (Strathman and Dueker 1995; Stratham et al 1994) based on NPTS data shows: o Women are more likely to trip chain than men, especially with work-related travel. On work commutes, 31 percent of men
fs and 42 percent of women
fs trips involved another destination. o Higher income households combine work and nonwork trips more often than do lower income households. o Trip chains, both work and nonwork related, are more likely to occur during rush hours than unchained trips. o Trip chains are more likely to be taken by automobile than simple trips. It is unclear whether automobile use encourages trip chaining or if the desire to trip chain encourages automobile use. Trip chaining behavior, however, appears to put other modes of transportation, like transit, at a disadvantage. o Suburban residents are somewhat more likely to trip chain to or from work than are central-city residents or non-metropolitan residents. o Single persons and two-adult households in which both work are more likely to chain trips. The increase in such households is one reason for the growth in trip chaining. o Because only the last leg of a trip chain to or from work is coded as a work trip in the NPTS, the distance between home and work is underestimated. If trip chaining is taken into account, it is estimated that the mean distance to work is 11.05 miles not 10.46 miles, a 5.6 percent difference. Likewise the time of a work trip is estimated to be 20.4 minutes not 19.3 minutes, a 5.3 percent difference. Trip chaining suggests that the journey to work is a more important organizational element in people
fs daily travel than a simple proportion of total trips. Chaining also provides a plausible explanation for the rise in nonwork trips, often thought of as discretionary travel, scheduled during peak travel times. If trip chains involving work are added to simple work trips, then 30 percent of all person-trips are structured around the work schedule compared with only 22 per-cent when trip chains are ignored. Further, information is needed to determine the impact of trip chaining on the amount of travel done at peak times and its effect on congestion. It is possible, however, that because trip chaining with work travel encourages nonwork travel during peak hours, rescheduling work travel at nonpeak times would have a greater effect on congestion than simply decreasing work trips. Moreover, because trip chaining most often involves automobiles, getting people to shift to carpools or transit from single-occupant vehicles might reduce nonwork travel during the rush hour, which could have a larger impact on congestion than implied by the reduction in work trips alone. It is also likely, however, that it might be harder to induce people to reschedule work trips or switch to other modes if the work trip is coordinated with other trips, such as dropping off children at school. REFERENCES J.G. Strathman and K.J. Dueker. 1995. Understanding Trip Chaining. Special Report on Trip and Vehicle Attributes,1990 NPTS Report Series. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

And IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUP

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

The demographics indicate that more people are choosing driving as their preferred commuting method - I agree. However, "Demographics" is only a tool used in the transportation planning decision-making process. If we blindly followed demographics, we would end up building roadways until the entire state was nothing but concrete and asphalt.

Luckily, "demographics" is not the only consideration in transportation or urban planning. Land availability, growth management, new technology and probably several other issues come into play, including public opinion.

Citing demographics is fine. But it needs to be looked at in the proper perspective. My opinion, relative to the transportation problems in the Puget Sound area, is that we need to look at ways to encourage people to use commuting alternatives (public transportation - rail & buses, work-at-home, car pooling) over driving alone.

(I apologize for digressing from the I-695 issue.)

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 18, 1999.

"My opinion, relative to the transportation problems in the Puget Sound area, is that we need to look at ways to encourage people to use commuting alternatives (public transportation - rail & buses, work-at-home, car pooling) over driving alone" Given the DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS currently driving the numbers in precisely the opposite direction, how do you expect to do this? Prohibit women from working? Deny poor people the automobiles they want (other groups are approaching saturation, at one auto per licensed driver)?

IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.com), October 18, 1999.

"My opinion, relative to the transportation problems in the Puget Sound area, is that we need to look at ways to encourage people to use commuting alternatives (public transportation - rail & buses, work-at-home, car pooling) over driving alone. "

This is one recommendation to come out of a DOT sponsored seminar. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, how much are you willing to spend, and where's the money going to come from? If you disagree, why do you disagree? You will note that the suggestions aim to make the bus more automobile-like, with obvious trade-offas of weight, passenger capacity, and fuel efficiency. From our research we have learned that the expectations of our riders, in terms of the quality of our service and the condition of our equipment and facilities, are changing every year. This means that the transit industry has to continuously ask what riders want. To understand the changes in their expectations and how we can meet them, NJTC has established an aggressive program to regularly survey the opinions of both our riders and the general public about our service. This year, for the first time in seven years, we found that comfort of equipment is one of the top five expectations of non-riders in New Jersey. NJTC is getting our customers and our line personnel more involved in the vehicle design process. For our last bus procurement we used customer focus groups to help us design our new bus. First we had the riders go through our old buses with a clipboard and write down all the things they thought needed to be changed. Then we gave them a blank piece of paper and literally asked them to redesign the bus. We found that a cookie cutter will not work, that different riders have different expectations.  We found that the basic needs of our urban transit riders, who described their bus riding experience as "shake, rattle and roll," were for safety/security and space. Safety and security deal with lighting, stair configuration, hand-hold location and design, floor surfaces, safety striping on entrances/exits, and frequent and easily understood location information and announcements. Space issues deal with freedom of movement in aisles, room for children, and packages. These riders also had desires: for cushioned/fabric seats, seats with headrests, larger windows, improved heating/air conditioning, and litter receptacles. Overall the urban transit bus riders were concerned with basic transportation, but were looking to step-up to the qualities usually found in suburban commuter buses.  Our suburban bus patrons, who spend much more time on the bus, need privacy and control. Privacy relates to having as much personal space and amenities as possible to form a cocoon for travel, much like their private auto provides. Control issues were concerned with personal lighting, reclining seats, leg room, and timely information on arrivals, delays, and problems. The desires of these riders included wider seats, wider aisles, greater storage areas, improved individual climate control, foot and arm rests, and seat belts. Our suburban riders view our existing equipment as minimal and want us to provide them with aircraft-like designs.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/planning/bussum/chap4.htm#chap4

I

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

"My opinion, relative to the transportation problems in the Puget Sound area, is that we need to look at ways to encourage people to use commuting alternatives (public transportation - rail & buses, work-at-home, car pooling) over driving alone. "

This is one recommendation to come out of a DOT sponsored seminar. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, how much are you willing to spend, and where's the money going to come from? If you disagree, why do you disagree? You will note that the suggestions aim to make the bus more automobile-like, with obvious trade-offas of weight, passenger capacity, and fuel efficiency. From our research we have learned that the expectations of our riders, in terms of the quality of our service and the condition of our equipment and facilities, are changing every year. This means that the transit industry has to continuously ask what riders want. To understand the changes in their expectations and how we can meet them, NJTC has established an aggressive program to regularly survey the opinions of both our riders and the general public about our service. This year, for the first time in seven years, we found that comfort of equipment is one of the top five expectations of non-riders in New Jersey. NJTC is getting our customers and our line personnel more involved in the vehicle design process. For our last bus procurement we used customer focus groups to help us design our new bus. First we had the riders go through our old buses with a clipboard and write down all the things they thought needed to be changed. Then we gave them a blank piece of paper and literally asked them to redesign the bus. We found that a cookie cutter will not work, that different riders have different expectations.  We found that the basic needs of our urban transit riders, who described their bus riding experience as "shake, rattle and roll," were for safety/security and space. Safety and security deal with lighting, stair configuration, hand-hold location and design, floor surfaces, safety striping on entrances/exits, and frequent and easily understood location information and announcements. Space issues deal with freedom of movement in aisles, room for children, and packages. These riders also had desires: for cushioned/fabric seats, seats with headrests, larger windows, improved heating/air conditioning, and litter receptacles. Overall the urban transit bus riders were concerned with basic transportation, but were looking to step-up to the qualities usually found in suburban commuter buses.  Our suburban bus patrons, who spend much more time on the bus, need privacy and control. Privacy relates to having as much personal space and amenities as possible to form a cocoon for travel, much like their private auto provides. Control issues were concerned with personal lighting, reclining seats, leg room, and timely information on arrivals, delays, and problems. The desires of these riders included wider seats, wider aisles, greater storage areas, improved individual climate control, foot and arm rests, and seat belts. Our suburban riders view our existing equipment as minimal and want us to provide them with aircraft-like designs.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/planning/bussum/chap4.htm#chap4

IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Sorry about the double post. Used to hitting the return at the end of a sentence, unfortunately that triggers the post, prematurely in this case.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Oh my goodness! The manufacturers don't think they can make money, even at up to $435K per bus. Especially not if they can't be protected from foreign competitors. Well Gene and Billy, do we give them protection (which will cost money by denying competition) or do we say that they have to make a product that can compete (which will drive unit costs up as they lose economies of scale?

Significant Competition

I doubt there is any vehicle market in the world as fiercely competed for based on size alone as the U.S. transit bus market. There is also no vehicle market that has left as many competitors mortally wounded since the teething days of the automobile industry in the early 1900's.

In the mid-1970's, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) actively encouraged foreign competition to enter the U.S. markets citing undercapacity of the U.S.- based manufacturers to meet the perceived future market needs. Since then, the heavy-duty transit bus industry manufacturing capacity has ranged from 6,000 to 8,000 units per year for a market that averaged 2,000 to 3,000 units and hit a high of 4,000 units and a low of 1,500 units in the past 15 years. Major corporations have since exited the marketplace for one simple reason: they lost significant sums of money.

M.A.N. ( MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NUERNBURG), Volvo, Scania, and Stewart and Stevenson have exited the industry. Others, such as General Motors, Rohr, Grumman, Dial, Bus Industries of America, Motor Coach Industries Incorporated, Crown Ikarus, and Ikarus U.S.A. have sold their businesses. In some cases, the same business has changed ownership several times.

New owners always feel they are smarter and more efficient than previous owners. Therefore, they reduce prices to obtain market share thinking they can still make a profit. Until recently, the magnitude of the losses incurred by many of these manufacturers was not public knowledge; however, due to the public nature of some of the recent changes and the availability of financial records, it has become evident that several of these companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in very short periods (less than 5 years).

I believe these publicized losses will have a sobering effect on any company considering entry to this marketplace. If we can limit this market to private businesses unsubsidized by foreign governments and in search of a legitimate profit, then the lessons learned from the significant losses mentioned above should result in an industry using cost-based pricing which will help to stabilize the industry in terms of company turnover and individual company financial strength.

IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

OOPS! Now the only way they can hack it is if they are exempted from the EPA requirements, or at least if the EPA is required to show a cost benefit analysis of their new pollution requirements. Course if we allow that for the transit industry, we'll have to allow it for the REST of Detroit, too. Well Billy and Gene, do we give the Transit industry a bye on the EPA regs? If the auto industry continues on it's current track and the transit industry continues on its current track, cars will be LESS polluting than the equivalent transit before too long. And that is before we build the bigger, wider, more amenities, transit vehicles that the transit rider wants.

IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

Government Mandates

One of the most destabilizing effects that occurred in the early 1990's was the push by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to advance clean air regulations by pushing unproven technologies, which were not ready for the marketplace. The standards to which transit buses alone were held were not achievable without significant cost increases in both equipment and maintenance. The predictions of these significant increases by the industry were ignored in favor of predictions by a few overly optimistic suppliers that the impact would be minimal. The result was the well-documented financially and technically disastrous particulate trap and methanol engine projects and a resistance by transit authorities to buying unproven technology creating a significant drop in bus orders in 1991 and 1992. The manufacturers, suppliers, and the industry suffered significant losses in real dollars and vehicle down time while struggling with this untested and unproven equipment for which there was no alternative unless the transit manufacturing industry would virtually have stopped.

The fallacy of making an industry as small as the city transit bus the target for the first implementation of the new clean air standards was beyond comprehension if one understands this small market depends upon trucking industry suppliers for the majority of the drive train componentry. The economics of volume manufacturing do not exist in the bus industry and, therefore, the demand does not justify the development of the radically new components which were required to meet the specifications in the regulations.

A procedure should be put in place that not only allows the bus manufacturers to express their concerns to regulating bodies such as the EPA but also provides for independent oversight of the decision- making process. Agencies should be required to prove the viability of their economic impact statements and the availability of the required technology through independent testing and analysis. If the EPA would have been required to prove particulate trap technology was ready for transit revenue service, tests would have shown the hardware was not reliable, and millions of dollars would have been saved.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/19/suv.survey/index.html

"The minivan hit a demographic wave just beautifully," auto analyst John McElroy said, referring to baby boomers raising families. "They wanted to put bikes and skis and the family dog in it."

It's still the demographics, stupid!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

It's still the demographics, stupid!

Tax-supported transit lobbyists(1) supply Congress and state houses with visions of magic carpets that whisk commuters around gleaming cities.

The alleged virtues of public transit are by now famil- iar. For weary motorists, public transit systems promise less automobile-generated traffic congestion; for environ- mentalists, less air pollution; for city planners, a first step toward urban revitalization; for the poor, inexpensive access to efficient transportation; for conservationists, less wasteful use of energy; and for the business community, a way to lure suburbanites back to central business dis- tricts.

Regrettably, more than two decades of experience with publicly supported bus and rail systems have exposed each of those dreams as a costly illusion. Public transit systems have failed to deliver any of the promised benefits. * Transit subsidies are not increasing ridership. Transit ridership is lower today than it was 30 years ago--before the billion-dollar subsidies began. Peo- ple, including transit executives(2) and elected offi- cials, tend to ride public transit only when they have no other reasonable choice.

* Transit subsidies have not reduced road congestion. The shiny new multi-billion-dollar rail systems have not diverted meaningful numbers of drivers from their cars; most new patronage has been of less expensive, more flexible bus lines and energy-efficient car and van pools.(3)

* Transit subsidies do not reduce air pollution. Be- cause public transit has not increased ridership, tran- sit has had no discernible impact on air quality in cities. Mass transit patronage is so low that even doubling it would have a negligible effect on air qual- ity.

* Public transit is not energy efficient. The average public transit vehicle in the United States operates with more than 80 percent of its seats empty.(4) Because of the low average number of passengers per bus, energy consumption per passenger mile for public transit buses now is greater than that for private automobiles and far exceeds that for car and van pools.(5)

* Transit subsidies have not helped revitalize cities. Cities, such as Buffalo, with new multi-billion-dollar rail systems have not reduced flight from their central business districts. Even with ever-greater subsidies for public transit, the exodus of businesses and resi- dents from downtown areas is accelerating.(6)

* Urban transit does not benefit the poor. Ridership studies show that the poor are not heavy users of fed- erally subsidized transit systems. Transit provides only 7 percent of trips made by low-income people.(7)

The cold, hard lesson of the last 25 years is that instead of promoting increased efficiency in bus and rail service, higher taxpayer subsidies have paid higher-than- inflationary transit costs. Subsidies have financed exces- sive compensation for transit employees, declines in transit productivity, and swollen bureaucracies--not increased ser- vices. If public transit costs had risen only at the same rate as private bus industry costs, service levels now could be more than double the 1989 level.(8)

Worst of all, taxpayer subsidies, particularly federal grants, have actually impeded the development of efficient and cost-effective urban transit programs in

Notes

(1) Most larger public transit agencies pay for full-time lobbyists in Washington as well as in the state capital, and transit management also spends time lobbying. Most large transit agencies have fully developed public affairs depart ments. In addition, the American Public Transit Association, which is financially supported by most of the nation's transit agencies, is involved in lobbying activity. Federal law pro hibits lobbying with federal moneys, so transit agencies use state and local moneys and fares to finance lobbyists.

(2) Like private-sector businesses, many public transit agencies provide free parking for their employees. And large transit agencies keep large fleets of cars for non emergency and nonsupervisory use by staff. Transit boards and executives also use single-occupancy vehicles. Accord ing to the New York Daily News (June 2, 1991), New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members spent $200,000 in the past 12 months for chauffeured limou- sines to travel to and from the MTA Madison Avenue offices. The newspaper quoted the MTA first vice chairman, who gener ated $22,000 in overtime in the previous 16 months for his personal driver: "public transportation can be slower and more inconvenient than a car." It should be noted that New York City is the nation's most densely populated large city and has by far the nation's most extensive transit system.

(3) Alan E. Pisarski, Commuting in America: A National Re port on Commuting Patterns and Trends (Westport, Conn.: Eno Foundation for Transportation, 1987).

(4) National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics: Section 15 Annual Report (Washington: U.S. Department of Transporta tion, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1987).

(5) Calculated from National Urban Mass Transportation Sta tistics: Section 15 Annual Report (Washington: U.S. Depart ment of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Adminis tration, 1986); and National Transportation Statistics, (Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Transporta tion Systems Center, 1988).

(6) For an analysis of America's changing cities, see Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Doubleday, 1991).

(7) Dieter Klinger and J. Richard Kuzmyak, Personal Travel in the U.S., vol. 1, 1983-1984: Nationwide Personal Trans- portation Study (Washington: U.S. Department of Transporta tion, Federal Highway Administration, 1986).

(8) Data from National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics: Section 15 Annual Report, various years; and Transit Operat ing and Financial Statistics (Washington: American Public Transit Association, various years).

(9) Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. A prior act, the Housing Act of 1961, authorized $75 million in aid to urban transit over three years.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

d- you keep indicating that a vote for 695 is not a vote for programmatic cuts. I agree, and have been making my case for decreasing subsidies on transit and ferries. Apparently there are others that share my priorities.

Most budget leaders say replenishing some of the state money that pays for criminal justice will be first in line. Transportation - particularly transit - is likely to be at the end of the line. Some lawmakers - much like Locke - say they'd rather let the hole in the state transportation budget go unfilled rather than cut into other state programs. And the current makeup of the Legislature doesn't bode well for transit agencies. Ballard and other Republicans have long complained about such heavy subsidies for transit districts and noted that most have sizable reserves. "They won't be first on my list," Ballard said. http://www.tribnet.com/news/local/1024a13.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

FROM: The day the pollution gremlins came to town. (From the Pierce Transit Website, these guys obviously have too much time and money on their hands:

The Day The Air Pollution Gremlins Came To Town

Purpose: To focus on the causes and hazards of air pollution Grade Level: 3rd grade Essential Elements: Environmental Essential Elements Across the Curriculum - 75.25 (2) Acquire data through the senses. The student shall be given opportunities to (B) observe properties and patterns of objects, organisms, and events in the environment, and (E) explore the environment. (3) Classify, order, and sequence data. The student shall be given opportunities to (B) classify matter, forces, energy, organisms, actions, and events from the environment according to similarities and differences. (4) Communicate data and information in appropriate oral and written form. The student shall be given opportunities to (D) describe changes that occur to objects and organisms in the environment. Objective: The students will be able to present a play about air pollution and its causes. Background: There are hundreds of pollutants that float around in the air that we breathe. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established air quality standards for six of these pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. These air quality standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of people, plants, and animals, and to protect buildings, monuments, water resources, etc. Characters: Christina Steven The Gremlins: Smelly Sulfur Dioxide Nasty Nitrogen Oxide Odious Ozone Pesky Particulate Cranky Carbon Monoxide Lumpy Lead (The Gremlins may be cast singularly or as a group of actors.) Setting: Christina and Steven are sitting in a living room with the television, radio, fan, and three or four lights on. They are watching a television show. Dialogue: Christina: This is my favorite show! Steven: Yeah, I just love the Power Rangers. The song that's playing on the radio right now is pretty cool too. It goes along with the action on the t.v. Christina: (She gets up and looks outside the window) Hey, Steven look at that! (Points to the sky) Steven: Wow! I wonder what it is? Let's go outside and get a better look. Steven and Christina go outside. A large cloud comes closer to them. Underneath or behind the cloud are the Air Pollution Gremlins. The cloud stops right in front of Steven and Christina. Immediately, the Gremlins start jumping around and making faces at the audience and Christina and Steven. Steven: Who are you? Smelly Sulfur Dioxide: We are the Air Pollution Gremlins. We've come to take over your town. Christina: Why would you want to do that? Only nice people live here. Pesky Particulate: You may be nice people, but nobody seems to care about the air in this town. So, it looks like a good place to live. (sneer) Steven: I notice each of you has a different name. Why is that? Aren't you guys all the same? Cranky Carbon Monoxide: We have different names because we come from different sources and cause different problems. David & Christina: Oh No!! Cranky Carbon Monoxide: I'm Cranky Carbon Monoxide. I mostly come from car exhaust. I like to make people dizzy and give them headaches. (twists hands menacingly) Smelly Sulfur Dioxide: I'm Smelly Sulfur Dioxide. I come from smokestacks of power plants and industries. I can hurt your eyes, noses, and lungs. I can even eat away iron and steel. I like to make the air look hazy. (lunges at audience) Nasty Nitrogen Dioxide: I'm Nasty Nirtrogen Dioxide. I have a yellow- brown color and I come from cars, electric power plants, and other large industries. I can make the air brown and hazy. I like to hurt lungs, plants, and metals. (makes an evil laugh) Lumpy Lead: I'm Lumpy Lead. I can contaminate the air, food, and water. Also, I am found in some old paints. I'm very harmful to children and fish. (does a little dance) Odious Ozone: I'm Odious Ozone. I'm invisible by myself, but when I get together with my friends, I can help form smog. I can make it hard to breathe. (lunges at audience) Pesky Particulate: I'm Pesky Particulate. I live in the air and like to travel on the wind. I make things dirty and I can carry harmful chemicals into your lungs as well. (makes a very loud and evil laugh) Christina: All of you sound so terrible! We don't want you to live here. Odious Ozone: You make it easy for us by wasting electricity and asking your parents to drive you everywhere you want to go!

http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/edweb99/teachres/index.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

You're right, Craig. If they have the time and money to put t THAT website together, they are seriously over-staffed and over-funded.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

To Craig: We're still waiting for you recommendations on how to mitigate congestion in a timely, cost-effective manner.

Also, in many of the studies you reference, you refer to the "mean" (i.e., the mean time for a trip to work). Since very few real-life data follow the normal distribution, it would be a lot more effective to provide the top and bottom quartile values, along with the median.

My personal experience is that my commute times follow a log-normal distribution. That is, the median (not the "mean") time is x minutes, but it is rarely less than x minutes. However, there are many occasions when it is 1.25 x minutes. And, every now and then, it is 1.5 x minutes.

The figures you cite fly in the face of most people's experience who actually commute during rush hour in the Puget Sound Region. Have you ever regularly commuted more than 15 miles during rush hour?

We're still waiting to hear how you would mitigate congestion in a timely and cost-effective manner.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 26, 1999.

"We're still waiting for you recommendations on how to mitigate congestion in a timely, cost-effective manner." There is no TIMELY way. I would start to admit that this is a democracy and we ought to give people what they want. For starts, I'd increase capital investment in roads to AT LEAST ten times capital investment in transit. Since the proportion of person miles carried by roads is twenty times the proportion carried by transit, this seems equitable. And that is the only way that you'll sell phase two which is to introduce tolls with congestion pricing on all NEW roadways, but dedicate the tolls to future roadway construction and maintenance. I'm sorry for you transit advocates, but you'll never convince the vast majority of people who do not use transit to pay the money that will allow us to build our way out of this problem, or accept the tolls that will be required to control commute time peak demand, if their perception is that the money is just going to subsidize more transit. Then you get rid of prevailing wage and other inhibitions to getting quality work at a better price and start building. It is also possible to build cheaper roads if you have dedicated auto roads. See this reference: http://www.rppi.org/ps250.html

"Also, in many of the studies you reference, you refer to the "mean" (i.e., the mean time for a trip to work). Since very few real-life data follow the normal distribution, it would be a lot more effective to provide the top and bottom quartile values, along with the median." Matt- I didn't do these studies. I'm reporting on studies done, generally under grant from WSDOT or USDOT. But the next time I talk to a researcher from either of these areas, I'll relay your concerns.

My personal experience is that my commute times follow a log-normal distribution. That is, the median (not the "mean") time is x minutes, but it is rarely less than x minutes. However, there are many occasions when it is 1.25 x minutes. And, every now and then, it is 1.5 x minutes. I'd tend to agree with this, actually. However for purposes of assessing congestion times, fuel consumption, air pollution, etc., the mean is a superior measurement to the median. Probably why they do it that way. For purposes of measuring aggravation, the median is probably they more appropriate measure.

"The figures you cite fly in the face of most people's experience who actually commute during rush hour in the Puget Sound Region." The figures I cite are the figures the researchers got with the sampling measures used, paid for with your tax dollars. I didn't do the studies myself, and I have given the references. Most of these guys are still at their various universities. Their numbers are in the book. If you think they're liars, call them up and tell them that. Their figures are consistent with worldwide trends, so if they're deceiving us, it's part of a worldwide conspiracy!

"Have you ever regularly commuted more than 15 miles during rush hour?" My personal record was 23 miles each way for 3 and one-half years.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

To Craig: You are wrong. There is a timely method for mitigating congestion. It's called ridesharing. Albeit, the cost may be too excessive, for your tastes. You are wrong again when you say the voters won't pay for transit over roads. Sound Transit proves you wrong again.

The anecdotal evidence shows the popularity of transit when the route travels a long distance with no stops. Pierce Transit has consistently added addtional buses to Seattle, and the buses are heavily used. In fact, Pierce Transit has a 4:45 AM bus leaving the Tacoma Dome Park'N'Ride to Seattle, and the bus is full! Therefore, your claims that mass transit is losing market share is misleading.

Much in the same way it is misleading to offer someone a statistical mean without also providing the accompanying standard deviation. Imagine if there were a pool of commuters. Half travelled 5 miles or less, the other half travelled 15 miles or more. The mean might end up being around 19.2 minutes, but I wouldn't be surprised if the standard deviation were equally as large. For real-life data, when the standard deviation is large compared to the mean, then one can conclude that the mean tells you very little, indeed.

The reality is that the high paying jobs are a long distance from the affordable homes. Ridesharing is the only timely way of addressing the accompanying congestion. I can appreciate your objection to the expense, but the alternative is to do nothing.

As for toll roads, I have no objection, as long as I am not forced to use the road. Perhaps you can provide a few examples of where you would build the roads and how the state would obtain financing. My only recommendation for financing would be increasing the gas tax (with approval from the affected voters). So, perhaps we're in agreement more than you think. Although I cannot think of where we can build roads without creating more congestion somewhere else.

My only solution for building new roads is to have stackable highways. In other words, society would use no new land to expand the highway system. The existing highway would be for large trucks and buses. The next level would be for 6 and 8 cylinder passenger vehicles. The next level for 4 cylinder cars. Another level for motorcycles. And, finally, a covered top level for bicycles. You could also add a variety of government buildings (i.e., prisons, courthouses, etc.) to the top, as well. I'm not sure a vertical approach is technically or financially feasible.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 26, 1999.

"I'm sorry for you transit advocates, but you'll never convince the vast majority of people who do not use transit to pay the money that will allow us to build our way out of this problem,"

Once again craig, your majority despot logic shineth through.

Just look at Los Angeles. The "vast majority" there have always insisted on "adding extra lanes" instead of increased public transit, and look how far that's got 'em.

-- (colt45@yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.

"The anecdotal evidence shows the popularity of transit when the route travels a long distance with no stops. Pierce Transit has consistently added addtional buses to Seattle, and the buses are heavily used. In fact, Pierce Transit has a 4:45 AM bus leaving the Tacoma Dome Park'N'Ride to Seattle, and the bus is full! Therefore, your claims that mass transit is losing market share is misleading. " My claims that transit is losing market share are FACT, backed up by good research and documentation. Your anecdotes are just that, anecdotes.

You have a basic misunderstanding of demographic realities. Yes, transit can be effective in its niche. If you happen to have a large enough group of people starting in the same place, going to the same place, it's potentially VERY effective and well received. How often does this happen in the real world? Well, that's related to population density, whether you have a few large employers in the area, or a lot of small employers, what shifts they have, etc. Your continuing harping on EXPRESS service only points to one of the downfalls of transit. Frequent stopping slows transit speeds. That's why light rail only goes 13-14 mph. But if you are going to collect people from a wide area, you need to make frequent stops. If you are going to distribute them over a wide area, you need frequent stops. You are correct in your assessment that going a most of the travel distance non-stop helps make transit more efficient, but that becomes harder and harder as the vehicle gets larger since, demographically, it's difficult to find a sizeable group that is both co-located at the start point and at the destination. conversely, it's easier to do that with a smaller bus, easier still with a van, easiest with (you guessed it) a car. Which is one of the things driving the FACT of declining transit market share. But please review the massive posting I did to explain this to Billy, I don't want to burden the disinterested with reading this again. Just look everywhere you see the IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID! posting. And it IS the demographics. You may not like that and Billy may not like that, but don't get upset with me. I am telling you what reality is. If you want to pretend the reality is something different, that's your privilege. Don't be surprised when the plans you make based upon that false reality don't work out. That's why transit continues to lose market share, despite enormous investment over the last 15 years. And that's why this is a worldwide trend, not just in the Puget Sound region or in the USA.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

"Once again craig, your majority despot logic shineth through. "

Do you object to majority rule? What would you prefer? Benign dictatorship? Minority rule? Divine right of Kings? If you don't care for popular democracy, what's your alternative?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

Boy oh Boy, craig.

If only you believed in majority rule during Clinton's impeachment. I guess cameleons have a way of changing to suit their bias.

I do believe in majority rule. However, there are some cases, (i.e. Los Angeles transportation, Clinton scandal, O.J. jury), where the majority was obviously flawed.

No, I dont believe that this is reason enough to throw the baby out with the bath-water. In fact, the founding fathers believed the same thing...thus: a representative republic (based on earlier thoughts on TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION).

Sorry for the civics 101, but my point is that our system is rarely run by a "popular democracy" (your words)....and thank God for that!

-- (colt45@yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.

oh, and craig... still waiting on those exhaultations about the wonderous L.A. traffic solutions.

-- (colt45@yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.

Deranged William, If you are going to make a strawman argument, at least get the right strawman. LA happens to be the type of high density low road mileage per capita model that SmartGrowth is trying to emulate.

"In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided. By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment patters we desire to replicate." -Metro Occasional Paper Series: No. 3. "Metro Measured", May, 1994, page 7 In point of fact, LA has SUBSTANTIAL transit, including substantial Heavy Rail transit: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9036/ $File/P9036.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9041/ $File/P9041.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9042/ $File/P9042.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9043/ $File/P9043.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9043/ $File/P9044.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9147/ $File/P9023.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9147/ $File/P9024.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9119/ $File/P9119.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9147/ $File/P9147.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9147/ $File/P9154.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/9147/ $File/P9157.PDF

Actually, LA is a poster child for the PRO-transit crowd, not for the auto crowd.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

Craig:

And 695 is still not about programs and priorities, and this is still the wrong place and wrong time to debated where program cuts should be made - in my opinion. You need to look for some other interests in life, besides transit.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 26, 1999.