This is my submission to PennDOT's 12-year long-range plan.
* * *
My comments more concern policy than any particular project. Since the stated purpose of the transportation program is "to produce and maintain a more efficient and effective transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods," (1) looking forward 12 years, long-range policy will be my focus. Large policy changes require many years to bring about, but have to start somewhere. I hope, right here.
For three generations, at least, we have built roads: more roads, big roads, wider roads. Always, we expected that more, bigger, wider roads will bring about that efficient, effective transportation system we care so much about. Always, we expected that fuel will be plentiful and inexpensive. Pennsylvania, birthplace of the petroleum industry. And ribbon cuttings are fun! Are you with me so far?
That's changing.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the part of our federal Department of Energy which functions as our watchdog for energy supply. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is a consortium of 28 countries' watchdog agencies on energy supplies. Each produces an annual report predicting future petroleum supply. Also, for well over 10 years, various conservationists and other tree-huggers have warned of the possibility of "peak oil" (2), the idea that our ability (every country, collectively) to produce oil would reach a peak. Many, including both the EIA and IEA, ignored or debunked these concerns. That has changed. In 2010, both the EIA (3) and IEA (4) said not only that peak oil is a possibility, but that it has already happened.
We may not be running out of oil anytime soon, but we cannot pull it out of the ground any faster.
However, developing countries like China, India and Singapore are adding huge numbers of cars to the world fleet, 10 to 20 million a year (5). Understanding what will happen as a result does not require a college degree: Flat to declining supply, increasing demand. Over the long term -- say, the 10 to 12+ years of this PennDOT plan -- fuel prices will rise. Sure, you can drill as many wells you care to in the Arctic, the Gulf of Mexico, tar sands, etc., but that only stabilizes supply, and only for a few years. We have no control at all over world petroleum demand.
Fuel prices tripled from 30 cents a gallon in 1970 to $1 in 1980, and tripled again between 2001 ($1.30) and today's close to $4. If fuel realistically can approach $12/gallon in today's dollars, unquestionably people are going to drive less. Suburban expansion will cease. Freight shipment via interurban trucking will become less cost-effective. We will no longer require continued expansion of interurban and intra-suburban roads, as we've done for the last 65 years.
The game is changing. Do not deny this.
Policy changes requested:
(A) Stop building big roads, and stop widening existing highways.
(B) Concentrate instead on fixing the existing infrastructure.
(C) Make it possible to get around using anything but a car.
It is your job to set policy recommendations. The status quo of the last three generations cannot be expected to continue. Long-term changes have to start somewhere, sometime. Here and now would be wise.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Stuart M. Strickland
Footnotes:
(1) ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/STCTAC/STCHearing2013TYP/STCHearingAbstractHome2013.pdf
(2) Udall, Randy. "When Will the Joy Ride End? (1999)" http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/udall/joyride.htm
(3) "EIA: Hard Core Peak Oil Forecast" http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/06/eia_hard_core_p.html
(4) "International Energy Agency says 'peak oil' has hit." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/International-Energy-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted
(5) "China contributes nearly half of global auto increase last year" http://www.chinaautoreview.com/pub/CARArticle.aspx?ID=6507
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
No George Bailey moment for me
In the classic Jimmy Stewart movie It's a Wonderful Life, banker George Bailey, in a fit of depression, decides he's worth more dead than alive and contemplates jumping off a bridge. Though I've fought the gloomies a time or two myself, and know I'm well insured, I have no plans to call it in early and off myself.
This further extends to my propensity to ride a bicycle in traffic on a regular basis. No, that's not a death wish, it's a cantankerous streak. I'm out there to make a point, to inform people about cycling. I want people to see me. I want people to know that some of us do use bicycles to get around. I want to be seen in the less likely places, the suburbs, the shopping malls, busy multi-lane thoroughfares. The more people see me and others like me, the less likely they will see another cyclist as strange and unusual. The more that drivers see another cyclist on the road with them, especially in an odd place or at an odd time of day or weather condition, the more accustomed they will get to dealing with that.
To some extent this is an ambassadorial tendency, a desire to set a good example for cyclists. To a similar extent it is also a badass tendency, a willingness to get out there with an in-your-face-ness, in essence saying too bad that I'm slowing you down four whole seconds on your headlong rush at 15 over the posted speed limit like the majority of drivers do.
Whichever the case, I do it more effectively as a breathing cyclist than as a spot on the pavement. If I do end up as moosh, let's just say it was not what I had planned.
This further extends to my propensity to ride a bicycle in traffic on a regular basis. No, that's not a death wish, it's a cantankerous streak. I'm out there to make a point, to inform people about cycling. I want people to see me. I want people to know that some of us do use bicycles to get around. I want to be seen in the less likely places, the suburbs, the shopping malls, busy multi-lane thoroughfares. The more people see me and others like me, the less likely they will see another cyclist as strange and unusual. The more that drivers see another cyclist on the road with them, especially in an odd place or at an odd time of day or weather condition, the more accustomed they will get to dealing with that.
To some extent this is an ambassadorial tendency, a desire to set a good example for cyclists. To a similar extent it is also a badass tendency, a willingness to get out there with an in-your-face-ness, in essence saying too bad that I'm slowing you down four whole seconds on your headlong rush at 15 over the posted speed limit like the majority of drivers do.
Whichever the case, I do it more effectively as a breathing cyclist than as a spot on the pavement. If I do end up as moosh, let's just say it was not what I had planned.
Friday, June 17, 2011
My comments on the SPC 2040 Plan
The Southwest Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) is the metro Pittsburgh area's official municipal planning organization (MPO). This means that any major transportation project in the nine-county region in this corner of the state has to be cleared through them if it is to receive any federal funding. SPC also is required to develop long-range plans from time to time, and each time they do, they request public input.
Today was the deadline for public input on their draft long-range transportation plan, the 2040 Long Range Transportation and Development Plan for Southwestern Pennsylvania. I did not have time to do a blow-by-blow analysis of all 263 pages of the PDF document. I did have time to express my philosophical approach to what I think the world is going to look like by 2040 and how we should plan for that. To that end, this is what I sent them.
I think it is safe to say that if "peak oil" has not already happened -- and the experts say it HAS already happened -- then it certainly will by 2040. Combined with rapidly rising petroleum demand from China, India and other developing nations, chances are 100% that the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel will rise far beyond what it costs now, in that time, as measured in dollars constant to 2011. The actual pump price will be even higher, sooner, when fuel related costs in turn push up the cost of everything else.
In short, we are soon going to be at "peak car". The future is simple: fewer cars, less driving. If gas goes to $10 or $20 a gallon in 10 years, are we really going to be driving all that much? No, we're not. And yes, gas WILL cost that much by 2040.
With that as backdrop, I believe that any long range transportation plan has to reflect this simple mantra: Stop building roads, just fix what we have, and start making it easier to get around by anything other than an automobile. Bicycles, buses, pedestrians. There will be a lot more of that, and a lot less driving.
* Major new roads: Just stop. Nothing. No more. None.
* Additional lanes to existing roads: Precious few.
* Fix what's broken. The money will come from NOT building major new roads and additional lanes.
* Start thinking about FEWER driving lanes, more room for cyclists. I think the buzz word is "road diets".
* Sidewalks: Yes. Anything that gets built or fixed, needs a sidewalk, or at least a walkable shoulder (free of washouts, poison ivy, 2" deep mud, etc.)
* Pedestrian crossings at intersections: Yes. Lots of these.
Have you ever heard of "The Popsicle Index"? Think of yourself as a parent, allowing your 8-year-old child to walk to the store to buy a popsicle, and return, unassisted. What is your comfort level, as a percentage, that the kid will get there and back, safely? Aside from boogeymen jumping out from behind trees, the biggest fear is being hit by a car. That right there usually brings down The Popsicle Index in an area significantly, and that right there is squarely in the sights of long-range transportation planning. If we as a region cannot let our kids walk around without getting killed, then we as transportation planners are not doing our jobs.
I think I've said enough. Stop building roads! We need bicycle infrastructure, we need public transit infrastructure, we need to stop making it easy for cars to speed, and we need to be able to get around without needing a car in the first place.
OK, your move. Thank you for listening to my spiel.
Sincerely,
Stuart M. Strickland
Today was the deadline for public input on their draft long-range transportation plan, the 2040 Long Range Transportation and Development Plan for Southwestern Pennsylvania. I did not have time to do a blow-by-blow analysis of all 263 pages of the PDF document. I did have time to express my philosophical approach to what I think the world is going to look like by 2040 and how we should plan for that. To that end, this is what I sent them.
*
I think it is safe to say that if "peak oil" has not already happened -- and the experts say it HAS already happened -- then it certainly will by 2040. Combined with rapidly rising petroleum demand from China, India and other developing nations, chances are 100% that the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel will rise far beyond what it costs now, in that time, as measured in dollars constant to 2011. The actual pump price will be even higher, sooner, when fuel related costs in turn push up the cost of everything else.
In short, we are soon going to be at "peak car". The future is simple: fewer cars, less driving. If gas goes to $10 or $20 a gallon in 10 years, are we really going to be driving all that much? No, we're not. And yes, gas WILL cost that much by 2040.
With that as backdrop, I believe that any long range transportation plan has to reflect this simple mantra: Stop building roads, just fix what we have, and start making it easier to get around by anything other than an automobile. Bicycles, buses, pedestrians. There will be a lot more of that, and a lot less driving.
* Major new roads: Just stop. Nothing. No more. None.
* Additional lanes to existing roads: Precious few.
* Fix what's broken. The money will come from NOT building major new roads and additional lanes.
* Start thinking about FEWER driving lanes, more room for cyclists. I think the buzz word is "road diets".
* Sidewalks: Yes. Anything that gets built or fixed, needs a sidewalk, or at least a walkable shoulder (free of washouts, poison ivy, 2" deep mud, etc.)
* Pedestrian crossings at intersections: Yes. Lots of these.
Have you ever heard of "The Popsicle Index"? Think of yourself as a parent, allowing your 8-year-old child to walk to the store to buy a popsicle, and return, unassisted. What is your comfort level, as a percentage, that the kid will get there and back, safely? Aside from boogeymen jumping out from behind trees, the biggest fear is being hit by a car. That right there usually brings down The Popsicle Index in an area significantly, and that right there is squarely in the sights of long-range transportation planning. If we as a region cannot let our kids walk around without getting killed, then we as transportation planners are not doing our jobs.
I think I've said enough. Stop building roads! We need bicycle infrastructure, we need public transit infrastructure, we need to stop making it easy for cars to speed, and we need to be able to get around without needing a car in the first place.
OK, your move. Thank you for listening to my spiel.
Sincerely,
Stuart M. Strickland
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Planning public transit (an old blog post)
Have a look at this post from my old MySpace blog. (Don't worry, it's not MySpace itself; I ported it from there last week. I also updated all the links.) It describes how different the transit experience is for several people who are geographically very close.
http://unicycleintransit.blogspot.com/2011/06/planning-public-transit-sept-25-2007.html
Thanks!
Stu
http://unicycleintransit.blogspot.com/2011/06/planning-public-transit-sept-25-2007.html
Thanks!
Stu
Friday, May 13, 2011
Funding transit: Stu's plan
Prefatory note: This post attempts to serve three purposes. First, PA Governor Tom Corbett has formed a Transportation Funding Advisory Committee whose purpose is to recommend ideas for both transit and highway/bridge funding. Second, a formal committee of Allegheny County (PA) government is soliciting suggestions on fixing the transit funding dilemma at a local level. Third, a group of transit planners and activists in various cities, using Twitter to contact one another, is pooling ideas for transit funding. This is my entry for all three.
In placing before you my ideas and suggestions for transit funding, I need to make clear the beliefs that guide my thinking. Following that, I will point out the likelihood of our having to live with this transit funding plan for an extended time. Next I will describe my tax plan, along with suggestions on how to sell it to elected officials and also the general public. Let us begin.
Belief #1: I believe transit keeps money in the state while automobile use causes it to leave. This should be fairly obvious, as most gasoline used in PA does not originate from PA petroleum, as it once did. Transit dollars are primarily spent locally, through salaries, wages, benefits, parts, supplies, advertising, etc. While buses obviously do also use petroleum, the "passenger-miles-per-gallon" figure for transit buses is still much higher than single-occupant commuter automobiles. Thus, encouraging transit and discouraging car use benefits the state economy directly.
Belief #2: I believe the Energy Information Administration (of our own national government) and the International Energy Association (consortium of 28 nations), each of which concluded that the world has passed the point of "peak oil": that no matter now much may yet be down there, and no matter how many wells we drill or where we drill them, all of humanity cannot extract it any faster than we were able to in November 2006.
Belief #3: I believe $4 gasoline will soon be viewed as cheap. Since many Third World countries like China and India are increasing their populations of automobiles at an amazing pace, we Americans are now competing for that same now-stagnant (and soon to decline) stream of petroleum. Gasoline may seem expensive at $4/gallon, but an inevitable, inexorable price rise is only getting started.
Belief #4: I believe road expansion should cease entirely. If we cannot afford to maintain the road system we have now, we should not be building more.
Belief #5: Regarding the constant political battles over transit, I believe the turmoil deters people from wanting to try using it. I believe the battles must cease entirely if we want transit to succeed.
The problem before us now is to implement a funding formula to sustain public transit systems -- Port Authority of Allegheny County here in metro Pittsburgh -- in a mere 12 months. This might be considered short term in the overall scheme of things, but what we implement will likely be with us for many years, even decades. It's been nearly 50 years since public transit as we know it got a makeover, almost 70 since the last major tax policy change was implemented. In 1945, the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended, in what is now Article VIII Sec. 11(a), restricting motor fuels taxes to paying for highway and bridge maintenance. While this seemed to make sense at the time, it helped kill the privately operated, tax paying, public transit systems of the time, causing them all to go bankrupt over the next 20 years. The resulting government takeover created the single, county owned and operated, transit systems we have today. Whatever we come up with, we need to realize that for the next 10 or 25 or more years, we will have to live with the system we are now putting in place, and it will be in a world that does not use much gasoline, compared to now.
Consider those three thoughts together: declining world petroleum supply, increased world demand for petroleum, and a tax system now based on petroleum usage. The world as we have known it for four generations will be replaced in the next generation. The game is changing, and any proposed solution that does not accept that will not work.
To that end, my primary solution is only partial, not intended to be a complete answer to all our funding problems. Do this, but do other things too that might work. There are four components to this, each of which will require legislation in Harrisburg, if only to enable the counties involved to do it for themselves:
(a) I recommend a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, in addition to the various forms of fuel taxes. Using numbers obtained from PennDOT (http://twitter.com/#!/PennDOTNews/status/64051033332125696), assessing $1 per 1,000 miles traveled would bring in $88 million annually. Since PennDOT already tracks odometer readings and collects money through both the vehicle registration and inspection programs, assessing this should be fairly easy.
(b) Once collected, the funds would be allocated to the counties in proportion to where the vehicles are registered. The public transit agency or agencies in these counties would directly benefit.
(c) Set up transit districts where many counties and agencies share a common transportation need -- such as the counties surrounding metro Pittsburgh -- and apportion the funds within that district based on the number of weekday revenue hours provided by each agency.
(d) I leave it to the politicians to decide on a multiplier other than $1 per 1,000 miles traveled. I recommend $5.
The next problem is selling this idea to legislators, apart from the public as a whole. The reality of the political climate is that Republicans do not want any new taxes. This must be sold to them on the basis of its being an update to an existing tax. Here's why: A growing number of cars are either hybrid or all electric, and as fuel prices rise, this is liable to become more pronounced. Whether a car's motive force is powered by petroleum, electricity, solar panels, hydrogen, or a wood-fired steam boiler, it's still a car, and contributes to traffic congestion, and wear and tear on the roads. More importantly, much of the time, its use competes with public transit. The more that drivers can use transit instead of a car, the better able transit would be to pay for itself. The commuter who uses the car for the "last mile" -- from transit stop to home -- will pay a much smaller VMT than one who commutes the whole way by car.
Fuel taxes will still be needed, as this is how roads and bridges will be maintained. This was the specific intent of the 1945 amendment. If the existing fuel taxes do not provide enough revenue to keep our roads and bridges in good repair, then raise the tax. If this cannot or will not be done, then close some roads and bridges. The simplest, most effective change would be to change the fuel tax from a per-gallon to a per-dollar basis.
The VMT, not being a motor fuels tax, would be constitutional for funding transit, and would provide the most revenue where also exists the most need for transit. It is also self-correcting. Say, for example, 10,000 additional cars were registered in Elk County next year, each driving 10,000 miles annually, then Elk County would have $100K more a year to implement or expand a transit system to alleviate the congestion all those cars would cause, and in so doing, avert or delay spending lots more money to widen roads and bridges to handle such traffic.
The final problem is to sell this to the public. For that, I propose developing an online game -- perhaps a couple -- to help people visualize these ideas along with competing and often ill-conceived, functionless, or even counterproductive suggestions. My inspiration for this is a New York Times online app accompanying a story on how to close the federal budget deficit, both near term (2015) and long term (2030) (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html). The first of two games would be similar to that.
I also suggest another, more complex game, that would appeal to the higher thinkers in our midst. I envision an app that takes a few variables under the player's control -- e.g., fares paid, taxes paid, driver salary/benefits, different types of taxes -- as well as a couple of variables not under player control, such as fuel taxes, and unemployment levels. Bar charts would indicate the number of people stranded without transit service, total taxation, and the amount of money leaving the area in fuel costs. Another could indicate the amount of structural deficit not yet eliminated. A GIS-enabled map of Allegheny County would get lighter and darker according to the areas served or stranded by transit routes and the level of service provided on them.
Under this would have to be a fair amount of programming to display the map and all these variables. However, the greater difficulty would be in quantifying the effect of all these variables into a formula. Perhaps APTA or a transit-friendly think tank already has such a game that could be adapted for Pittsburgh's specific needs. Still, being able to see what happens under various scenarios may prove essential in selling this to the greater community, especially if explanations, definitions, links and other documentation are built into the games at various decision and display points. We cannot and will not convince the willingly close-minded, so don't try. Focus instead on those with open minds.
With all that said, it is only a suggestion, a plan, a hope. I cannot expect to be taken so seriously that my ideas are just dropped into place without challenge. I do hope, though, that my precepts are taken seriously. Some may doubt me, but I think it would be impossible to prove me wrong.
In placing before you my ideas and suggestions for transit funding, I need to make clear the beliefs that guide my thinking. Following that, I will point out the likelihood of our having to live with this transit funding plan for an extended time. Next I will describe my tax plan, along with suggestions on how to sell it to elected officials and also the general public. Let us begin.
Belief #1: I believe transit keeps money in the state while automobile use causes it to leave. This should be fairly obvious, as most gasoline used in PA does not originate from PA petroleum, as it once did. Transit dollars are primarily spent locally, through salaries, wages, benefits, parts, supplies, advertising, etc. While buses obviously do also use petroleum, the "passenger-miles-per-gallon" figure for transit buses is still much higher than single-occupant commuter automobiles. Thus, encouraging transit and discouraging car use benefits the state economy directly.
Belief #2: I believe the Energy Information Administration (of our own national government) and the International Energy Association (consortium of 28 nations), each of which concluded that the world has passed the point of "peak oil": that no matter now much may yet be down there, and no matter how many wells we drill or where we drill them, all of humanity cannot extract it any faster than we were able to in November 2006.
Belief #3: I believe $4 gasoline will soon be viewed as cheap. Since many Third World countries like China and India are increasing their populations of automobiles at an amazing pace, we Americans are now competing for that same now-stagnant (and soon to decline) stream of petroleum. Gasoline may seem expensive at $4/gallon, but an inevitable, inexorable price rise is only getting started.
Belief #4: I believe road expansion should cease entirely. If we cannot afford to maintain the road system we have now, we should not be building more.
Belief #5: Regarding the constant political battles over transit, I believe the turmoil deters people from wanting to try using it. I believe the battles must cease entirely if we want transit to succeed.
The problem before us now is to implement a funding formula to sustain public transit systems -- Port Authority of Allegheny County here in metro Pittsburgh -- in a mere 12 months. This might be considered short term in the overall scheme of things, but what we implement will likely be with us for many years, even decades. It's been nearly 50 years since public transit as we know it got a makeover, almost 70 since the last major tax policy change was implemented. In 1945, the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended, in what is now Article VIII Sec. 11(a), restricting motor fuels taxes to paying for highway and bridge maintenance. While this seemed to make sense at the time, it helped kill the privately operated, tax paying, public transit systems of the time, causing them all to go bankrupt over the next 20 years. The resulting government takeover created the single, county owned and operated, transit systems we have today. Whatever we come up with, we need to realize that for the next 10 or 25 or more years, we will have to live with the system we are now putting in place, and it will be in a world that does not use much gasoline, compared to now.
Consider those three thoughts together: declining world petroleum supply, increased world demand for petroleum, and a tax system now based on petroleum usage. The world as we have known it for four generations will be replaced in the next generation. The game is changing, and any proposed solution that does not accept that will not work.
To that end, my primary solution is only partial, not intended to be a complete answer to all our funding problems. Do this, but do other things too that might work. There are four components to this, each of which will require legislation in Harrisburg, if only to enable the counties involved to do it for themselves:
(a) I recommend a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, in addition to the various forms of fuel taxes. Using numbers obtained from PennDOT (http://twitter.com/#!/PennDOTNews/status/64051033332125696), assessing $1 per 1,000 miles traveled would bring in $88 million annually. Since PennDOT already tracks odometer readings and collects money through both the vehicle registration and inspection programs, assessing this should be fairly easy.
(b) Once collected, the funds would be allocated to the counties in proportion to where the vehicles are registered. The public transit agency or agencies in these counties would directly benefit.
(c) Set up transit districts where many counties and agencies share a common transportation need -- such as the counties surrounding metro Pittsburgh -- and apportion the funds within that district based on the number of weekday revenue hours provided by each agency.
(d) I leave it to the politicians to decide on a multiplier other than $1 per 1,000 miles traveled. I recommend $5.
The next problem is selling this idea to legislators, apart from the public as a whole. The reality of the political climate is that Republicans do not want any new taxes. This must be sold to them on the basis of its being an update to an existing tax. Here's why: A growing number of cars are either hybrid or all electric, and as fuel prices rise, this is liable to become more pronounced. Whether a car's motive force is powered by petroleum, electricity, solar panels, hydrogen, or a wood-fired steam boiler, it's still a car, and contributes to traffic congestion, and wear and tear on the roads. More importantly, much of the time, its use competes with public transit. The more that drivers can use transit instead of a car, the better able transit would be to pay for itself. The commuter who uses the car for the "last mile" -- from transit stop to home -- will pay a much smaller VMT than one who commutes the whole way by car.
Fuel taxes will still be needed, as this is how roads and bridges will be maintained. This was the specific intent of the 1945 amendment. If the existing fuel taxes do not provide enough revenue to keep our roads and bridges in good repair, then raise the tax. If this cannot or will not be done, then close some roads and bridges. The simplest, most effective change would be to change the fuel tax from a per-gallon to a per-dollar basis.
The VMT, not being a motor fuels tax, would be constitutional for funding transit, and would provide the most revenue where also exists the most need for transit. It is also self-correcting. Say, for example, 10,000 additional cars were registered in Elk County next year, each driving 10,000 miles annually, then Elk County would have $100K more a year to implement or expand a transit system to alleviate the congestion all those cars would cause, and in so doing, avert or delay spending lots more money to widen roads and bridges to handle such traffic.
The final problem is to sell this to the public. For that, I propose developing an online game -- perhaps a couple -- to help people visualize these ideas along with competing and often ill-conceived, functionless, or even counterproductive suggestions. My inspiration for this is a New York Times online app accompanying a story on how to close the federal budget deficit, both near term (2015) and long term (2030) (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html). The first of two games would be similar to that.
I also suggest another, more complex game, that would appeal to the higher thinkers in our midst. I envision an app that takes a few variables under the player's control -- e.g., fares paid, taxes paid, driver salary/benefits, different types of taxes -- as well as a couple of variables not under player control, such as fuel taxes, and unemployment levels. Bar charts would indicate the number of people stranded without transit service, total taxation, and the amount of money leaving the area in fuel costs. Another could indicate the amount of structural deficit not yet eliminated. A GIS-enabled map of Allegheny County would get lighter and darker according to the areas served or stranded by transit routes and the level of service provided on them.
Under this would have to be a fair amount of programming to display the map and all these variables. However, the greater difficulty would be in quantifying the effect of all these variables into a formula. Perhaps APTA or a transit-friendly think tank already has such a game that could be adapted for Pittsburgh's specific needs. Still, being able to see what happens under various scenarios may prove essential in selling this to the greater community, especially if explanations, definitions, links and other documentation are built into the games at various decision and display points. We cannot and will not convince the willingly close-minded, so don't try. Focus instead on those with open minds.
With all that said, it is only a suggestion, a plan, a hope. I cannot expect to be taken so seriously that my ideas are just dropped into place without challenge. I do hope, though, that my precepts are taken seriously. Some may doubt me, but I think it would be impossible to prove me wrong.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Empty buses my foot
The plan this morning was to attend an ACTC committee meeting, followed by the Port Authority Board of Directors Stakeholders Committee meeting, but because of a last minute change in plans, I ended up doing something much more important: I rode a bus home. Let me tell you about that bus ride.
8:45 I check the timetables at the Wood Street T station and verify that an outbound 12 McKnight would be due in five minutes. Excellent. I've caught this bus, or its predecessor 12A McKnight Shopper, hundreds of times. Off to 9th Street at Penn Avenue I go.
8:50 A gaggle of people are waiting, but as this stop is shared by several routes, I did not think much of it, merely verified that the 12 had not yet gone. A couple of minutes pass, but not enough to be of any concern.
The bus shows up at 8:54, within the five-minute window for timeliness. It does not remain that way. Bus 5003 has a mechanical problem, the rear door won't open, but that's not the real problem. The bus is jammed to capacity from its inbound trip, and to my surprise, all nine of us waiting at that stop board here.
From here, let's pick it up from my Twitter stream, verbatim. This was all documented as it happened. All I've done is to timestamp the tweets that I did not already key in a timestamp. (Quick primer on Twitterese: bc=because, inb or ib=inbound, ob=outbound, w=with, wo=without.)
8:54 12 ob 5003 9St at Penn Av. 9 of us boarding packed bus. Packed bc 1st ob stop wo discharging (much of) anyone ib. Easily 50 aboard.
[Translation: Boarding an outbound 12 at 8:54, bus 5003, at the corner of 9th Street and Penn Avenue, Downtown Pittsburgh.]
9:00 Inb riders trading stories of O12s passing people up. This 12 isn't to the point of refusal but IS uncomfortable bc rear door won't open.
9:04 42 boarded at the Liberty & 7St stop. 9:02 crossing Penn. Almost 10 minutes late, partly bc of overcrowding bc of reduced trips.
9:07 The extended dwell time was partly due to the bad door, but getting 50 people off and 50 other people on at just two bus stops is bc cuts.
9:10 Throw a detour in there and we're now almost 15 minutes late. 9:10 Cedar at ENorthAv.
[Note: That trip of the 12 is due at E North & Middle, one block later, at 8:57. ]
9:13 One off, 6 more on. This is nuts. People are yelling to move back but it's jammed back there, too.
9:17 If a wheelchair rider showed up, we'd have to pass him up. There's almost no room for another standee let alone a w/c.
9:20 On East St at Venture. Squeezed two more on. Weird Al Yankovic, we hear ya. Baytree St, yet another.
9:22 I am jammed against the left front wheelwell so I have a perfect vantage point. Ivory Av, one more on.
9:25 Lady mid bus wants off. Actually 4 people. Dwell time at that stop was on the high side of 1:50.
9:28 Red Lobster stop dwell time 1:25.
9:29 Flowerama stop, about 30 seconds. I can see the back of the bus now.
9:31 Nhills Village, still 12 standees.
9:35 Ross Park Mall. Still 10 standees approaching mall.
9:38 23 off at mall. One standee but lots of seats. 17 still on board.
9:44 Northway Mall, almost normal. Someone sitting in traffic on McKnight would look in & wonder why Port Authority runs half-empty buses.
9:55 2 off at Kane, 4 at McIntyre Square, I'm next at Perrymont, 5 left. Empty buses indeed. Recall that the inb trip was at capacity, too.
10:14 Home. Blog post underway, hope to have it up by lunchtime. 80-minute trip from 9St/Penn, normally 57 by bus & foot on this route.
That's the blow-by-blow. Take a look at that. There was not a missing bus prior to this. At least 51 people got on at two stops Downtown, as counted by me, who could see every head getting on and off through the one operable door. That is vastly different from similar pre-cut trips, which were busy -- often to standing, but not to capacity even before crossing the Allegheny.
The peak load for that trip, by my count, was 61 people. The actual rider count would actually be higher because some got off before others got on.
The trip was mighty uncomfortable. With 61 on board and 39 seats, that means 22 people were trying to hang onto whatever was available, and on the 1999 Neoplan low-floor buses, there isn't much to hang on to in the front half of the bus.
People were standing in front of the white line because they had to. This also occurred on the inbound O12 I was on earlier, and likely occurred on the inbound trip of the 12 I boarded. Three trips, three technically illegal loads. There's something wrong with this picture.
Note that this is a morning outbound trip! The primary direction of travel in the morning is inbound. There is no earlier choice. The prior trip left town a full hour earlier, 7:50.
By the time we got past Ross Park Mall, the load had thinned to the point where, had someone looked in the bus from a car sitting in traffic, because of the low-floor design of the bus they would not have seen a lot of people, yet there were still 17 people on board. I am certain that some of the public thinks nobody rides the buses because they don't see anybody on them. Those most likely to think this are those who most often see a bus when sitting in traffic near the outer terminus.
The bus was seriously delayed by being overloaded. Dwell times -- the time the bus is stopped to board or deboard a passenger -- are commonly 20 seconds for a couple of people. Being stopped for 40 seconds is unusual. We had to stop for up to two minutes on several occasions. The bad door was a factor Downtown, but it did not impede the inbound trip, as it was only four minutes late arriving Downtown, perfectly normal.
The problem is a lack of service. Sixty-minute headways are not enough for the 12 McKnight, either direction.
I had the sensation that I was riding a third-world transit bus. This is not the third world. Why are we trying to make it so?
8:45 I check the timetables at the Wood Street T station and verify that an outbound 12 McKnight would be due in five minutes. Excellent. I've caught this bus, or its predecessor 12A McKnight Shopper, hundreds of times. Off to 9th Street at Penn Avenue I go.
8:50 A gaggle of people are waiting, but as this stop is shared by several routes, I did not think much of it, merely verified that the 12 had not yet gone. A couple of minutes pass, but not enough to be of any concern.
The bus shows up at 8:54, within the five-minute window for timeliness. It does not remain that way. Bus 5003 has a mechanical problem, the rear door won't open, but that's not the real problem. The bus is jammed to capacity from its inbound trip, and to my surprise, all nine of us waiting at that stop board here.
From here, let's pick it up from my Twitter stream, verbatim. This was all documented as it happened. All I've done is to timestamp the tweets that I did not already key in a timestamp. (Quick primer on Twitterese: bc=because, inb or ib=inbound, ob=outbound, w=with, wo=without.)
8:54 12 ob 5003 9St at Penn Av. 9 of us boarding packed bus. Packed bc 1st ob stop wo discharging (much of) anyone ib. Easily 50 aboard.
[Translation: Boarding an outbound 12 at 8:54, bus 5003, at the corner of 9th Street and Penn Avenue, Downtown Pittsburgh.]
9:00 Inb riders trading stories of O12s passing people up. This 12 isn't to the point of refusal but IS uncomfortable bc rear door won't open.
9:04 42 boarded at the Liberty & 7St stop. 9:02 crossing Penn. Almost 10 minutes late, partly bc of overcrowding bc of reduced trips.
9:07 The extended dwell time was partly due to the bad door, but getting 50 people off and 50 other people on at just two bus stops is bc cuts.
9:10 Throw a detour in there and we're now almost 15 minutes late. 9:10 Cedar at ENorthAv.
[Note: That trip of the 12 is due at E North & Middle, one block later, at 8:57. ]
9:13 One off, 6 more on. This is nuts. People are yelling to move back but it's jammed back there, too.
9:17 If a wheelchair rider showed up, we'd have to pass him up. There's almost no room for another standee let alone a w/c.
9:20 On East St at Venture. Squeezed two more on. Weird Al Yankovic, we hear ya. Baytree St, yet another.
9:22 I am jammed against the left front wheelwell so I have a perfect vantage point. Ivory Av, one more on.
9:25 Lady mid bus wants off. Actually 4 people. Dwell time at that stop was on the high side of 1:50.
9:28 Red Lobster stop dwell time 1:25.
9:29 Flowerama stop, about 30 seconds. I can see the back of the bus now.
9:31 Nhills Village, still 12 standees.
9:35 Ross Park Mall. Still 10 standees approaching mall.
9:38 23 off at mall. One standee but lots of seats. 17 still on board.
9:44 Northway Mall, almost normal. Someone sitting in traffic on McKnight would look in & wonder why Port Authority runs half-empty buses.
9:55 2 off at Kane, 4 at McIntyre Square, I'm next at Perrymont, 5 left. Empty buses indeed. Recall that the inb trip was at capacity, too.
10:14 Home. Blog post underway, hope to have it up by lunchtime. 80-minute trip from 9St/Penn, normally 57 by bus & foot on this route.
That's the blow-by-blow. Take a look at that. There was not a missing bus prior to this. At least 51 people got on at two stops Downtown, as counted by me, who could see every head getting on and off through the one operable door. That is vastly different from similar pre-cut trips, which were busy -- often to standing, but not to capacity even before crossing the Allegheny.
The peak load for that trip, by my count, was 61 people. The actual rider count would actually be higher because some got off before others got on.
The trip was mighty uncomfortable. With 61 on board and 39 seats, that means 22 people were trying to hang onto whatever was available, and on the 1999 Neoplan low-floor buses, there isn't much to hang on to in the front half of the bus.
People were standing in front of the white line because they had to. This also occurred on the inbound O12 I was on earlier, and likely occurred on the inbound trip of the 12 I boarded. Three trips, three technically illegal loads. There's something wrong with this picture.
Note that this is a morning outbound trip! The primary direction of travel in the morning is inbound. There is no earlier choice. The prior trip left town a full hour earlier, 7:50.
By the time we got past Ross Park Mall, the load had thinned to the point where, had someone looked in the bus from a car sitting in traffic, because of the low-floor design of the bus they would not have seen a lot of people, yet there were still 17 people on board. I am certain that some of the public thinks nobody rides the buses because they don't see anybody on them. Those most likely to think this are those who most often see a bus when sitting in traffic near the outer terminus.
The bus was seriously delayed by being overloaded. Dwell times -- the time the bus is stopped to board or deboard a passenger -- are commonly 20 seconds for a couple of people. Being stopped for 40 seconds is unusual. We had to stop for up to two minutes on several occasions. The bad door was a factor Downtown, but it did not impede the inbound trip, as it was only four minutes late arriving Downtown, perfectly normal.
The problem is a lack of service. Sixty-minute headways are not enough for the 12 McKnight, either direction.
I had the sensation that I was riding a third-world transit bus. This is not the third world. Why are we trying to make it so?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Our intractable transit problem, and a solution
This blog post is in two parts. Part 1 states the problem. Part 2 states the solution.
Let's start with Part 2.
* The voice of the people must be ignored, as the people are misinformed.
* The voice of the government must be overruled, as wrong-headed beliefs are in control.
* The power of the media must be nullified, as it does more harm than good.
* The voice of labor must be heard and heeded, but they are not wholly in the right.
* The plans of transit management are roughly accurate, but like labor, not wholly in the right. More they are incomplete than incorrect.
* Ignore labor-management disputes. Just give labor what they want. It's the cheapest and simplest way.
* Different taxing structures must be put in place, and quickly, and against the will of the people and their representatives. See first two bullets.
* Revenues to fund transit must increase $30 million to $50 million annually, locally, beyond what the current taxing structure now brings in.
* All cut bus routes and trips must be restored, including the full TDP implementation.
* Beyond that, $20 million additional must be spent to implement information technology improvements that will make the system more usable by everyone.
* Not to act to do the above is worse, as we will lose a system that actually does work. See first bullet.
That is the solution.
Now let's move on to Part 1.
One time back in college, the dining halls had a fly infestation. Flies around trash are nothing new, of course, but that one month, they were out of control everywhere. I'll spare the details, save one. Someone painted a sign saying "Welcome to [X] Dining Hall! Order sh*t. Can 10,000,000,000 flies be wrong?"
No, indeed, ten billion flies are not wrong, but that doesn't change the fact they fed on sh*t, and the sh*t was both plentiful and of excellent quality. It was not possible to enjoy eating, so pervasive was the cloud of flies. And with that as intro, we turn now to public transit in metro Pittsburgh.
It is simply not possible to discuss this topic in a rational manner at any level with any significant number of people. The vast majority of people with an opinion on the topic got it from the media in some manner, with the most opinionated set coming from hate ^H^H^H^H talk radio. Most opinions come from a fairly narrow set of sources: PAT staff. Union leadership. The Allegheny Institute. A political party machine, either one, any level.
Everyone thinks themselves right. Everyone has a piece of the story. I alone have no serious ties to any party yet am properly informed by all that matter.
Probably I pigeonhole well, too, though in the past year I have tried to consider all sides. I took a good bit of heat from various quarters following the many blog posts I wrote over the last year. (List of links: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) Some of that criticism indeed was accurate, enough so at least that I now try to listen more and speak less.
With the political machinery returning to its annual routine, and the dreaded cuts now in place, it is time to return to the matters at hand. Wounds are raw, and the salt shaker is near. Add to that the sheer number of badly misinformed and highly opinionated people, and what you get is a constant pointless argument.
I am at a loss. Reason is ignored. To do any more than I've done is to resemble a child having a temper tantrum. Government reps of both parties are not only not helpful, they are anti-help. The media is worse, feeding us even more sh*t while smelling blood and circling for some imminent pending kill. Democracy as a viable form of government can only work when the populace is educated, and that isn't happening here. How's your German? Wir sind gefickt. [translate]
Let's start with Part 2.
* The voice of the people must be ignored, as the people are misinformed.
* The voice of the government must be overruled, as wrong-headed beliefs are in control.
* The power of the media must be nullified, as it does more harm than good.
* The voice of labor must be heard and heeded, but they are not wholly in the right.
* The plans of transit management are roughly accurate, but like labor, not wholly in the right. More they are incomplete than incorrect.
* Ignore labor-management disputes. Just give labor what they want. It's the cheapest and simplest way.
* Different taxing structures must be put in place, and quickly, and against the will of the people and their representatives. See first two bullets.
* Revenues to fund transit must increase $30 million to $50 million annually, locally, beyond what the current taxing structure now brings in.
* All cut bus routes and trips must be restored, including the full TDP implementation.
* Beyond that, $20 million additional must be spent to implement information technology improvements that will make the system more usable by everyone.
* Not to act to do the above is worse, as we will lose a system that actually does work. See first bullet.
That is the solution.
Now let's move on to Part 1.
One time back in college, the dining halls had a fly infestation. Flies around trash are nothing new, of course, but that one month, they were out of control everywhere. I'll spare the details, save one. Someone painted a sign saying "Welcome to [X] Dining Hall! Order sh*t. Can 10,000,000,000 flies be wrong?"
No, indeed, ten billion flies are not wrong, but that doesn't change the fact they fed on sh*t, and the sh*t was both plentiful and of excellent quality. It was not possible to enjoy eating, so pervasive was the cloud of flies. And with that as intro, we turn now to public transit in metro Pittsburgh.
It is simply not possible to discuss this topic in a rational manner at any level with any significant number of people. The vast majority of people with an opinion on the topic got it from the media in some manner, with the most opinionated set coming from hate ^H^H^H^H talk radio. Most opinions come from a fairly narrow set of sources: PAT staff. Union leadership. The Allegheny Institute. A political party machine, either one, any level.
Everyone thinks themselves right. Everyone has a piece of the story. I alone have no serious ties to any party yet am properly informed by all that matter.
Probably I pigeonhole well, too, though in the past year I have tried to consider all sides. I took a good bit of heat from various quarters following the many blog posts I wrote over the last year. (List of links: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) Some of that criticism indeed was accurate, enough so at least that I now try to listen more and speak less.
With the political machinery returning to its annual routine, and the dreaded cuts now in place, it is time to return to the matters at hand. Wounds are raw, and the salt shaker is near. Add to that the sheer number of badly misinformed and highly opinionated people, and what you get is a constant pointless argument.
I am at a loss. Reason is ignored. To do any more than I've done is to resemble a child having a temper tantrum. Government reps of both parties are not only not helpful, they are anti-help. The media is worse, feeding us even more sh*t while smelling blood and circling for some imminent pending kill. Democracy as a viable form of government can only work when the populace is educated, and that isn't happening here. How's your German? Wir sind gefickt. [translate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)