Passenger Trains > SANDAG models favor highways over transit

Surprise, surprise, SANDAG models favor highways over transit:

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/survival/article_486cf10c-eeef-11e0-b4f5-001cc4c03286.html

"But exactly how transportation planning officials have decided which projects to spend billions on — and when, and why — has been shrouded in secrecy. Their justification is detailed in complex models, formulas and data that few understand."

"Local transit advocates have long sought to dig into them to understand how Sandag makes its decisions, but the agency has resisted their requests to release the information.
Advocates had to hire lawyers to get Sandag to release the models at all. The agency relented, but even then only on the condition that the advocates not share them with anyone else and only use them in certain ways."

"Last year, lawyers for local transit advocate Duncan McFetridge threatened to sue the agency, and it finally released the data. But the information was so indiscernible they had to hire a consultant to help them understand it. What they found troubled them. They believe Sandag's formulas make assumptions that allow the agency to justify highways over transit — reinforcing advocates' chief criticism."

"One of the assumptions they found is that poorer people are more likely to ride transit while wealthier people will not, even if the service is improved. Sandag's model predicts that higher income residents will take just 4 percent of work trips on transit while lower income residents take 37 percent. The advocates argue that assumption allows Sandag to justify highway expansions by saying some people will just never ride buses or trolleys no matter how convenient it is."

San Diego has good public transit that could be a lot more effective with better zoning and continuing improvements to public transit. A fortune is being spent on freeway improvements now that may go unused in a post peak oil world in the lifetime of the debt service payments for those freeway improvements.

SDGreg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Surprise, surprise, SANDAG models favor highways
> over transit:
>
> http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/survival/article_48
> 6cf10c-eeef-11e0-b4f5-001cc4c03286.html
>
> "But exactly how transportation planning officials
> have decided which projects to spend billions on
> — and when, and why — has been shrouded in
> secrecy. Their justification is detailed in
> complex models, formulas and data that few
> understand."
>
> "Local transit advocates have long sought to dig
> into them to understand how Sandag makes its
> decisions, but the agency has resisted their
> requests to release the information.
> Advocates had to hire lawyers to get Sandag to
> release the models at all. The agency relented,
> but even then only on the condition that the
> advocates not share them with anyone else and only
> use them in certain ways."
>
> "Last year, lawyers for local transit advocate
> Duncan McFetridge threatened to sue the agency,
> and it finally released the data. But the
> information was so indiscernible they had to hire
> a consultant to help them understand it. What
> they found troubled them. They believe Sandag's
> formulas make assumptions that allow the agency to
> justify highways over transit — reinforcing
> advocates' chief criticism."
>
> "One of the assumptions they found is that poorer
> people are more likely to ride transit while
> wealthier people will not, even if the service is
> improved. Sandag's model predicts that higher
> income residents will take just 4 percent of work
> trips on transit while lower income residents take
> 37 percent. The advocates argue that assumption
> allows Sandag to justify highway expansions by
> saying some people will just never ride buses or
> trolleys no matter how convenient it is."
>
> San Diego has good public transit that could be a
> lot more effective with better zoning and
> continuing improvements to public transit. A
> fortune is being spent on freeway improvements now
> that may go unused in a post peak oil world in the
> lifetime of the debt service payments for those
> freeway improvements.

The FORMULA is simple: How much can WE waste on widening
more freeways before WE are forced use the LEFTOVERS on
Mass Transit improvements!
Mike

I tell with the amount of money that has been spent on freeways here in San Diego County alone we could have built the High Speed Rail Network for the intire state of California.Our priorities are totally screwed up here.I might add that this quote in quote one track mindedness will only serve to isolate San Diego even further from the rest of the state and the country for that matter.More gridlock is to come from this backward thinking.Sandag should stop getting bought out by the industries assosiated with freeways and start doing something right for a change.For one i think that an Amtrak/Coaster station should be built at the foot of Gilman Drive at I5 so we here in the East County of San Diego could drive or take a bus along Hwy52 and avoid the I5 and I805 merge.What a mess that is.Lets get Amtrak/Coaster/Metrolink to wake up and see the light folks and get a transportation network that connects and works for a change.Please and thank you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/11 05:03 by msdgbar.

"One of the assumptions they found is that poorer people are more likely to ride transit while wealthier people will not, even if the service is improved. Sandag's model predicts that higher income residents will take just 4 percent of work trips on transit while lower income residents take 37 percent. The advocates argue that assumption allows Sandag to justify highway expansions by saying some people will just never ride buses or trolleys no matter how convenient it is."


Sounds 99% correct to me. Buses and transit will work well only in a small percentage of locations and only when high density living areas need to travel to high density employment sites. Most everywhere else its a waste of money and resources, most often taxing a large percentage of the population for a system which serves a minimal portion of the population.

In order to lure those who have a choice you must offer
- safety (including transportation, environment and outside environment safety)
- frequency
- needed destinations
- comfort
- cleanliness
- services at destinations
- dependability
- minimal failures/disruptions

If the system cant meet those needs, it will not attract customers who have a choice. How many of these needs are met by a typical bus line? streetcar line? sub way? Amtrak?

I would absolutely prefer an extra highway lane over a bus or streetcar line. I would expect I would have 95% agreement (excluding those areas where transit works well).

Michael

Much of northern San Diego county is office parks and similar developments. These jobs are not going to be accessible by mass transit rail in any convenient way.

Here in northern NJ, we have exactly the same problem. Lovely office parks with acres of green space, just two and three miles from rail stations, will only get 50-75 riders a day for places with 2,000 employees. People aren't interested in driving to a station, parking, getting on a train or light rail, getting off the light rail and onto a (free) shuttle and taking that to their final destination.

People working downtown, where there's a $7 to $10 a day parking fee, plus congestion, that's a different equation, and thousands of people ride the trains to Newark, etc.

>
> If the system cant meet those needs, it will not
> attract customers who have a choice. How many of
> these needs are met by a typical bus line?
> streetcar line? sub way? Amtrak?
>
> I would absolutely prefer an extra highway lane
> over a bus or streetcar line. I would expect I
> would have 95% agreement (excluding those areas
> where transit works well).
>
> Michael


Ok, but your assumption on 95% agreement presupposes that the extra lane you are relying on will remain open and accesable for use at all times. In other words, what use is that extra lane if it soon finds itself jammed to capacity. The ability for one single lane to absorb increased traffic levels is substantially lower then the ability of a rail transit system to do the same. Customers do have a choice. They can choose the (sometimes) endless hours in traffic, or the (sometimes)inconvience of riding transit. Given those parameters, that 95% estimate would shrink dramatically.

Let's also factor in the fact that gasoline prices may be dropping slightly now, but in the long run, they are going to rise and, until some day, owning a car will be just a few cuts below where a private jet is today. I haven't seen any of his posts lately, but one TO member would regularly warn that the days of cheap automobile and airline travel were numbered, and our younger members would see the day when your average person's situation would be like a hundred years ago, limited by how far the streetcar or interurban went, how far his horse could go, or how far he could walk. In other words, there will come a time when we will long for the days of crowded freeways and wonder what to do with all that vacant pavement. This is one place where railways have the advantage: There's no better way to use electricity (which can come from a multitude of sources) for transportation.

DNRY122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... This is one place where railways
> have the advantage: There's no better way to use
> electricity (which can come from a multitude of
> sources) for transportation.

What if I told you Amtrak's dirty little secret?

Its energy efficiency per passenger-mile is worse for its electric powered trains than for its diesel powered trains.