tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post4660040507064771492..comments2024-02-01T04:37:41.878-05:00Comments on Cap'n Transit Rides Again: Selling transit with Glamour or Value, or bothCap'n Transithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-28893502106905470682012-08-05T21:16:58.465-04:002012-08-05T21:16:58.465-04:00Cap'n,
WES/OR217 is not a good example of a t...Cap'n,<br /><br />WES/OR217 is not a good example of a transit project being undermined by highway capacity improvements. OR217, an absurdly-functionally-obsolete freeway (interchanges on average every 1km, and some VERY short distances between) has received one minor upgrade recently--an additional northbound lane between the Canyon Road and US26 interchanges--all of which is north of the terminus of the WES line.<br /><br />Some capacity improvements on I-5 south of Tigard are likely more problematic for WES--mainly an increase to 8 lanes between Tualatin and Wilsonville--but if these have reduced WES demand, it's probably in the noise.<br /><br />Many MAX lines run parallel to freeways, but in all cases the freeway was there first. The only Portland freeway which has seen significant capacity increases over a significant length is US26, which has gone from 4 lanes to 6 since westside MAX opened; however, westside MAX remains a highly popular and well-used line. (And it only runs alongside the freeway for a very short stretch).<br /><br />WES's main problem is that it's travelshed is too small, and the distance is too short, to be an effective commuter rail line. Other than the Wilsonville stop, it lies entirely within the TriMet service district; and it duplicates a well-ridden bus line (though offering faster, nicer service). It should have been a rapid transit line, not commuter rail.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-71140349125982849052012-08-05T15:28:18.925-04:002012-08-05T15:28:18.925-04:00Do you really think it's that obvious? Of the...Do you really think it's that obvious? Of the <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/04/transportation-myopia-for-commuter-rail.html" rel="nofollow">seven transit projects</a> undermined by parallel road capacity increases that I pointed out last year, how many of them have people involved who are aware of the conflict?<br /><br />I can name five transit projects in my area that are similarly undermined, and I'm sure you can name five in the PNW (including the WES Commuter Rail). Can you really say that everyone involved in those five is aware of the conflict?<br /><br />I understand that you would prefer positive messaging. Who doesn't? Well, I guess cranky old farts like me. But do you at least include the effects of these competing projects in your ridership projections?Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-11044760359985395652012-08-05T15:26:33.589-04:002012-08-05T15:26:33.589-04:00So, in other words, a purely utilitarian approach ...So, in other words, a purely utilitarian approach suffices if we adopt an extremely optimistic view of the population share in totally car-dependent settlement that is compatible with sustainability.<br /><br />To hit more ambitious targets, we need an approach that will support a more ambitious target in terms of availability of auto-independent transport.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-66727307964817394512012-08-05T15:10:07.653-04:002012-08-05T15:10:07.653-04:00Planned or proposed road projects that undermine t...Planned or proposed road projects that undermine transit include any that make driving easier or faster or cheaper in a corridor where attractive transit is either available or under development. <br /><br />It hasn't occurred to me to point out one because most road projects do this. As a working consultant, too, I inevitably prefer to operate through positive messaging most of the time. <br /><br />But I don't think I've shirked from this. There's a brief discussion of the basic road and pricing issue vis and vis transit in my book, in Chapter 11. I generally treat the point as too obvious to dwell on.<br /><br />More indirectly, you could say that road projects undermine transit if they open an area for development in a form that is meant to be car-dependent. But I don't push that angle hard because I think we can achieve all our sustainability goals by focusing on transit in areas where the geography and culture indicate that transit can succeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-87192718023015606052012-08-05T11:56:45.103-04:002012-08-05T11:56:45.103-04:00Thanks for the comment, Jarrett! I would still li...Thanks for the comment, Jarrett! I would still like to see you and Nordahl each point out a planned or proposed road project that will undermine transit.<br /><br />I want to clarify that dividing choices into Single Trips, Habits, Investments and Subsidies, and dividing factors into Availability, Value, Amenities and Glamour, is my contribution. All that Postrel contributes is a greater understanding of glamour. In fact, <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2010/11/gift-from-randal-otoole.html" rel="nofollow">she claims that</a> highways always pay for themselves.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-18212588745327399762012-08-05T00:34:30.445-04:002012-08-05T00:34:30.445-04:00Interesting post, buty I disagree that either Darr...Interesting post, buty I disagree that either Darrin Nordahl or I "ignore" the fact that the entire context of the transit debate is about providing an alternative to the private car. <br /><br />Indeed, Darrin's <i>My Kind of Transit</i> seems very focused on kinds of fun that are big and obvious -- amusement-park scale fun, to use his explicit comparison to Disneyland. The futuristic and nostalgic technologies that he praises play to notions of the good that are common in mass-media and thus in the lives of habitual motorists. They are his explicit audience.<br /><br />I am less interested in that audience because I am more interested in people who are in the position to potentially find transit useful, but currently do not. These tend to be people who are in geographic and financial positions where transit can serve them well. Many are not habitual motorists or at least not so much attached to motoring as feeling stuck with it due to unawareness of their transit options, or those options lying just below the threshold of usefulness.<br /><br />But I'm still trying to shift people from cars. <i>Human Transit</i> (book or blog) is full of suggestions that are about making transit more complementary with the other sustainable modes, and thus more competitive with the private car. For example, my suggestion that focus needs to shift from local-stop services to rapid-stop services is because local-stop services try to replace walking and thus run too slowly to compete with cars. By contrast, I want transit to complement walking by providing faster service that is worth riding longer distances to. <br /><br />As for Postrel, I am fine being plotted along her axes as you do, but am a little uncomfortable with the Single Trip vs Habit tradeoff. Someone trying a Single Trip may be attracted by Glamour but I contend they'll be retained by Availability and Value -- or as I prefer to call it, Usefulness. The only time Glamour is of continuous long-term importance is (a) recreational and tourist trips, which will always be a small share of the whole and (b) for very high-end customers, in whom I'm not that interested because there are just not that many of them. <br /><br />But I care very much about attracting riders for the Single Trip -- especially helping people feel that their service is useful for a range of purposes, not just certain trips they make habitually. And I think being a rational choice -- Usefulness, or what Postrel would call Availablility and Value -- is often sufficient to do that. Think of trips to sporting events, for example, where Value (compared to your alternatives) often seals the deal at parking-constrained venues.<br /><br />I want transit to make people feel free, for either single trips or habitual ones. That means Glamour is great but not when you sacrifice Usefulness for it. And yes, it's all about competing with cars.<br /><br />Jarrett Walker, HumanTransit.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-71094795858776378362012-08-04T13:30:17.704-04:002012-08-04T13:30:17.704-04:00But, how are you going to write and sell a book wi...But, how are you going to write and sell a book with such a balanced approach? You need a silver bullet, despite the fact that solutions sold as silver bullets are never really silver bullet solutions in practice.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.com