Will transit riders be represented in the 113th Congress?

Bill Shuster, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has named the majority-party members of the committee, who will join the Democratic members announced a few weeks ago. With Chuck Marohn, I'm skeptical about what role the Federal government can play in achieving our goals, so take this for what you think it's worth.

I looked over the list of Republican committee members, and I thought, "wow, these guys (all but two of them are men) are really from the middle of nowhere. How many of their constituents even ride transit?" So I looked up the American Community Survey figures from Table B08141 for the percentage of carfree households, and the percentage of households where the primary commute is by transit.

Unfortunately, the ACS only has figures for the pre-2010 districts, but I tried to find districts that matched the ones that actually elected these representatives.

Name	State	District	Hometown	Previous district	Carfree %	Transit %
Sam Graves	MO	6	Tarkio		5.95%	6.51%
Frank A.  LoBiondo	NJ	2	Ventnor City		5.05%	4.23%
Richard Hanna	NY	22	Barneveld	24	5.89%	3.83%
Patrick Meehan	PA	7	Drexel Hill		2.71%	3.78%
Lou Barletta	PA	11	Hazleton		3.18%	2.03%
Gary Miller	CA	42	Diamond Bar	44	1.58%	1.82%
Duncan Hunter	CA	50	Lakeside	52	1.81%	1.69%
Daniel Webster	FL	10	Winter Garden	8	2.59%	1.64%
Don Young	AK	1	Fort Yukon		5.72%	1.46%
Trey Radel	FL	19	Fort Meyers		1.88%	1.44%
Thomas Massie	KY	4	Garrison		2.19%	1.30%
Shelley Moore Capito	WV	2	Glen Dale		2.80%	1.28%
Blake Farenthold	TX	27	Corpus Christi		3.04%	1.14%
Andy Harris	MD	1	Cockeysville		1.63%	1.08%
Steve Daines	MT	1	Bozeman		1.98%	0.93%
Roger Williams	TX	25	Weatherford	17	2.25%	0.90%
Jeff Denham	CA	19	Merced		2.13%	0.88%
Steve Southerland	FL	2	Panama City		2.39%	0.84%
Scott Perry	PA	4	Carroll	19	1.99%	0.79%
Reid Ribble	WI	8	Sherwood		1.77%	0.72%
Tom Rice	SC	7	Myrtle Beach	1	2.79%	0.67%
Rodney Davis	IL	13	Taylorville	19	1.61%	0.66%
Larry Bucshon	IN	8	Newburgh		2.40%	0.56%
John L. Mica	FL	7	Winter Park		2.19%	0.56%
John J. Duncan, Jr.	TN	2	Knoxville		1.73%	0.43%
Thomas E. Petri	WI	6	Fond du Lac		1.72%	0.41%
Candice Miller	MI	10	Harrison		1.56%	0.39%
Bob Gibbs	OH	7	Washington	18	4.52%	0.34%
Mark Meadows	NC	11	Cashiers		2.20%	0.32%
Bill Shuster, Chairman	PA	9	Hollidaysburg		2.67%	0.31%
Markwayne Mullin	OK	2	Westville		1.99%	0.27%
Rick Crawford	AR	1	Jonesboro		2.43%	0.21%
Howard Coble	NC	6	Greensboro		1.67%	0.17%
Average					2.67%	1.32%

Now the Democrats:

Name	State	District	Hometown	Old District	Carfree %	Transit %
Jerrold Nadler	NY	10	New York	8	63.66%	53.97%
Eleanor Holmes Norton	DC	1	Washington		26.03%	38.02%
Michael E. Capuano	MA	7	Somerville	8	25.75%	34.30%
Albio Sires	NJ	8	West New York	13	26.16%	33.29%
Donna F. Edwards	MD	4	Fort Washington		5.77%	17.82%
Elijah E. Cummings	MD	7	Baltimore		10.86%	13.51%
Daniel Lipinski	IL	3	Western Springs		3.50%	10.92%
Sean Patrick Maloney	NY	18	Cold Spring	19	2.93%	7.47%
Dina Titus	NV	1	Las Vegas		5.73%	5.46%
Eddie Bernice Johnson	TX	30	Dallas		4.98%	4.53%
Grace F. Napolitano	CA	32	Norwalk	38	2.86%	4.36%
Timothy H. Bishop	NY	1	Southampton		2.12%	4.10%
Janice Hahn	CA	44	Los Angeles	36	3.20%	4.03%
Rick Larsen	WA	2	Lake Stevens		2.01%	2.73%
André Carson	IN	7	Indianapolis		3.66%	2.39%
Steve Cohen	TN	9	Memphis		4.73%	2.37%
Elizabeth Esty	CT	5	Cheshire		2.87%	2.07%
Peter A. DeFazio	OR	4	Springfield		2.95%	2.06%
Timothy J. Walz	MN	1	Mankato		1.96%	1.48%
Lois Frankel	FL	22	West Palm Beach		2.10%	1.20%
Cheri Bustos	IL	17	East Moline		2.82%	1.11%
John Garamendi	CA	3	Walnut Grove	10	1.69%	1.08%
Rick Nolan	MN	8	Crosby		2.04%	0.97%
Ann Kirkpatrick	AZ	1	Flagstaff		2.87%	0.57%
Nick J. Rahall, II, Ranking minority member	WV	3	Beckley	4	2.71%	0.47%
Michael H. Michaud	ME	2	East Millinocket		2.01%	0.38%
Corrine Brown	FL	5	Jacksonville	3	1.56%	0.28%
Average					8.13%	9.29%

So what do we take away from this? Well, a lot of Democrats do represent cities, and transit-commuting suburbs, in contrast to the Republicans. But does that translate to actual support for transit? Jerry Nadler is the only member who represents a district with a majority of carfree, transit-riding households, and I like him a lot, but I haven't heard of much that Holmes Norton, Capuano, Sires, Edwards, Cummings or Lipinski have done for transit riders. Sean Patrick Maloney is definitely one to watch: if he can get an FRA exemption for Metro-North, that would be huge.

In terms of transit-commuting population, the top twelve districts are all here in New York City, including the 14th, where I live. There are seven districts with more transit riders than Nadler's, and twelve with more riders than Holmes Norton. They're not directly represented on the committee. Meanwhile, Howard Coble's district is in fact the district with the absolute lowest percentage of transit riders.

The future of the Suzy-Q

It's funny, just last night I was re-reading this post from 2009 on the planned restoration of passenger service on the New York, Susquehanna and Western line from Hackensack to Hawthorne in New Jersey. I was wondering what happened to it, since there have been zero news articles about it since. Since Chris Christie's money tree only bears fruit for highway widenings and mega-malls, I figured that it's not going anywhere unless the pressure gets turned up.

This morning, though, I read that the Morris County Freeholders passed a resolution calling for restoration of service on the Suzy-Q, but west of the area I discussed in 2009. Morris County, in conjunction with Passaic and Sussex Counties, wants to run passenger trains from Hawthorne west to Stockholm, just before the track terminates at the Sparta Junction.

I understand why the Freeholders have framed their study in this way, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the train would continue at least into Paterson, where passengers could transfer to an Erie line train to Hoboken, and probably all the way to Hackensack. If I were the Railroad God, I would extend it north to Port Jervis, south to Andover, and east to Edgewater or Hoboken.

It's sad that Star-Ledger reporter Dan Goldberg seemed completely unaware of plans to reactivate passenger service in Bergen and Passaic counties, which could have been running by now. He could have asked New Jersey Transit officials, or the project's champion, Democratic Congressman Bill Pascrell.

The section of the railroad west of Hawthorne runs along the boundary between New Jersey's Fifth and Eleventh congressional districts, represented by Republicans Scott Garrett and Rodney Frelinghuysen. Sadly, even though Garrett is a regular rail commuter and Frelinghuysen was once a champion of the Lackawanna Cut-Off, they have both succumbed to Tea Party mania. Frelinghuysen sponsored an amendment to reallocate high-speed rail funds for Midwest flood relief. Garrett has proposed eliminating Federal funding for Amtrak.

At this rate, though, there won't be funds to build more roads in that area, so the NYS&W's revenue will gradually increase. Maybe some day it'll have enough money to restart passenger service on its own.

Schumer calls for horse "no ride" list in wake of terror plot

Sen. Charles Schumer called today for the creation of a "No Ride List" for American horses to prevent suspected terrorists from targeting the US equine system.

Photo: John Haeger, Oneida Daily Dispatch

The move follows reports from intelligence gathered at Osama bin Laden's compound that showed the Arabian Horse Association was considering attacks on US horses.

In a press conference at his New York City office, Schumer said he will begin pushing congressional appropriators to increase funding for rectal inspections of commuter and passenger horse systems, as well as heightened monitoring and support for security at local horse stables throughout the country.

The Democratic senator said he also asked the Department of Homeland Security to expand its Secure Flight program to stables, which would essentially create a "No Ride List" to prevent suspected terrorists from mounting horses.

Intelligence analysts who examined the documents seized from bin Laden's compound in Pakistan concluded that al Qaeda was considering attacks on high-profile dates, including the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the conclusion of the State of the Union address and high traffic holidays such as Christmas and New Year's Day, Schumer said.

"We must remain vigilant in protecting ourselves from future terror attacks, and when intelligence emerges that provides insight into potential vulnerabilities, we must act with speed," Schumer said.

Under the current program for airlines, travelers' names and other identifying information are cross-checked with the terror watch list to select passengers for enhanced screening and prevent possible terrorists from boarding planes.

Schumer wants that program to be applied to stables when passengers purchase their passage before mounting the horse.

Schumer noted that the nation's horse system transported 90,000 passengers in 2010 and carries 90,000 passengers every day on 90,000 different horses.

Not all horseback riders were enamored of the plan. "Sounds like a big load of horseshit to me," said noted equestrian 'Cap'n' Ignatius R. Transit. "Like something you'd read in the Post."

When safety makes us less safe

Jim O'Grady of WNYC reports on a rant about bus safety from James Hall, who was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1984 to 2001 (under three presidents!). Hall is now a lobbyist on Capital Hill, who was paid $80,000 last year to represent Porsche on emissions regulations. O'Grady did not mention Hall's current job, or whether he was speaking for himself or a client.

Hall argues that recent bus crashes, including the gambling bus crash, show that buses aren't safe enough, and that the government needs to legislate stricter standards. He criticizes the American Bus Association for lobbying against (Word doc) a recent "safety" bill. The bus industry and the government, he charges, "have treated the people who ride these buses as second-class citizens and given them second class safety.:

The NHTSA's vision of safely restrained first-class citizens.

There are lots of problems with Hall's entire line of reasoning, and I may get a few blog posts out of this, but let me focus first on the idea of safety. It's easy for "safety" people like Hall to get so fixated on their jobs that they miss the bigger picture. In this case the bigger picture is that improving the safety of individual rides may make bus rides more expensive, less available or less comfortable. This may convince potential passengers to choose to drive or fly instead, and that in turn may make us all less safe, due to two important principles.

The first is that professional automobile operators are safer than amateurs, and the second is that each additional operator increases the danger. Operating a motor vehicle safely is a difficult job, and training and experience help a driver to overcome that difficulty. A professional driver has a career and a reputation to maintain, while an amateur cares much less about being thought of as a dangerous driver; for some it is even a marker of coolness.

There are also job standards and workplace rules that require minimum levels of competence, sobriety and rest. They are not always followed, but they are stricter and better enforced than the laws regulating amateurs.

The other principle is that driving is a human activity requiring attention and good judgment, and even the best operators occasionally fail. The more operators you have on the road, the greater the chance that any one of them will make a potentially fatal mistake.

If you have five hundred people going from New York City to eastern Connecticut, they could travel in four hundred cars or in twenty buses. It's completely infeasible for all four hundred cars to be driven by professionals, but that would only bring a fraction of the potential safety improvements. The safest would be twenty buses driven by responsible professionals, but if even half of those buses were driven by poorly-trained, irresponsible, stressed and/or fatigued drivers it would still be a lot safer than if the passengers all drove themselves.

Air travel is safer than individual drivers, but still much less safe than buses. Convincing people to choose bus travel over driving not only improves their safety, but the safety of everyone on the road with them.

Many of the proposed bus safety improvements are sound, but the seat belt proposals are not. Long bus rides are already uncomfortable; requiring seat belts could drive away some of the riders who have been attracted by wifi and power plugs. The cost of implementing these and other safety requirements should be taken into consideration. A high enough cost upfront could jack up the bus fare high enough to drive many passengers away, or it could reduce the bus company's profit enough that it would cut back on service.

Transit riders' priorities, environmental priorities and the priorities of transit managers

I once went to a presentation on a transit bond issue, in a city of about a million people. The general manager of the city's transit department was there, and someone asked her how she got to work. She explained that she usually drove because the agency started running its buses so early, and sometimes she needed to be there to check in.

You might have thought that this was a perfect argument as to why they needed at least skeletal around-the-clock service. But it turns out that even in cities with 24-hour service, lots of transit employees and managers drive to work. It sorta makes sense for bus drivers: hey, they're drivers! It doesn't really make sense for anyone who works on the subway, and it certainly doesn't make sense for anyone with a nine-to-five job. But it happens way too much.

Transit riders want to see more and better service, so that we can get around quicker and with less hassle. People who care about global warming, street safety, obesity, oil dependence and things like that want to see mode shifts to get people out of their cars.

What do public transit managers want? I'm not a public transit manager, so I'm going to guess. If any of you out there are public transit managers, or know someone who is, then feel free to correct me or provide additional information.

If I were a public transit manager, I would want to see my career flourish and my salary go up. That means pleasing my boss, an elected official, which means more votes and campaign contributions. The main way that a transit manager can obtain votes and campaign contributions for an elected official is through good press. What gets good press? Grant announcements, groundbreakings and ribbon-cuttings, primarily.

What might get a little good press, but probably not enough to attract votes or donations? Service frequency increases. An increase in service hours. A study that shows efficiency gains. Increased ridership. Mode shifts from driving to transit.

What's not likely to get good press for the transit manager? A reduction in car usage, or a smaller-than-expected increase in car use, resulting in lower pollution, lower carnage, less oil use. Transit oriented development attracting new residents who don't use cars, or not as much. These are all positive, and may ultimately help the political patron get re-elected. But they're likely to be credited to someone other than the transit manager. Maybe the police chief, maybe the traffic commissioner, maybe a development agency. So even if the transit manager helps to serve the patron in this way, it's hard for the patron to understand that.

To sum up, transit managers only have a personal interest in transit expansion that comes with photo opportunities. They have very little to gain from mode shift. If they actually use the transit system, they also have transit rider's priorities, but otherwise, they have very little common interest with riders. If they happen to be environmentalists then they would share an interest in mode shift, but there's nothing that says you have to be an environmentalist to run a transit agency.

This is why I've never completely trusted transit agencies to lobby reliably for transit expansion and mode shift. And it explains the recent news, reported by Ya-Ting Liu and Yonah Freemark, that the American Public Transit Association is lobbying against the energy bill that would provide billions for transit.

Streetsblog DC reporter Elana Schor announced that she will be moving to something called Greenwire. If Liu is angling to fill her shoes - in function, whether at Streetsblog or at Tri-State - I think that would be great. During her year at Streetsblog, Elana regularly filed detailed posts about federal issues that were generally informative, but I often found myself scratching my head and thinking, "Yeah, okay, but how will this affect mode share?" For example, I've read at least ten articles about whether Congress will reauthorize the transportation bill this year or next year, and I'm damned if I can tell which option would be better for mode share.

Liu, and Yonah, have made it clear that (a) the American Power Act will increase transit's funding share, and thus likely its mode share, and (b) the APTA doesn't give a rat's ass about mode share. This is extremely helpful. I hope that in the future we'll see lots more posts from them both, explaining exactly how some debate in Washington will affect the issues that matter to us.

Amongst our objectives...

The folks at Transportation for America seem like they're really good people, and I don't want to give them a hard time. But they seem to be striving for clarity, and they're failing, so here's some constructive criticism. They recently released their Blueprint for America, which says "T4 America calls on Congress to clearly define the national interest and purpose of the federal transportation program by adopting and implementing the following set of National Transportation Objectives." To reach each of those Objectives it gives a number of federal-level strategies.

The Executive Summary (PDF) says, "The next federal surface transportation bill should articulate a clear and compelling national vision with specific goals for implementation that will build and maintain a comprehensive National Transportation System." I wholeheartedly agree, but you can't get Congress to articulate a clear and compelling vision if you don't articulate one yourself, and I regret to say that the vision they articulate is a mess.

The problem is that there aren't actually six objectives. Most of the ones on the list are actually multiple objectives conjoined. If you have to put "and" in your objective you're failing at simplicity. If we pull them apart, it actually comes out to thirteen or fourteen Objectives. That's just bad PR, and it may get people thinking that the objectives aren't the real reason, but actually post hoc justifications for their federal funding priorities.

For example, Objective 2 is "Improve Transportation System Conditions and Connectivity." Did you ever wake up and say to yourself, "Gee, I wish my transportation system conditions and connectivity were better"? Not unless you work in transportation. Transportation systems are a means to an end. Their conditions and connectivity are not the objective. Same thing for Objective 1(b), "Improve ... Transportation System Efficiency."

Because I think these people are really trying to do what they think is best for the country, and because their Performance Targets fit with my own goals, I'll try to "normalize" their Objectives (as the database people say) and see if I can pare them down.

The first thing is simply to get rid of Objectives 1(b) and 2, because they're not ultimate goals that any sane person should have. Okay, that brings us down to ten or elven Objectives. Now let's try to combine some of them.

Objectives 1(a) and 1(c), "Improve Economic Competitiveness ... and Workforce Development Opportunities" are in fact pretty much the same goal, and it boils down to money. We can call it "Increase prosperity."

Objective 3(a), "Promote Energy Efficiency," can contribute to Prosperity, but it can also fit with Objectives 4(a) and (b), "Ensure Environmental Protection, Restore Climate Stability." Those all basically mean keeping the earth functioning as a nice place to live, so let's pack them all into Objective 4(a).

Objective 3(b), "Achieve Energy Security," really stands on its own.

Objective 4(c), "Resolve Persistent Environmental Justice Issues," fits better with Objective 6. We can just say, "Make things fairer."

Finally, Objective 5(a) and (b), "Ensure Safety for All Transportation Users and Improve Public Health Outcomes," pretty much means to keep everyone alive and healthy. We can say, "Maintain safety and health," and if you don't like that conjunction in there we can bundle health in with Prosperity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I now present five suggested revised objectives for transportation policy (they don't just work at the federal level):

1. Safety
2. Sustainability
3. Fairness
4. Independence
5. Prosperity

In keeping with our new Objective 3, the Blueprint does articulate some of these more clearly, but they're not in the list of Objectives, and they're not the organizing principle of the Breaking down the Blueprint series of blog posts. Wouldn't it be simpler if the targets were linked to "Prosperity," rather than to "Economic Competitiveness, Efficiency, and Opportunity"?

I'm sure it's too late for this Blueprint. The funders have already spent their money, the thing has been printed and distributed to Congress, and by now they've incorporated these Objectives into many Powerpoint presentations and blog posts. But those of us who don't work for the campaign can use these objectives in promoting our short-term goals.

I'll go first: here's how my list of goals (up in the header) fit into these Objectives:

a. Reducing pollution -> Safety, Sustainability, Prosperity
b. Increasing efficiency -> Sustainability, Independence, Prosperity
c. Reducing carnage -> Safety
d. Improving society -> Fairness, Prosperity
e. Transportation for all -> Fairness, Prosperity