Bankruptcy of Mass Transit

[roo_ster]

Unfortunately, the Port Authority of Allegheny County  Pittsburghs government mass-transit bus and rail monopoly -- is a typical example of how far the American mass-transit model has devolved after 40-plus years of horrid management, easy federal money and the unconditional support of local and national politicians. To find out if cities elsewhere have found a better way of providing bus and rail service for their people, I recently called our favorite international transit guru and public policy consultant Wendell Cox (www.demographia.com) at his office in southern Illinois near St. Louis.

Q: What's the best mass-transit system in the world?

A: Tokyo. The system is largely commuter rail. There are 10 large, private, profitable commuter rail systems. There are two largely profitable subway systems in the city of Tokyo -- when I say Tokyo, I'm talking about 35 million people stretched over about 3,000 square miles -- one and half times the size of Los Angeles. So I'm not just talking about the city of Tokyo. But in this whole area, transit is profitable. Two big subways in Tokyo actually cover all their operating costs as well as almost all of their capital costs. If you think of the Port Authority, it's lucky if it is covering 30 percent of its operating costs. In Tokyo the commuter rail service is private, they earn strong profits, and they pay for their capital costs and their expansion. Over all the major systems that account for more than 90 percent of the ridership are profitable.

Q: Why?

A: Its not because they came in later and said, Oh, we need to build these rail systems. After World War II, obviously Japan was wiped out, as the cities expanded. Tokyo in 1940 probably had 5 million people; today we have 35 million. While we all know that Japan is losing population, the growth of the Japanese urban areas in the 1960s and 1970s was something to behold. What happened as they grew, these private railroads -- not public railroads; there was not an ounce of public planning here, by the way -- expanded their systems.

You have a situation now where, believe it or not, 60 to 65 percent of the movement of people in the Tokyo area and the Osaka area is by transit -- a stunning figure. When you figure that in the Pittsburgh area the number is less than 2 percent. By the way, it only exceeds 4 percent in the U.S.A. in New York, which is 9 percent.

Another thing helped them as well -- World War II.  A lot of people dont realize that Japanese GDP in 1950, adjusted for inflation, was under $3,000. It was at Third World rates. Japan, first of all, was not rich before World War II, which a lot of people dont realize; and secondly, after the war it had been devastated. In the process Japan has become one of the five richest large countries in the world. But in this country, by 1930, there were .75 cars per household -- an impressive number. Nobody equaled it until Canada in 1955. Japan did not reach U.S. 1930 auto ownership rates until 1990.

So what this means is that while the cities were expanding and growing, transit was growing up and the auto was not available to most people.  All of this goes to say that these are incredible, unbelievable systems in Japan and they can not be replicated. Nobody came in with a federal program or a program from the Japanese Diet and started imposing rail lines on the existing urban footprint. Transit was built as the city expanded.

Q: What's the best transit system in the United States -- or is there one?

A: Boy.... Oh, San Diego. I would not call it the best. I'd call it the least worst. San Diego has done some wonderful things. They started contracting out transit service in 1979. Their costs are much lower than other systems as a result. More than 40 percent of their system is contracted out now. They carry a huge increase in ridership compared to what they had in 1980 -- a ridership increase that's far greater than the population increase. Everybody likes to talk about the San Diego Trolley, the light rail line. It is, again, the least worst trolley in the country. It is less unsuccessful as a result of its first line that went to the Mexican border. For example, if those Port Authority tunnels under the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh were ending up at the Mexican border, they might make some sense. But in the early years, this San Diego line covered 90 percent of its operating cost; it never covered any capital. As the system has expanded, its been decimated. Theres no other destination like the Mexican border.    When you talk about transit in the United States, you have to be talking about best prisoner awards. These systems are a scourge on taxpayers. There are some that do some wonderful things, but nobody does it all right.

I keep arguing in my own mind, who is more responsible for the abject failure of transit in the United States? And mind you -- transit expenditures have gone up more than 300 percent adjusted for inflation since 1970 and ridership has gone up less than 20 percent. There is no other sector of the economy, including health care, where I can find escalation even close to that. Transit holds the record. It is a damned outrage how bad transit has been.

I continually argue with myself, Well, is it because of the unions? -- and I dont blame the unions, because if you are a union leader there in Pittsburgh and there is no competition, why shouldnt you ask for the moon? You should be thrown out if you dons ask for the moon. So there's this monopoly labor negotiating thing, where the unions play a part and where management plays a part, and where to some extent you will find management rooting for the unions because they know whatever the unions get they  are going to get & . Or is it the vendors -- the people who build these darn light rail systems?

The whole point of transit is to maximize costs. The management-labor arrangements maximize costs and so do the vendor arrangements with respect to capital expenditures. All that being said, there is no hope whatsoever for transit.

Q: Why is there no hope?

A:  The first reason is that it is structurally incapable to be designed to do much more than it does today. Think about this: The Port Authority, for all of its problems, probably does a reasonably decent job of getting people to Downtown. As a matter of fact, something like 40 percent of downtown Pittsburgh workers get their on transit -- one of the highest shares in the country.

I was out in Pittsburgh about a year ago&. Think about what youd need to do if you wanted to increase the transit market share for one of the business centers on the way to the airport. How would you structure transit to replicate the 40 percent downtown share? Well, Ill tell you how you do it. Youd need to have a series of routes that converge on this one point, just like downtown.  I dont care if there is one job there or 50,000 jobs there, because otherwise you are talking about service that cannot compete with the automobile.

That is why if you look at the Western world -- and I mean North America, including Canada, Australia and Western Europe -- you will not find any non-central business center that has a substantial market share for transit. If you live in the suburbs of Paris, for example -- where 80 percent of the people live and work and 70 percent of the jobs are -- you cant possibly get to another part of the suburbs by transit unless you are willing to go all the way downtown to the core and switch. There are people that do that because they dont have any money, but anyone with a car is going to drive.

So the first reason why there is no hope for transit is that it can not be designed to be competitive with the automobile, except for very specific locations -- that really only being a downtown area. It has to be a good concentrated downtown area, and they dont come much better in my view than Pittsburgh. The other reason why there is no hope for transit is that whatever you give them will be frittered away without any impact whatsoever. That gets us back to this whole bit of a 300 percent expenditure increase at the same time youve had a 20 percent ridership increase. If any one of these bozos wants to think about putting taxes on greenhouse gases and giving the money to transit -- hey, what a loser. You will get nothing.

Q: A while ago I came across some figures for the Port Authority from the early 1980s. Ridership then was about 100 million a year; it had about 2,800 employees, almost 1,000 buses and about 90 trolleys. In 2006 it had about 3,000 employees, about 1,000 buses and 80 light-rail cars. Its budget had gone up 42 percent faster than inflation since 1982 -- but they were carrying 70 million people instead of 100 million. They had lost 30 percent of their business yet everything stayed the same -- and no one even notices this.

A: I know. You are absolutely right -- and you can find that just about everywhere. There are some exceptions. But the point you're making with respect to the Port Authority makes my point exactly: For most transit agencies in the United States, if they were to write a mission statement that is reflective of what they do, they would indicate that they exist for the purpose of serving their employees and vendors.

Q: What about Europe? Aren't there reforms going on there?

A: Yes. I do a lot of speaking in Europe and I tell them, "Don't think of America as free market. You guys are far more free market than we are." They are contracting out services all over the place. The entire Stockholm system is contracted out. Every bus is contracted out. The commuter rail is contracted out. A good portion of the commuter rail service in Germany either has been or will be contracted out. In the United States we have this massive, stupid, inefficient, destructive federal program that in my view has done more to destroy transit than anything else besides the management-labor cabal and the vendors.

In Europe what they discovered about 15 years ago is that centralized funding creates all sorts of incentives for locals to waste money. So just about everywhere in Europe they have stopped their national transit programs and forced it down to the local level. They've said, "If you want to spend all that money on transit, you go right ahead." In a sense, they de-nationalized funding and they de-nationalized responsibility.

Q: Is the current model of mass transit in the USA dead after 40 years?

A: It's not dead because it is being kept alive by an IV from Washington and taxpayers. The very idea that Pennsylvania wants to impose tolls on I-80 with part of the money going to transit shows the bankruptcy of the whole thing. You are not going to get anything for it. Transit is on life support. It is very politically strong. And you know what, we can keep brain-dead transit alive for as long as there is stuff coming out of those IV needles. But if you want to talk about people, role in the community and all that kind of thing, not only is the model dead, but my sense is that transit is dead. That's because this model has so poorly served the industry and the people that I'm not sure there is anything that can be done to resuscitate it.

Q: What would you do if you got to run the Port Authority?

A:  If I were given dictatorial powers to go into a place like Pittsburgh and not have to deal with the feds and everything, I would propose that what we do is first offer a program of leased cars to our low-income riders and basically try to move all of our low-income drivers who can drive to cars. And by the way, the mathematics work very well.

Secondly, I would strengthen dial-a-ride (Access) programs to help those people we cant help with cars. And thirdly, I would provide whatever service can be provided by bus or rail profitably. That means that people who work downtown are going to have to start paying their share. Maybe that hurts downtown. But the fact is, theres no reason why a downtown employee should not be paying the full cost of his transit ride to downtown.

That model might very well in the long run get you more transit ridership and it would provide incredibly better mobility to low-income people who are being held back by their reliance on transit. But generally, what I am saying is that when you get to a situation where transit represents 4 percent of ridership -- which it does in Chicago, Washington and San Francisco, those being the second, third and fourth to New York City at 9 percent -- its dead.

Now thats not to suggest there arent things that can be saved. The downtown-oriented systems are great, but they dont need to be subsidized. Why are we subsidizing downtown? Its because they have the power -- its very simple. If somebody were ever to take a serious look at the subsidies to downtown, it would be astounding -- and Im not just talking about transit.

Q: Is anyone in the U.S.A. looking at a new model or calling for one?

A: In terms of anyone thinking of an alternative, you have to recognize that it is sort of a self-supporting, incestuous situation. The unions never give up. They hate contracting because it saves 40 or 50 percent. The politicians in Washington love it. You've got a transit industry that's spending $50 billion a year. I don't know what the American Public Transit Association budget is, but I know they walk the halls of Congress all the time. They take members of Congress to their meetings. If you want to talk about lobbying abuses, I'd start with the public sector quite frankly. So the point is, of course, nobody is thinking about changing anything.

[Manedwolf]

Tokyo's success is also a matter of people per unit of space and urban density. Tokyo is VERY VERY DENSE, there's just not room for the alternative of cars for many people.

As for units of space, Tokyo subways are very, very crowded (200% capacity at rush hour) in a way that American concepts of personal space would have trouble dealing with. Packing people like cattlecars is simply more efficient in terms of fares paid vs. cost. That just wouldn't work here.



You see those guys? They're "oshiya", uniformed attendants who push people into an already-crowded train. They've been doing that since the 1930's. Tokyo residents are willing to be pushed into the train. Can you see that working in America?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

folks in japan will go along with stuff that would never fly here

[Manedwolf]

folks in japan will go along with stuff that would never fly here

Because Japan was isolated for centuries until Perry's fleet arrived, there's a lot about the cultural psychology that's actually quite alien to the Western mindset. It's interesting to study.


Commodore Perry and company. How does someone draw white men when they hadn't seen any for over two centuries?
Interesting that they took detailed note of the drill formation, though!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the judicial system is
"different"  great closure rate though

[Gewehr98]

Because Japan was isolated for centuries until Perry's fleet arrived, there's a lot about the cultural psychology that's actually quite alien to the Western mindset. It's interesting to study.

Try being stationed there for a while. 

(I'd go back, though.  I want to check out the "groping" incidents reported on subways by cute Japanese girls...)

[Manedwolf]

Because Japan was isolated for centuries until Perry's fleet arrived, there's a lot about the cultural psychology that's actually quite alien to the Western mindset. It's interesting to study.

Try being stationed there for a while. 

(I'd go back, though.  I want to check out the "groping" incidents reported on subways by cute Japanese girls...)

The last car of most trains now is women-only just for that reason.

[Standing Wolf]

I used to ride BART trains to and from San Francisco. Do you have any idea how many people eat lots of garlic for breakfast?

[K Frame]

"Because Japan was isolated for centuries until Perry's fleet arrived, there's a lot about the cultural psychology that's actually quite alien to the Western mindset. It's interesting to study."

Not just Japan.

Many of the Asian societies have similar mindsets.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you could probably say most if not all asian countries

[Mabs2]

I'd like to go to Japan.
I'm still not convinced that Japanese people aren't cartoons with big eyes.
I want to see the proof.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

expensive trip  but uncle sam has a program to help

i wanna go back but first i wanna go to ireland with dad

[Mabs2]

expensive trip  but uncle sam has a program to help

i wanna go back but first i wanna go to ireland with dad

Yea I should email Sam.
"I want to go to Japan to look at chicks."
I have been thinking about doing some mission work though, and Japan is the only foreign country I know anything about...

[Firethorn]

As a person who HAS used mass transit a number of times, I have to agree on a number of points.

In many ways, I was in a nearly ideal setup.  The local bus route ran by the corner down the block.  Walking distance?  Less than many mall parking lots.  I rode the city bus to Jr High for a number of years because of it, as the #10 went right by it.

Some times I'd walk(though it was a multi mile one, would take about an hour), or ride my bike.

I also rode it when I had a job downtown for a while in college.

Still, biking was sometimes faster.  You could make in 20 minutes with a car what the bus took an hour to do.

There are serious time benefits to a car.  A car can leave anytime.  You have to wait for the bus, either on an hour or half hour schedule.  The car takes a more or less direct route, the bus 'wanders'.  The bus stops to pick up/drop off people all the time.  The car doesn't do that until it's reached it's destination(normally).

Still, I approach it from a benefits/cost angle, and that's why I support Personal Rapid Transit.  The idea is that you have on demand cars(no waiting 15 minutes for the bus), that go non-stop to the destination station(like downtown, the mall, hospital, etc...).  This can actually enable it to be FASTER than cars in the correct circumstances - which is where I'd build the system first, of course.  Maximum benefit leads to maximum usage leads to maximum profit*.

As a bonus I'd get to read a book again in safety while traveling to my destination.  Another bonus - many versions are electric, and could help reduce pollution in cities.

Though I'll agree with the original article, all this could be rendered moot by corruption and public meddling.  Of course, look at the big dig - anything can be ruined by that.


*Or at least lowest loss

[Manedwolf]

Still, I approach it from a benefits/cost angle, and that's why I support Personal Rapid Transit.  The idea is that you have on demand cars(no waiting 15 minutes for the bus), that go non-stop to the destination station(like downtown, the mall, hospital, etc...).  This can actually enable it to be FASTER than cars in the correct circumstances - which is where I'd build the system first, of course.  Maximum benefit leads to maximum usage leads to maximum profit*.

Besides the numerous other flaws, that will never happen, now that they've realized that it'd be an ideal way for someone to toss in a backpack bomb and send it as a guided weapon right into an urban center, while the terrorist is long gone.

[MicroBalrog]

And then, Manedwolf, people will curl up like whiny bitches, and whine about TEH ISLAMIC THREAT, and mandate searches of all possessions at all train stations.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

except the paulians  they will be counting their liberty dollars at the altar

[MicroBalrog]

except the paulians  they will be counting their liberty dollars at the altar

Searches of all possessions at train stations are already here where I live. Scare the Americans enough, and I guarantee you it'll come real.

[Manedwolf]

And then, Manedwolf, people will curl up like whiny bitches, and whine about TEH ISLAMIC THREAT, and mandate searches of all possessions at all train stations.

Not talking about train stations, I'm talking about the silly idea of "personal transit", lowest-bidder-but-high-cost taxpayer funded pods on tracks that would somehow magically not collide from software problems, not have people pee and throw up in them, and not have someone in the suburbs put a bomb in it, set it for "downtown arena", then let it leave and take off.

[Scout26]

I took the main thrust as "Private Enterprise works, Government running things doesn't." 

But people never seem to learn that lesson. 

[Firethorn]

Not talking about train stations, I'm talking about the silly idea of "personal transit", lowest-bidder-but-high-cost taxpayer funded pods on tracks that would somehow magically not collide from software problems, not have people pee and throw up in them, and not have someone in the suburbs put a bomb in it, set it for "downtown arena", then let it leave and take off.

1.  I support having a private company do it, but I will admit that it will have to work closely with government, probably receive quite a bit of funding from it, at least until it hits a critical size - the point at which it has enough destinations and pick up stations to attract enough riders to be self sustaining.
2.  'Magically not collide':  It's called 'real time programming*' and 'multiple failsafes'.  Besides, surely it could do better at not colliding with stuff than a soccer mom talking on her cell while driving her SUV.  Oh, and most PRT systems are capable of stopping in distances that put cars to shame, much less current trains.
3.  You get a nasty car, you hit a button rejecting it and take the next one.  The nasty car goes to the servicing depot for cleaning/repair.  If it's nasty enough, they go to the effort of tracking down who messed it up(Logs would be kept).  Oh, and is this really any different than car rentals, or taking a bus/train?  
4.  Bomb - Sure, I can see the headline 'Bomb explodes on PRT pod, one person injured', vs 191 with a traditional station.  Besides, if you're going to get that granular and fearful, may I point out that a crowded mall would probably be a good target compared to a station where people enter and almost immediately depart because the service is on demand?  Oh, and simple way to prevent unmanned targeting - simply require an action once the pod doors close.  Hitting a 'ready to depart' button, for example.

When I picture a PRT system, generally I see several stations and tracks downtown, with feeders going out to residential areas, malls, and such.

*IE 'Not Microsoft'.

[Manedwolf]

When I picture a "PRT system" CG rendering concept, I see:

[MicroBalrog]

Not talking about train stations, I'm talking about the silly idea of "personal transit", lowest-bidder-but-high-cost taxpayer funded pods on tracks that would somehow magically not collide from software problems, not have people pee and throw up in them, and not have someone in the suburbs put a bomb in it, set it for "downtown arena", then let it leave and take off.

The big problem about tmass transit is approximately like this, and it cannot be taken away by engineering design:

Mass transit depends, most of the time, on government financial support, and government control. It is the bureaucrats that'll decide where the stations go, not the consumers. And sooner or later they'll figure out  like they've figured out in Israel  that they can control population patterns by creating lines to one area but not to another. Want an area to be developed faster? Build lines where there are few people. Want an area to lose inhabitants? Cut off bus and train.

Of course, it encourages people to move from the suburbs and into European-style massive apartment complexes  easier to track (think the London CCTV system), easier to control. Where the government regulates and controls housing and transit less (as in America, and post-Soviet Eastern Europe), you get people moving OUT of the hives.

And of course, as I mentioned, when people move through a centralized system, it's easy (once they're properly scared, like they are in Israel) to persuade them to submit to searches.

Aside:

I will remember forever the day when my fiancee arrived in Israel. She did knewthat they do this sort of thing in Israel. Though I warned her, she was not emotionally prepared for it  and of course, when we reached the Tel-Aviv bus station, the idiot rent-a-cop decided to get thorough on her. I will never forget the shocked look on her face when he rifled through her luggage.

Now, not a single Israeli (outside a dozen libertarian wackjobs like me) will admit their privacy is invaded by this. But, yes, this sort of oppression  let us call the child by his name  exists. It's going to be there if you introduce mass-transit.

Returning to main narrative:

Introduce mass-transit, and you give away your freedom of transportation to the people in charge of it.

Historians agree that one of the key reasons America retained her culture of individual liberty through the 20th century is the proliferation of the private automobile. It is as much a tool of liberty as the modem, the rifle, and the private house.

Give it up, and there is no America.

People who hate private cars hate America, and they hate capitalism, and YES, damn it, they hate freedom.

[Firethorn]

When I picture a "PRT system" CG rendering concept, I see:

And I see that image as a sign of what conventional mass transit solutions are.  They only make sense in very limited situations.

As least with PRT we're trying something new.  The non-stop travel to potentially multiple different stations, the on-demand nature, gives it at least the potential to be faster than cars.  The rail nature allows it to be safer with far less complicated automation.  The electric versions drop fuel costs enough to pay for quite huge amounts of infrastructure.

Consider a ride 30 miles long.  Today, with a moderate car it'd cost $4 in fuel alone to drive it.  Then there's W&T on the car, insurance, time of the driver who's unable to effectively do something else.  If I charge $4 for the same PRT ride, I'd have $3.75 after paying for the electricity needed for the trip.  Infrastructure, maintenance, all that.

I'll fully admit that in my manifesto(what I'd do if I was Evil Overlord of the USA), I'd start with a test install in one city, carefully selected for maximum potential benefit/easy install/etc...  If it works there we can use the lessons learned for other areas.