They hate us. They really REALLY hate us.

fauxcelt wrote:It seems to me (and I am not an expert) that a long-term transportation policy for a metropolitan area which is based only on building more roads or expanding existing roads is lopsided and not a good idea unless you are willing to use or even consider other modes of transportation in addition to building more roads just for private vehicles such as cars.

It's unsustainable. First, you have "Braess' Paradox" which is a mathematical description of a road network in which adding connections can actually INCREASE total travel time for all road users. (Look it up and do the math yourself--simple algebra--this effect is powerful and real.) Secondly, you have "induced demand" which occurs over time after any transit line or road is build. (Induced demand is a term for the phenomenon of transportation-centered residential and commercial development leading to changes in O/D points for all network users over time.) The difference is that the transit line succeeds based on this induced demand whereas the "new breezy expressway" turns into the "congested, stop&go nightmare" as a result of induced demand. Third, traffic modeling has shown that traffic on roads is more like capillaries than arteries (where blood cells keep getting stuck against the capillary walls). I furthermore suspect that increased road usage does not cause linear increases in travel time (per Braess' model) but rather the travel time blows up geometrically*. Driving on a roadway is a social activity (much as we pretend otherwise) and also limited by human physical and cognitive abilities. Hence the "snarls". Rail deals with increased demand with these things known as "trains". You also have signalling and dispatching, and sidings for separating mixed traffic. (Sidings-er, "local lanes" have been tried on highways, but they don't perform well.) Fourth: maintenance costs, maintenance costs, maintenance costs. I rest my case.

*-if you think about it from a mathematical point of view, I just can't see where you have a linear model--independent variables. the mess looks very recursive to me. The first models all used linear functions, but that's because it's easier to plunk down a linear estimate that sorta works than use a non-linear function for a good fit--and then attempt to manipulate it.

This deserves its own post:

Braess's Paradox

Braess's paradox, credited to the mathematician Dietrich Braess, states that adding extra capacity to a network, when the moving entities selfishly choose their route, can in some cases reduce overall performance.

The paradox is stated as follows: "For each point of a road network, let there be given the number of cars starting from it, and the destination of the cars. Under these conditions one wishes to estimate the distribution of traffic flow. Whether one street is preferable to another depends not only on the quality of the road, but also on the density of the flow. If every driver takes the path that looks most favorable to him, the resultant running times need not be minimal. Furthermore, it is indicated by an example that an extension of the road network may cause a redistribution of the traffic that results in longer individual running times."

"Selfish" is a distracting term here. What they're talking about is a "User-Optimized" system, what you have in most of the US, as opposed to "System Optimization". The latter can be achieved with tolls. SO can also lead to lower travel times in certain networks than UO, but UO is more popular politically. This is also in a demand-constant model, where all O/D's remain the same. People who go around talking about "induced demand" don't realize that Network Optimization experts have been talking about increased congestion in a demand-neutral environment when new roads are built since the 1950's!

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: In this case, we're not even talking about commuter rail, light rail or mass transit, but a public bus system - still centered on highway transportation. My general feeling is that the benefits of such a system go to the individuals who pay the least in taxation, while the burden bearers of the tax system have the very least use for it. So it come as no surprise that the taxpayers will begrudge a 1% sales tax increase to a service that doesn't benefit them directly.

But we are talking about an expanding metro area, which means express buses, which are frequented by a middle-class working set who do pay taxes, and these buses benefit employers (the top 5%).

In any event, the Feds will cover a lot of both capital and operating costs. The local taxpayer is chunking in very little.

The best solution for Pulaski County, Arkansas would be a privatization of CAT (Central Arkansas Transit), allowing this bus system to sink or swim in the private market. In the absence of taxpayer subsidies of a publicly funded system, private operators would have the opportunity to offer service that is better geared to the actual needs of the community. In the end, there might be a number of successful owner operators, most likely operating better focused van, limo, bus and taxi services, none of which would require taxpayer funds.

You can't be serious. FTA transit agencies are forbidden by law to compete with private transportation companies, so all of the economically viable services, aside from maybe some operating-positive main trunk routes on the transit system, are already being filled or are fillable without any government intervention. (Personally, I think sometimes these governments need to get out of the way--they charge ridiculous taxes and fees to bus co's just to stop in their area, which drive prices up and restrict transportation or even convince the company to pull stakes and leave. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face. And I'm sure you're going to LOOOOOVE paying to provide that service yourself.)

You just said yourself that buses are serving a taxation-negative population. Where are these people (often children, students, elderly on fixed incomes, permanently disabled, mentally ill and unable to work, and of course, the minimum wage worker) going to find the money to pay all those cab fares?

The hidden beneficiary of the transit subsidy is the minimum wage employer. Remember that.

FFolz wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: In this case, we're not even talking about commuter rail, light rail or mass transit, but a public bus system - still centered on highway transportation. My general feeling is that the benefits of such a system go to the individuals who pay the least in taxation, while the burden bearers of the tax system have the very least use for it. So it come as no surprise that the taxpayers will begrudge a 1% sales tax increase to a service that doesn't benefit them directly.

But we are talking about an expanding metro area, which means express buses, which are frequented by a middle-class working set who do pay taxes, and these buses benefit employers (the top 5%).

In any event, the Feds will cover a lot of both capital and operating costs. The local taxpayer is chunking in very little.

The best solution for Pulaski County, Arkansas would be a privatization of CAT (Central Arkansas Transit), allowing this bus system to sink or swim in the private market. In the absence of taxpayer subsidies of a publicly funded system, private operators would have the opportunity to offer service that is better geared to the actual needs of the community. In the end, there might be a number of successful owner operators, most likely operating better focused van, limo, bus and taxi services, none of which would require taxpayer funds.

You can't be serious. FTA transit agencies are forbidden by law to compete with private transportation companies, so all of the economically viable services, aside from maybe some operating-positive main trunk routes on the transit system, are already being filled or are fillable without any government intervention. (Personally, I think sometimes these governments need to get out of the way--they charge ridiculous taxes and fees to bus co's just to stop in their area, which drive prices up and restrict transportation or even convince the company to pull stakes and leave. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face. And I'm sure you're going to LOOOOOVE paying to provide that service yourself.)

You just said yourself that buses are serving a taxation-negative population. Where are these people (often children, students, elderly on fixed incomes, permanently disabled, mentally ill and unable to work, and of course, the minimum wage worker) going to find the money to pay all those cab fares?

The hidden beneficiary of the transit subsidy is the minimum wage employer. Remember that.

You're approaching public transportation from the standpoint of social welfare, which is beyond the scope of this forum. It seems quite likely that the local electorate was well aware of the social aspects of CAT (Central Arkansas Transit), which is precisely why the 1% sales tax increase was voted down.

Thank you for your contributions FFolz. It was interesting reading.

Yes the local electorate is well aware of the social aspects to supporting a public transit system and they decided to be selfish every time it was on the ballot.

The local electorate doesn't seem to care or want to realize that by helping others, they are helping themselves indirectly.

fauxcelt wrote:Thank you for your contributions FFolz. It was interesting reading.

Yes the local electorate is well aware of the social aspects to supporting a public transit system and they decided to be selfish every time it was on the ballot.

People tend to act, and vote, on the basis of self interest. If you want to find examples of broad based support for public transit, look at communities where there is a broad socioeconomic cross section of users. The greater New York metropolitan area is a great example. Unlike Little Rock, there are large numbers of affluent public transport users in New York, and not just on the suburban commuter lines, but on the subways and buses as well. It should be equally unsurprising that the MTA receives massive taxpayer subsidies, as well as realistic fare structures.

Yes, thank you for your comments Goodnightjohnwayne. Unfortunately, that is so true and not just in New York City or Little Rock, Arkansas.

Laurence