Matthew Yglesias » The Annals of Planning

Sep 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm

The Annals of Planning

Here’s a shot of the Warehouse District stop at one end (the other is the Mall of America) of Minneapolis’ one-line light rail system:

You hate to see an open air parking lot adjacent to a transit node under any circumstances but especially when it’s a central city node like this one situated in a walkable area. Even if you went really transit crazy, in any city space immediately adjacent to a rail station is going to be relatively rare. Thus it’s quite important to make sure that you’re using the space in high-value ways — places for people to live or shop or work — rather than as inefficient parking lots.

Comments
99

99 Responses to “The Annals of Planning”

James Gary Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Since no one rides the Minneapolis one-line light rail system anyway, a parking lot seems as good a use for the adjoining space as any other.
John Cain Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Um, did that guy die?
How Insane Is John McCain? Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Jesus Christ, Yglesias, why did you take this picture instead of saving that pedestrian ABOUT TO GET RUN OVER.

Dude in picture: LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!!!
Matt B Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Dude’s an art lover and wants to go out like Gaudí.
Medium Dave Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
As I discovered in Boston (the hard way), electric streetcars are rather quiet. They aren’t, however, generally empty.
OPS Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Guy In Blue Shirt: 1967-2008
MobiusKlein Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Open air parking lots are quite common, even in the SF Bay Area, adjacent to BART, Caltrain, and other light rail spots.

There are even open air parking lots quite close to downtown San Francisco. Sad, but true.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The Mpls tram is pretty cool, actually. There is the whole OH NOES KERSPLAT thing, but it does make the downtown feel more accessible.
b-brane Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
dude, the whole light-rail is just a couple years old. give us minneapolitans a little time to build around it now — which has in fact been proceeding at a decent pace.
Chris O. Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Uh James, do you live here? The Hiawatha line far, far exceeded the initial usage estimates, and the numbers have kept growing since.
The Suggestor Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Hey Matt, I have a suggestion for you. I understand that as mayor of Wasilla, Palin tried to get some books removed from the local public library. It would be interesting if a reporter like yourself figured out what books these were. I bet they did not include The Road to Serfdom. Censorship is not cool, man.
RWB Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Assuming that the parking lot is privately owned, and assuming the owner does have the right under existing land-use/zoning regulations to build something else there, then what does it matter? If the land is more valuable as offices or apartments or condos, the landowner will either build them or sell out to someone who does. (Unless he has some sentimental reason for keeping a parking lot there.)If the present value of the cash flows thrown off by the parking lot are higher than the opportunity cost of buiilding something else there, then he’s making the right economic decision.

Now if the lot is a municipal lot, or zoned in such a way that the owner doesn’t have any real choise but to keep it as a parking lot, that’s another matter, and I agree with your completely…)
David Trinh Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I used to live on that block. The reason for the parking lot is because the Target center (a gigantic arena that seats around 20,000) is two blocks away and the area is FILLED with bars that people frequent at night. For the most part the LRT line in Minneapolis is well structured and if you ride the line down to MOA you’ll find that all sorts of condos have sprung up alongside it.
b-brane Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
in fact if you look around washington ave. within a few blocks of where you took that shot, you’ll see a bunch of new nice high-density housing. new condo projects have also been going up next door to outbound stops on the route, with ads for them around downtown.
Phil Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Matt, go two stops down to the Government Plaza station, where a “walkable plaza” (as the name suggests) was sold but certainly not delivered. The tracks bisected a true plaza between City Hall and the Hennepin County Government Center, forcing peds to cross essentially at the street intersections. (A fence was recently installed to preclude cheating.) My boss, Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, woefully refers to it as the Government Plaza ‘moat’. Nonetheless, the LRT is a great first step for a Twin Cities transit network that will next go east to St Paul, then to the Southwest and Northwest suburbs.
tomj Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I lived in the downtown area of Minneapolis some twenty years ago. It was at that time a very walkable/bike-ridable city. Hard to say just how representative this one photo is. In the winter time it is so cold there that you probably wouldn’t even be using that parking lot. The city had a series of closed, raised sky-walks between buildings so that once you get inside somewhere you can avoid the cold. And the cold could be so bad that a few seconds outside is painful.

Of course parking lots are also the easiest way to maintain property until it is ready for new construction. If it is somewhere that demands a large development it could take many years to find the right developers.

You should do a post on Bellevue Wa some day (while visiting). Over the last year there were over a dozen high-rise developments going on at the same time, yet we can’t get our shit together on light rail.
Carson Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Matt- As someone from the area who parks in that lot all the time, it is privately owned and wraps around several businesses on the same block. But the light rail certainly wouldn’t be any more reason to build a ramp to accomodate more spaces than the new Twins stadium being constructed two blocks away, and that opens next year. The owners must just be very stuck in their ways. And while I love the light rail, I must say that very few people park in Downtown to take the rail to Bloomington and the Mall of America. It is almost exclusively the other way around. People park outside of the downtown area and take the light rail in.
Drew Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The gentleman in the picture is in no danger. That particular station is built to accommodate three car light rail sets. Our line only currently uses three car sets.
drew Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
two car sets
neb Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
The rail line has only been open for two years. If the owner of this lot thought it was more profitable to develop, they would do so. Parking is actually quite profitable, and so is holding on to the land as it appreciates. The city cannot force development. (Plus, if you looked at dt Mpls only a few years ago you’d be amazed at how much less parking and more development there is now.) The same thing is the case in all of the cities now putting in LRT lines.

I wonder how long the old convention center site in DC will sit as a big parking lot — and that land isn’t even in private hands.
a reader Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ridership on the LRT in Minneapolis is actually very high, exceeding predictions when it opened and growing every year. It brings lots of commuters in from park and rides and people who live along the line, and lots of people use it to attend Twins games and other events, parking free near stations and riding into downtown. Planning for the second line is nearing completion. We’re doing the best we can.

In the backround of that photo is the Shubert theatre which was saved from the wrecking ball and moved to that location and is awaiting restoration. But you’re right, putting something better than a surface lot there would actually be a big help, that corner at 5th and Hennepin is a trouble spot for crime.
Sifu Tweety Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Matt, before you get too much further into transit blogging, I think it’s important that you familiarize yourself with this.
notchris Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
word to all the Twin Towner’s!

Matt, what do you say some of your faithful readers/commenters here in the Twin Town’s take you out for a beer on Wed night?

And, yes, it can be next to the LRT station even though you are supposed to be in St. Paul.
Matthew Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Couple o’ things: Ridership for the light rail line is 32,985 per day. It’s already exceeded the ridership projections for 2020. People ride the rails, bitches.

Also, for the land right next to the train stop: http://www.artspaceusa.org/neighborhood/shubert/
Adam Villani Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Here in L.A. several of the large parking lots on top of or adjacent to Red Line stops are, indeed, being developed. But first, they were parking lots.
Steven Maloney Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Matt,

My wife and I just moved here – we are former DCers (you’ve met us before at Poker at “Libertarian House” several years ago (pps – I am not a libertarian)) and we absolutely love it here. If you have time on a nice evening go south down Nicollette Mall, through Loring Park, past the Walker Art Center, and down to any of: Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun, and Lake Harriet. You can check out Uptown, there’s a fantastic Italian Restraunt near Lake Calhoun in Uptown called Amore Victoria. Have a good meal, a nice glass of wine, and go see the Lakes. If you can do a trip like that, I think you’ll get a real sense of Minneapolis, it’s public spaces, and the way of life it fosters here. Also, if you get bogged down in St. Paul, WA Frost is a charming place to catch a drink.
skybluewater Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
It’s rather odd seeing pictures of places I walk by everyday on all these blogs…
MNPundit Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Those parking lots were already there Matt. That area is near the Metrodome where the Twins (and Vikings) play, and those are the high-value parking spaces for games. I think they are $27 normally.

That said they are slowly renovating down town. God I am so excited for the rail line. They just need to extend it all the way north to Monticello from Maple Grove and then I will never drive a car in the city again (ah, except to get to Monticello from Des Moines).

Also an important note, Democrats and Republicans failed to create the light rail. It was JESSE VENTURA that actually got it done, and while Pawlenty initially campaigned as a foe to the line he has presided over an expansion.
Chuck Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I ride the LRT to and from work at the Government Plaza stop every day. My office used to be in the Warehouse District, where the picture was taken. I’ve only put about 4000 miles/year on my car since the train started running. My neighbors specifically moved to my neighborhood this summer so they could commute via train to the new library. The line is helping to change things; it’s just taking time. That parking lot will not be there forever.
Alaskan Pete Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Thirty to one odds that parking was pre-existing when they built the light rail. One of the big positives of light rail is that the infrastructure can be integrated with the existing streets etc without much problem or impact.
Mixner Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
As I discovered in Boston (the hard way), electric streetcars are rather quiet. They aren’t, however, generally empty.

Urban rail transit is not completely empty, no. But mostly empty. The average load factor is less than 20%. That is, on average less than 2 out of every 10 seats on the vehicle is actually occupied by a passenger.
Mixner Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Couple o’ things: Ridership for the light rail line is 32,985 per day. It’s already exceeded the ridership projections for 2020. People ride the rails, bitches.

It’s not hard to “exceed expectations” when they are so low to begin with. The city of Minneapolis has 370,000 people. The metro area has 3.2 million people. And “ridership” here actually means “boardings” or “unlinked trips,” not unique daily passengers. Since most daily users of the system will be making at least two unlinked trips each day (one round-trip), the number of unique daily passengers is probably less than half the number you mention.

But that number itself seems dubious. The American Public Transportation Association gives a figure of 26,100 for average weekday unlinked passenger trips for the line for the first three months of 2008. Perhaps ridership is higher during the summer months when riders don’t have to endure frigid temperatures while walking to and from the rail stations and waiting for the train.
kmg Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
A long time ago I took a class at the University of Minnesota on basic city structure. One of the tasks was to map out the land use of Minneapolis’ central business district, creating a color-coded map. I randomly chose yellow as parking (along with like 8 other colors) and the result was an absolutely shocking creation! The map was blindingly bright. The fortuitous use of yellow made our class see the horrific way a lot of Minneapolis planning went, especially as regards transportation. I do think it’s improving a lot now.
fletc3her Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Here in Seattle there has been much debate about where to run our first light rail line. The south side of the line sensibly opens next year running under downtown Seattle, to the stadiums, on the surface through heavily populated Rainier Valley, and to the airport. The north side of the line which has been (further) delayed will run through the dense Capital Hill neighborhood to the University of Washington.

So many times I’ve heard that they shouldn’t bother running the train through the neighborhoods, but should just run down the center of the freeway. This, however, would put the train miles from any destinations that anyone who was, you know, on foot would want to get to. The train must run through the neighborhoods and to pedestrian friendly destinations like the University of Washington and the airport in order to be useful.
Ixnermay Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Trains bad. Outside bad. People icky. Magic cars!
Joe Fortier Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Urban rail transit is not completely empty, no. But mostly empty. The average load factor is less than 20%. That is, on average less than 2 out of every 10 seats on the vehicle is actually occupied by a passenger

Magic metric…

“Load factor” seems like a meaningless concept designed to minimize ridership.

I ride the twin cities LRT and it is often full enough that there is barely any standing room. It’s rarely less then 50% full by eyeballing (i.e. the norm is most, if not all seats are occupied with some standing).

What constitutes 100% load factor?

I’d point out:

1) 100% load is not a desirable nor even a realistically achievable state. A massive ridership would have a “load factor” of 75% meaning it was close to full at EVERY trip (do you really expect the 2AM trip to be full). The metric seems designed to create an artificially low impression of ridership. Keep in mind that “full” means “packed to the gills” with roughly 1/3 or more standing.

2) What “load factor” does a typical car have? It has to be a low number. As most cars seat five, but typically hold only the driver, load factor would seem to be no higher then 20%. Given that a typical train is running many times throughout the day, any realistic metric would place the “load factor” for a car in the single digits, well below. The metric doesn’t look so hot in that light. A metric that does not attempt to factor in the rate of passengers/unit over time is worthless in evaluating public transit.
Kiran Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Joe F. thats a fun metric when applied to cars:

My car could have 5 people in it, 24 hours a day which would be 120 person hours. Instead it has ONE person in it for less than half an hour a day.

So my car’s load factor is less than 0.5%

If he disapproves of 20% load factors, than I guess he disapproves of people riding alone in their cars?
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
“Load factor” seems like a meaningless concept designed to minimize ridership.

I don’t know why it seems “meaningless” to you. The ratio of occupied seats to total seats is not “meaningless.” It’s a standard measure of transportation efficiency.

I ride the twin cities LRT and it is often full enough that there is barely any standing room. It’s rarely less then 50% full by eyeballing (i.e. the norm is most, if not all seats are occupied with some standing).

Impressionistic eyeballing is not evidence. Transit vehicle load factors almost always vary dramatically between different times of the day, different days of the week, and different segments of a route. It is highly unlikely that your off-the-cuff impressions convey a meaningful estimate of the average load factor. As I said, the average load factor for rail transit vehicles in the United States is less than 20%.

What constitutes 100% load factor?

All seats occupied by passengers.

1) 100% load is not a desirable nor even a realistically achievable state.

Nobody said it was. As a practical matter, a 100% average load factor would be virtually impossible to achieve. Peak-time weekday load factors on busy segments of busy routes may reach or even exceed (with standing passengers) 100%, but otherwise are almost always much lower.

2) What “load factor” does a typical car have?

Cars and light trucks average about 1.6 passengers (including driver), for an average load factor of about 35%. Much higher than the average load factor of transit vehicles.
M1xn3r Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 am
Impressionistic eyeballing is not evidence.

Evidence is what I pull from my rotund ass.
k1ran Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Trainz are kewl so who carez if they waist enurgy.
Mîxner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 am
Do I bore you? I bore the shit out of myself, because I’ve only got three canned responses. Plus, I don’t get out much.
Kiran Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
I’m just making shit up as I go along. Plus, Bush is the Anti-Christ.
Jer Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 am
I don’t know why it seems “meaningless” to you. The ratio of occupied seats to total seats is not “meaningless.” It’s a standard measure of transportation efficiency.

No, it’s a stupid measure of transportation efficiency. Under that measurement, 10 Mazda Miatas each get at a minimum “50% magic load factor.” And since you’re conveniently ignoring Joe’s “load-over-time” metric, those Miatas get a minimum “50% magic load factor” even when they’re not being driven! So ergo, Mazda Miatas are better (magic load factor wise) than busses. And further ergo, public transportation should consist solely of Mazda Miatas.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Yeah. Mixner’s limited inventory of transit performance statistics isn’t too impressive (never mind his limited grasp of the basic concepts involved, or for that matter, basic math).

By some fluke, his misuse of a national average here is actually almost right for Minneapolis: load factor on the Hiawatha in 2006 was about 22%.

That’s of course less interesting (and less important) than the fact that ridership growth has wildly exceeded all projections though.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
By some fluke, his misuse of a national average here is actually almost right for Minneapolis: load factor on the Hiawatha in 2006 was about 22%.

Oops. I take that back. My assumption about the number of seat-miles was off. Looks like the average load factor is double that, 44.6% (and 46.8% on weekdays). (My info says their cars are 66 seaters.)
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Jer,

No, it’s a stupid measure of transportation efficiency.

Yeah, that must be why it’s a standard measure of efficiency used by the transportation industry.

Under that measurement, 10 Mazda Miatas each get at a minimum “50% magic load factor.”

No, all Mazda Miatas, not just 10 of them, have a minimum 50% actual load factor. The stupidity here is your claim of “magic.”

And since you’re conveniently ignoring Joe’s “load-over-time” metric,

Load factor refers to the ratio of occupancy to capacity while the vehicle is operating. Vehicle occupancy while non-operational is obviously meaningless to transportation efficiency. People are not in the habit of sitting in trains and buses while they are parked in the depot outside operational hours.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
DMonteith,

My assumption about the number of seat-miles was off.

Your “assumption?” Well, at least you’re now admitting you have no actual data and are just making things up out of thin air.

Looks like the average load factor is double that, 44.6% (and 46.8% on weekdays

What info? Where does it “look like” that?

As I said, nationally, rail transit average load factor is less than 20%. Perhaps the Hiawatha line is an extreme exception, but that seems unlikely.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
What info? Where does it “look like” that?

The National Transit Database.

Your “assumption?” Well, at least you’re now admitting you have no actual data and are just making things up out of thin air.

You’re an idiot. (And, BTW, project much?)

By way of explanation to those of you out there who AREN’T idiots: I initially looked at the Minneapolis summary page and assumed that light rail “vehicle miles” meant 2-car trains (= 132 seats). When I dug into the spreadsheets, I saw they really meant “car miles” (= only 66 seats), thus doubling the load factor.

As I said, nationally, rail transit average load factor is less than 20%. Perhaps the Hiawatha line is an extreme exception, but that seems unlikely.

Oh. You must be right. I mean it couldn’t be that a national average would be lumping together all sorts of disparate transit systems and management regimes or anything…
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
DMonteith,

Just noticed this.

To those of you just tuning in, this is Mixner accusing me of being a sockpuppet. His basis for that accusation? He can’t bring himself to believe that there could be more than one person in the world who thinks he’s an idiot.

Yeah. I think it’s funny too. But whatever helps him sleep at night.

I expect Mixner’s real objection to transit might be a deep-seated fear that they’ll start making him ride the short bus again…
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
DMonteith,

The National Transit Database.

Er, where in the NTD did you find data on average load factor for the Hiawatha line?

You’re an idiot.

You’re a moron.

I initially looked at the Minneapolis summary page and assumed that light rail “vehicle miles” meant 2-car trains (= 132 seats). When I dug into the spreadsheets, I saw they really meant “car miles” (= only 66 seats), thus doubling the load factor.

Load factor is the ratio of occupied seats to total seats. Where did you find the average load factor, or the data from which the average load factor could be calculated, in the NTD? Show us the data. Show us your “calculations.” Stop making things up.

I mean it couldn’t be that a national average would be lumping together all sorts of disparate transit systems and management regimes or anything…

Of course the national average involves “all sorts of disparate transit systems.” So what?
daveychuck Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
# Phil Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Matt, go two stops down to the Government Plaza station, where a “walkable plaza” (as the name suggests) was sold but certainly not delivered. The tracks bisected a true plaza between City Hall and the Hennepin County Government Center, forcing peds to cross essentially at the street intersections. (A fence was recently installed to preclude cheating.) My boss, Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, woefully refers to it as the Government Plaza ‘moat’. Nonetheless, the LRT is a great first step for a Twin Cities transit network that will next go east to St Paul, then to the Southwest and Northwest suburbs.

Phil-
There was never a pedestrian plaza between these two buildings. It was always a street. Pedestrians have always had to walk to the corner to cross just like every street in the world. Where exactly should the train go to avoid “bisecting” this non-existent plaza?

BTW: There is a tunnel under the street.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Dear Snuffleupagus N. Numerate:

Load factor is the ratio of occupied seats to total seats. Where did you find the average load factor, or the data from which the average load factor could be calculated, in the NTD? Show us the data. Show us your “calculations.” Stop making things up.

Load factor is calculated by dividing passenger-miles by seat-revenue-miles.

Try again.

Of course the national average involves “all sorts of disparate transit systems.” So what?

Well, you see, “disparate” means that not all of them are AVERAGE. This is important, because some are poorly performing, and some are high performing, and it’s actually important to know which are which and draw lessons from that.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
DMonteith,

Load factor is calculated by dividing passenger-miles by seat-revenue-miles.

Yes, that’s the technical definition. Now show me where the National Transit Database provides the load factor, or the passenger-miles and seat-revenue-miles, or any data from which those values can be calculated, for the Minneapolis light rail system.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
DMonteith,

Well, you see, “disparate” means that not all of them are AVERAGE.

With respect to the effeciency of rail transit in general, or rail transit overall, the national average is obviously the relevant figure.

This is important, because some are poorly performing, and some are high performing, and it’s actually important to know which are which and draw lessons from that.

Which are poor performing, which are high performing, and what “lessons” do you draw from that?
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Snuffles:

I’m not surprised you can’t find it. Again, it’s not my job to hold your hand in your little voyage of discovery about transit statistics databases.

The links to the spreadsheets and pdfs are right on that page. Pretty clearly labeled, too. I think anyone could figure it out. I found the raw data in about 15 seconds.

I’ll be real nice and give you a head start by telling you that Minneapolis’ ID# is 5027.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
With respect to the effeciency of rail transit in general, or rail transit overall, the national average is obviously the relevant figure.

But why is the current overall efficiency of rail transit in the US at all relevant to the discussion? Current rail systems in the US are often poorly managed, poorly invested in, and generally crap. Nobody here is arguing for more of that.

You’re making a (really pathetic) strawman argument, just as you did the other day with respect to Amtrak on-time percentage.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
DMonteith,

Again, it’s not my job to hold your hand in your little voyage of discovery about transit statistics databases.

It is most definitely your job to produce the data needed to support your claims. Show us the data that supports your claim about the Minneapolis light rail load factor.

But why is the current overall efficiency of rail transit in the US at all relevant to the discussion?

Because the efficiency of rail transit is one of things that is being discussed in this thread.

Current rail systems in the US are often poorly managed, poorly invested in, and generally crap.

Rail transit is generally a very poor solution to transportation needs. The costs greatly exceed the benefits.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
DMonteith,

This is important, because some are poorly performing, and some are high performing, and it’s actually important to know which are which and draw lessons from that.

Which are poor performing, which are high performing, and what “lessons” do you draw from that?
ixnermay Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It is most definitely your job to produce the data needed to support your claims.

Shorter Mixner: I am a lazy piece of shut-in shit, busking on three tunes and a four-string guitar.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
DMonteith,

While I’m waiting for your data on load factor, I will note that both total passenger-miles and passenger-miles per vehicle-revenue-mile declined between 2005 and 2006. Passenger-miles fell by more than a million even as vehicle-revenue-miles increased.

From the NTD 2005 Agency Profile for Minneapolis Metro Transit:
Light rail annual passenger-miles: 53,728,611
Light rail annual vehicle revenue miles: 1,547,015

Ratio of pm to vrm for 2005: 34.73

From the NTD 2006 Agency Profile for Minneapolis Metro Transit:
Light rail annual passenger-miles: 52,584,623
Light rail annual vehicle revenue miles: 1,785,159

Ratio of pm to vrm for 2006: 29.46
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
It is most definitely your job to produce the data needed to support your claims. Show us the data that supports your claim about the Minneapolis light rail load factor.\

This is why I call you a lazy idiot. I’ve pointed you to all the data you need. If you want to verify my figures, pull up the spreadsheet, divide the two numbers. The number of seats per car, 66, comes from the Minneapolis Metrotransit website.

What more could you POSSIBLY need? What possible points do you think you are trying to score by pretending ignorance here? Anybody reading this who is not an idiot can easily pull up the numbers for themselves. My job is not to come over to your house and show you how to use Excel. You’re just making yourself look like an even bigger fool.

Because the efficiency of rail transit is one of things that is being discussed in this thread.

Possibly you’re really too ignorant to grasp the fundamental distinction here. Aggregate statistics about current US rail performance have very little bearing on anything. You might as well say, “High speed rail is impossible because I have it on good authority that steam locomotives currently do not travel faster than 44 miles per hour.” Trying to draw comparisons between dissimilar systems has very little expository value, and mostly just makes you look like an idiot.

The current average performance of the current US rail system has little or no general bearing on the performance of rail systems in general, or any specific system or proposal under consideration.

Which are poor performing, which are high performing, and what “lessons” do you draw from that?

You can’t possibly be serious. Case studies of all the transit systems in the country (and worldwide) would fill a book. Several books. In fact, if you’re really interested, there ARE books on that. You could maybe check into it.

(That aside, I have no special information on the Minneapolis transit system, but I noticed on the website that they’ve implemented timed transfers from bus feeder routes. It’d be interesting to know how that’s worked out.)
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Rail transit is generally a very poor solution to transportation needs. The costs greatly exceed the benefits.

This is, I assume, what you are attempting to demonstrate with your ridiculous citations of steam locomotive performance statistics and so forth. However, it remains a completely unsupported assertion on your part, which you have so far never provided any evidence for.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Mr. N Numerate:

While I’m waiting for your data on load factor, I will note that both total passenger-miles and passenger-miles per vehicle-revenue-mile declined between 2005 and 2006. Passenger-miles fell by more than a million even as vehicle-revenue-miles increased.

Hey! You managed to find some numbers after all! Congrats!

So, avg. load factor fell from 52.6% to 44.6%. It also looks like ridership increased by over a million. If I had to guess, I’d say it looks like maybe more people were taking more trips, but shorter ones. It’ll be interesting to see what this years numbers show.

By the way, did you have a point?
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
DMonteith,

I’ve pointed you to all the data you need.

No you haven’t. You pointed to a website and claimed that the data is in there somewhere. If you have the data, produce it. It’s not anyone else’s job to look for data to support your claims. That’s your job. Unless you can produce the data, I’ll assume you’re making things up. Yet again.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
No you haven’t. You pointed to a website and claimed that the data is in there somewhere. If you have the data, produce it. It’s not anyone else’s job to look for data to support your claims. That’s your job. Unless you can produce the data, I’ll assume you’re making things up. Yet again.

Yet again? Would you like to point out where I’ve ever made ANYTHING up? You’re not really catching on, but you look like an enormous fool when you accuse somebody of making something up, and it’s right in your face. All the more because it’s such a ludicrous accusation. You’re accusing me not of making up the numbers, but of fabricating the very idea of their existence:

“You say it rained 3 inches last week? You say you got that information from the airport weather service, which I can call at this number and check for myself? Oh yeah, well it’s your job to PRODUCE these so-called ‘rainfall’ statistics, or I’ll assume you’re just making them up.”

In any case, it looks like you’ve verified their existence, because you posted them YOURSELF an hour and a half ago….
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
DMonteith,

Aggregate statistics about current US rail performance have very little bearing on anything.

On the contrary, aggregate statistics about “current US rail performance” (actually, US transit rail performance in this case) obviously have very great bearing on claims regarding US transit rail performance.

The current average performance of the current US rail system has little or no general bearing on the performance of rail systems in general,

It most definitely has a great “bearing” on the performance of US rail systems in general, since that is what it measures. But, again, we’re not talking about “the current US rail system” here. We’re talking about current US transit rail. But since you mention it, the performance of the intercity component of the “US rail system” is also abysmal.

You can’t possibly be serious.

The question is perfectly serious. I assume from your evasion of the question that you have no idea which, if any, are high performing, which are low performing, and thus no idea of the “lessons.” Or, to put it more succinctly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. As usual.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
It most definitely has a great “bearing” on the performance of US rail systems in general,

I did not say US rail systems in general. I said rail systems in general. And current US statistics have no bearing on that. Especially on new and reformed rail systems, which is what the rest of us have been talking about all this time…
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
But, again, we’re not talking about “the current US rail system” here. We’re talking about current US transit rail. But since you mention it, the performance of the intercity component of the “US rail system” is also abysmal.

The point remains whether we substitute “rail”, “transit”, , “bus”, “intercity rail”, or “transit rail”: The current U.S. system is, in many individual cases (and thus the aggregate), pathetic. These aggregate statistics have no expository bearing on either already existing individual well-functioning systems or even better systems being proposed.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The question is perfectly serious. I assume from your evasion of the question that you have no idea which, if any, are high performing, which are low performing, and thus no idea of the “lessons.” Or, to put it more succinctly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. As usual.

The question is absurd. There are many transit systems in the US. Some get some things right. Some get some things wrong. I’m not going to teach a class on it here for you, even if I did have encyclopedic knowledge of all of them. GO READ A BOOK ON IT.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
DMonteith,

Yet again?

You can’t produce it “yet again,” or even merely “again,” since you haven’t produced it at all. If you think you have data supporting your claim about load factor, produce it. Unless you can produce the data, I’ll assume you’re making things up. Yet again.

So, avg. load factor fell from 52.6% to 44.6%.

You haven’t produced any data on load factor. As I said, passenger-miles fell by over a million, and passenger-miles per vehicle-revenue-mile fell from about 35 to about 29.

It also looks like ridership increased by over a million. If I had to guess, I’d say it looks like maybe more people were taking more trips, but shorter ones.

Since unlinked trips rose but passenger-miles fell, you don’t need to guess. Average trip length must have declined. Passenger-miles fell and average trip length fell, even as capacity was increased. The efficiency of the system declined substantially. You can also see this decline in efficiency reflected in the operating expense per passenger-mile, which increased from 0.31 to 0.36.

Speaking of costs, as with most other transit rail projects, the actual costs of building the system were far greater than the projected cost. The projected cost was about $400 million, but the actual cost was $715 million. A cost overrun of almost 80%.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
You haven’t produced any data on load factor. As I said, passenger-miles fell by over a million, and passenger-miles per vehicle-revenue-mile fell from about 35 to about 29.

You don’t see the problem here? Remember how we agreed that load factor is passenger-miles over seat-miles? Well, after much complaining, you have managed to uncover passenger-miles and vehicle-miles.

And as I’ve said many times, seats per vehicle is 66 (easily verifiable if you feel inclined).

I mean, is this really too much math for you?
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
DMonteith,

I did not say US rail systems in general. I said rail systems in general.

You said both. Your inconsistent and vague statements just point to your confusion and ignorance on the subject.

The point remains whether we substitute “rail”, “transit”, , “bus”, “intercity rail”, or “transit rail”: The current U.S. system is, in many individual cases (and thus the aggregate), pathetic.

Yes, it is pathetic. Compared to car travel, buses and trains are slow, inconvenient and uncomfortable. That’s why for decade after decade people have been abandoning trains and buses for cars. The same trend has occurred in Europe, where public transportation also provides only a small and shrinking share of the transportation system.

These aggregate statistics have no expository bearing on either already existing individual well-functioning systems or even better systems being proposed.

What “well-functioning systems” are those? What “better systems being proposed?”
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
DMonteith,

And as I’ve said many times, seats per vehicle is 66

Still waiting for that data.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
DMonteith,

However, it remains a completely unsupported assertion on your part, which you have so far never provided any evidence for.

Yeah, that would be “completely unsupported,” except for all the support I have cited in the form of data on costs, efficiencies, ridership, etc.

Here’s yet another study showing that rail transit is largely a waste of money: web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/delhibrts/metro/Metro/on the social desirability-brookings.pdf

The authors conclude:

We find that with the exception of BART in the San Francisco Bay area, every [urban rail transit] system actually reduces welfare and is unable to become socially desirable even with optimal pricing or physical restructuring of its network.
Jer Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Wow, I have not yet seen such a thorough smackdown of Mixner’s bloviations.

My own humble addition:

Yeah, that must be why it’s a standard measure of efficiency used by the transportation industry.

Must be. Couldn’t possibly be stupid and standard at the same time, could it?

No, all Mazda Miatas, not just 10 of them, have a minimum 50% actual load factor. The stupidity here is your claim of “magic.”

I’m glad you agree! Lets continue with the analysis!

If 10 Mazda Miatas serving 10 people have a minimum of 50% magic load factor, then a bus with 40 seats serving 10 people would have a 25% magic load factor. And if your magic load factor measurement is such an awesome metric of efficiency, then the bus is half as efficient as 10 Mazda Miatas. Therefore, any bus line with under 50% load factor should be replaced with a fleet of Mazda Miatas. (Alternatively, the bus operator could rip out half the seats, thus achieving Miata-like efficiency, like magic!)

Load factor refers to the ratio of occupancy to capacity while the vehicle is operating. Vehicle occupancy while non-operational is obviously meaningless to transportation efficiency. People are not in the habit of sitting in trains and buses while they are parked in the depot outside operational hours.

Aha! More unintentional truth! A transportation mechanism which is sitting in-operational is useless! So ergo, the more time such a mechanism spends operational, the more useful it is! I’m glad we agree. (Well, you don’t agree, but you don’t count, since every insight you’ve had so far you’ve stumbled over and cursed.)
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
(Maybe I forgot to close a tag or something? Second time that’s happened…)

The efficiency of the system declined substantially. You can also see this decline in efficiency reflected in the operating expense per passenger-mile, which increased from 0.31 to 0.36.

Yet another lesson from Snuffles on how to lie with statistics.

The efficiency of the system did NOT decline, only a couple of per-mile stats. Let’s look:

More passengers/more trips: YAY!

Increased service frequency: YAY!

Fewer passenger miles: Would be bad news if we’d also lost passengers, but we didn’t. Some of them must just riding 8 blocks instead of 12. What do we care?

Expenses: up (but we bought more service frequency and more passengers). Neutral.

Expenses per passenger mile: down. But we expected that, obviously, since expenses are up, and passenger miles are down. Meaningless on its own.

Finally,

Expenses per passenger: DOWN. YAY!.

So, I’d say that’s a win overall.

(In this case all the per-mile stats are telling us is that some segments or times are probably underperforming, they don’t really say anything about the overall system efficiency. Not a big deal, and probably just a growing pain hiccup anyway.)
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Snuffles says:

I did not say US rail systems in general. I said rail systems in general.

You said both. Your inconsistent and vague statements just point to your confusion and ignorance on the subject.

Lets rewind the tape and look, shall we? Jack Lecou said:

Possibly you’re really too ignorant to grasp the fundamental distinction here. Aggregate statistics about current US rail performance have very little bearing on anything. You might as well say, “High speed rail is impossible because I have it on good authority that steam locomotives currently do not travel faster than 44 miles per hour.” Trying to draw comparisons between dissimilar systems has very little expository value, and mostly just makes you look like an idiot.

The current average performance of the current US rail system has little or no general bearing on the performance of rail systems in general, or any specific system or proposal under consideration.

Jury?
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
And as I’ve said many times, seats per vehicle is 66

Still waiting for that data.

For at least the second time: the Minneapolis Metro website, idiot.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Yeah, that would be “completely unsupported,” except for all the support I have cited in the form of data on costs, efficiencies, ridership, etc.

Right. You’re whole argument boils down to: The system is crap, and I can prove it can’t possibly be improved, because I have these statistics here that show that on average…the system is crap.

And around and around we go.

Here’s yet another study…

I only skimmed the first few pages just now, but first thoughts:

Looks like their primary complaint is about declining ridership and increasing average costs. That doesn’t seem very prescient.

More concretely, they’ve accounted for reduced congestion externalities, and internal user benefits, but not much else. Not other automobile costs such as accident rates. Not improvements in viewscape. Not health effects from walkable neighborhoods. Not productivity benefits from density. Etc. Etc.

And the only improvements they appear to have considered are changes in rate structure. Since I’d say the primary drags on rail transit right now are network size and zoning around stations, that hardly seems compelling.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
The point remains whether we substitute “rail”, “transit”, , “bus”, “intercity rail”, or “transit rail”: The current U.S. system is, in many individual cases (and thus the aggregate), pathetic.

Yes, it is pathetic. Compared to car travel, buses and trains are slow, inconvenient and uncomfortable. That’s why for decade after decade people have been abandoning trains and buses for cars. The same trend has occurred in Europe, where public transportation also provides only a small and shrinking share of the transportation system.

These aggregate statistics have no expository bearing on either already existing individual well-functioning systems or even better systems being proposed.

What “well-functioning systems” are those? What “better systems being proposed?”

Wow. Change the subject much?

Lets give you a concrete example:

Matt posted something the other day on SUPERTRAIN. You showed up and started squirting your usual ink of stupidity around. I pointed out at one point that automobiles have fairly awful on time percentages, while high speed rail has a demonstrable OTP on the order of 99%.

You posted a link to a BTS chart with OTP for…Amtrak. Not just the NE corridor either (which, though awful, still has an OTP around 80%, better than most medium distance car trips). No. All of Amtrak. A chart, by the way, that, while it showed Amtrak has a horrible OTP, also showed that 70% of the delays were caused by non-Amtrak owned rail.

Now explain to me please, what exactly was that chart supposed to prove?

Is Amtrak (as currently set up) awful? Check.

Is high speed rail competitive with automobiles on OTP? Mixner had nothing to say.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Jer,

If 10 Mazda Miatas serving 10 people have a minimum of 50% magic load factor,

No, 10 Miatas “serving” 10 people would have an actual load factor of 50%, assuming two seats per Miata.

then a bus with 40 seats serving 10 people would have a 25% magic load factor. And if your … load factor measurement is such an awesome metric of efficiency, then the bus is half as efficient as 10 Mazda Miatas.

In terms of load factor efficiency, yes. I still don’t know why you keep saying “10 Mazda Miatas.” Load factor is the ratio of occupied seats to total seats. It would also be 50% if it were 1 Miata with one occupant or 100 Miatas with 100 occupants.

Therefore, any bus line with under 50% load factor should be replaced with a fleet of Mazda Miatas.

I have no idea how you think that follows. Please do explain why you think any bus line with under 50% load factor “should” be replaced with a fleet of Mazda Miatas.

Aha! More unintentional truth! A transportation mechanism which is sitting in-operational is useless! So ergo, the more time such a mechanism spends operational, the more useful it is!

More nonsense, unless you have some bizarre notion of the emaning of “useful.” Most bus services would not be very “useful” if they operated at 4am on a Sunday morning, for example.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
DMonteith,

The efficiency of the system did NOT decline,

No, the efficiency declined. The system provided fewer passenger-miles of transportation at higher cost. The number of occupied seats declined, so the transit vehicles wasted more fuel moving empty seats around.

Fewer passenger miles: Would be bad news if we’d also lost passengers, but we didn’t.

Nonsense. The transportation benefit comprises the number of passengers and the distance travelled. That’s why the standard metric for measuring that benefit is passenger-miles.

Expenses per passenger mile: down. But we expected that, obviously, since expenses are up, and passenger miles are down. Meaningless on its own.

Er, expenses per passenger mile went up, not down. Did you mean to say that? I have no idea why you think an increase in expenses per passenger-mile is “meaningless.” Yet another of your apparently endless series of bizarre claims.
Mixner Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
DMonteith,

For at least the second time: the Minneapolis Metro website, idiot.

What about it, moron? Still waiting for your data and calculations on load factor.

You’re whole argument boils down to: The system is crap, and I can prove it can’t possibly be improved, because I have these statistics here that show that on average…the system is crap.

You’re obviously really flustered at this point and are now just making one nonsensical claim after another. I have never said that the system “can’t possibly be improved,” let alone that I can “prove” that. In certain respects, and on the average for the system as a whole, the absolute efficiency and quality of public transportation will probably improve in the future. But relative to travel by private motor vehicles, the overall efficiency and quality of public transportation will probably continue to decline, as it has been for decades. And its market share will probably continue to decline accordingly.

Looks like their primary complaint is about declining ridership and increasing average costs. That doesn’t seem very prescient.

No, their primary complaint is that rail transit is mostly a waste of money. The costs greatly exceed the benefits.

More concretely, they’ve accounted for reduced congestion externalities, and internal user benefits, but not much else. Not other automobile costs such as accident rates.

The costs of accidents attributable to driving are mostly internalized through insurance. In fact, insurance costs are generally a substantial fraction of the total costs of operating a car. For transit, accident costs seem to be mostly a negative externality.

Not improvements in viewscape.

Ha ha ha ha! “Improvements in viewscape.” Good one. What the hell’s that supposed to mean? You’re obviously desperately struggling now to think up some kind of new benefits from transit.

Not health effects from walkable neighborhoods. Not productivity benefits from density. Etc. Etc.

What health effects from walkable neighborhoods? What productivity benefits from density? What “etc. etc?” Produce your evidence of these alleged benefits.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
No, the efficiency declined. The system provided fewer passenger-miles of transportation at higher cost.

That’s assuming our only goal is “passenger miles”, which would be silly.

The system got more customers to their destination, at lower cost, while increasing quality of service. That’s an important measure of efficiency, and hardly the sign of a system in trouble.

The number of occupied seats declined, so the transit vehicles wasted more fuel moving empty seats around.

Yes, obviously low load factor means that, in theory, the operator could have served more customers (and generated more revenue) with practically zero additional expense, simply by filling a few more seats somehow. Whether that is practical, or an appropriate goal for the operator at this point in time is really for them to say. (After all, they are evidently already significantly above the national average.)

And if you have evidence that the Minneapolis light rail at a 44% load factor is less energy efficient than automobiles, let’s see it.

The transportation benefit comprises the number of passengers and the distance travelled.

This is fundamentally false. The transportation benefit comprises getting passengers where they want to go, you don’t score bonus points just for doing it with more miles.

In fact, a primary goal and benefit of transit-oriented development is obviously to REDUCE the miles traveled, thus reducing energy use and, all else being equal, travel time.

Er, expenses per passenger mile went up, not down. Did you mean to say that?

I meant up, yes.

I have no idea why you think an increase in expenses per passenger-mile is “meaningless.” Yet another of your apparently endless series of bizarre claims.

As I explained, it is meaningless without context. A small increase in expense per passenger mile is bad, but in context, not a very big deal at all. It might be something to work on, but in terms of painting an overall picture of the Minneapolis system’s progress, it’s clearly outweighed by the positives.
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
(I have no idea why you think an increase in expenses per passenger-mile is “meaningless.”

Also, meaningless because it adds no new information – it’s just a restatement of the facts about passenger miles and overall expenses, which we already knew.)
jack lecou Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
For at least the second time: the Minneapolis Metro website, idiot.

What about it, moron? Still waiting for your data and calculations on load factor.

Heh. Just to remind everybody out there: the numbers Mixner wants are passenger-miles and vehicle-seat-miles. Maybe someone can scroll up thread a bit and help him out? Or maybe he can’t figure out all the buttons on his calculator?

You’re obviously really flustered at this point and are now just making one nonsensical claim after another.

Really? I don’t FEEL flustered… I suppose you think you’re winning this exchange somehow?

In certain respects, and on the average for the system as a whole, the absolute efficiency and quality of public transportation will probably improve in the future. But relative to travel by private motor vehicles, the overall efficiency and quality of public transportation will probably continue to decline, as it has been for decades. And its market share will probably continue to decline accordingly.

That is a lot of speculation. Again, all I’ve seen you present in support of that thesis are rather circular arguments based on past trends, current average performance data, and vague invocations of consumer preference. At the same time, you ignore contradictory evidence, especially from overseas.
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:57 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra

Matt Yglesias

The Annals of Planning

99 Responses to “The Annals of Planning”

Blogroll