Or at least what we want for transportation policies. After a muddle of questions on transportation from the Stranger, Murray gave this summary reply:
It doesn't appear that we know what things we want, when we want them, and how we are going to pay for them. In other words, what I'm hearing is that the city does not prioritize.
And I think he would extend that to the entire state, since he is the chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
I can see why Murray might think that. Put simply, the voters have been willing to approve of funds for mass transit projects, at least in this area, and re-elect officials who promise to improve mass transit. But the same voters are unwilling to ride buses or trains in any great numbers.
This may be puzzling but it is not paradoxical. I can untangle the puzzle with an example. A few years ago, Lance Dickie of the Seattle Times wrote a column favoring more funds for Sound Transit. I sent him an email asking whether he planned to ride the trains himself. He admitted he that he didn't plan to, and got a bit defensive in his reply. He may have thought I was trying to paint him as a hypocrite. But actually I was trying to draw his attention to this puzzling fact: We drivers are willing to spend tax money on mass transit projects that we never plan to use.
What many, perhaps most, of us want is simple: We want other people to use mass transit, leaving the roads to us. That's why so many (including Lance Dickie) are willing to spend tax money on systems they do not intend to use. This desire may be selfish, but it is not irrational. The problem is that many of us haven't figured out that we can't get what we want, that those others are hoping that we will take the bus or train and leave the highways to them. But they won't and we won't. Neither 19th century trains nor more early 20th century buses can attract enough people away from the highways to make a significant difference in our congestion. If we aren't willing to ride the buses and trains, there is no point in spending more money on them. And we aren't. Recently, I have started counting the riders on the buses I see in downtown Kirkland. It is rare to see a bus, except at rush hour, with more than five passengers — and I often see buses with no passengers at all.
And this desire to have others take the buses and trains also explains the muddle in our planning. We aren't trying to design systems for ourselves, but for those other people that we hope will get out of their cars and into the buses and trains. Since they don't exist — mostly — we find it hard to plan for them.
Some of our political leaders must know this, but few are willing to say it. (And at least a few know it but plan to increase congestion until we are forced on to the buses and trains for our own good.) We most likely will stay in this muddle until we, and our political leaders, are willing to face the fact that those others are just like us, and are not going to ride the buses or trains in large numbers. Until then, we are unlikely to have a coherent transportation policy.
Correction: Lance Dickie emailed me to say that he regularly commutes by bus. I am happy to correct the record, though I must say I don't recall getting that impression from his original email. And I must add that he has not, as far as I know, addressed my central point: Most people in this area are willing to pay for mass transit, but not use it. I believe that's because we expect other people to take the buses (or the trains) — while they expect us to. If I am correct in that argument, then mass transit will never do much to reduce congestion in this area, no matter how many buses or trains are provided.
For the post that inspired Dickie to send me that correction, see here. You'll notice that I think he should write a correction or two of his own.
Posted by Jim Miller at August 16, 2005 05:26 PM | Email ThisI would amend this to read:
"Ed Murray says that he hasn't a clue what we want 'cause he won't listen."
There. Now I feel better.
One of the basic problems of the left is that it relies up "the other guy-isms"...the left plays upon our empathy...in this case providing public transportation...with the public blindly assuming that by pouring public funds blindly into the black box of liberalism, that somehow a product will come out the other end that will help others and relieve us of guilt by providing for others a service that we have no intention of using.
The problem is...none of us are "the other guy."
It's the flip side of the pork barrel nipple that apparently very few "entitlees" have the self-restraint to avoid.
Either way, it costs the people that work big time for no discernable positive results.
The left is rife with examples of poorly designed and less-than-legitimate goals for which their proffered solutions have no other function than to waste public funds and confidence.
Posted by: scott158 on August 16, 2005 05:56 PMWe tried to use highway congestion to FORCE people out of their cars and onto mass transit but that has not worked. We have spent our wealth on fixed route mass transit and we really doubt that anyone will want to live in massive apartment blocks along the route to make that work either. Our social engineering schemes have failed, we have squandered our wealth and have not the slightest idea of how to fix the problem while appeasing our environmental extremist base. And to top it off, it looks like the rest of the State is unwilling to pony up the money just to pay for our deferred maintenance.
Posted by: JC Bob on August 16, 2005 07:39 PMHowever, there are a few chinks in his liberal armor, such as realizing that our resources are limited, that the monorail may well be a black hole. He still believes that HOV lanes are beneficial to the public (really, only the socialists who want to engineer us into mass transit). Paralysis by analysis is what he like so many other political types suffer from. They compound errors made 20, 30 and 40 years ago with their short sighted - throwing money at the problem can solve it - without a plan ! Private industry would fire them all for that approach !
Posted by: KS on August 16, 2005 08:47 PMLet me tell a story: I was waiting for the 174(ugh) bus. It was the last one for a few hours. I was waiting at the federal way park and ride. I started waiting 20 minutes before the bus was scheduled to leave. The Bus was at the P&R already. The time came for it to leave the bus didn't come. 5 minutes later still parked. 10 minutes later still parked. 15 minutes after ti was supposed to start its route the bus finially picks everyone up. were 15 minuter late and it is the first stop. Well we come to a 7-11 store. the driver gets out of the bus, goes into the store, spends about 10 minutes buying food. we get going again. The driver stops TWICE to chat with hookers along Pac Highway. Well I got out at Pac and Kent-DesMoines Road. I called and complained and nothing happened to the driver. Metro has no accountabality. None. This is just one incident. I could tell dozens more.
When the buses get better people will ride.
Before anyone asks. I take the bus because My eyes are so bad I can;t drive.
Posted by: renndawg on August 16, 2005 10:33 PMHow about some accountability, transparency, honesty, integrity, compliance with the law, and a fair election.
Posted by: dl on August 17, 2005 01:21 AMThat said, I don't want to eliminate buses for people like you. I want to replace them with something that meets your needs better. In some cases, I think we would better off if we replaced buses with van pools that can pick people up at their houses. We might be able to both improve service and cut costs by that kind of switch. (And maybe move a few people off the highways.)
Buses may make sense at rush hours or for game traffic and similar events.
zip - Thanks for that report from Snohomish. I have been wondering whether the empty buses I see almost every day can be found elsewhere.
Now, I know probably not alot of people commute from Puyallup to Seattle, but anyone who commutes from outlying areas probably would have a similar experience.
Posted by: JustSumGuy on August 17, 2005 09:02 AMI wish I has a dollar for every time I've heard...
"We know we can't build our way out of this,"
"We've tried to build our way out of this, and it hasn't worked."
"If we build more roads people will just drive more"
"It's time we move toward a more balanced system, with more emphasis on 'alternatives' to one person driving a behemoth SUV down the road."
Guess what...all of these are demonstrably untrue. A highway system can't work if it's run by people who are hostile to highways. That's why we have the problems we do.
Posted by: South County on August 17, 2005 09:07 AMPerhaps it is commendable to have the "foresight" to realize the "need" for and benefit of mass transit before it is really needed. More likely, and much more importantly, it is not commendable to focus our efforts and funding on underutilized mass transit such that we fail to provide the road infrastructure that can provide the more convenient and more beneficial transportation and commerce we need right now.
Posted by: alaskaboy on August 17, 2005 09:20 AMThis is an old East Coast strategy. Washington DC did that, for example. It would be nice if Seattle sought its own path instead of emmulating the old models of the dead cities of the East Coast, but somehow they see those cities as a "model" for Seattle to follow.
Unfortunate.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on August 17, 2005 03:49 PMEd Murray: Get a life, a real job, and actually talk to real people.
WSDOT: Jump off the Narrows Bridge-from the HOV lane
Posted by: THS on August 18, 2005 06:07 PMEd Murray: Get a life, a real job, and actually talk to real people.
WSDOT: Jump off the Narrows Bridge-from the HOV lane
Posted by: THS on August 18, 2005 06:07 PM1. Get rid of the ride-free zone. make everyone pay when they get on. no more deadbeats.
2. Enforce the schedule. make the drivers be on time.
3. Enforce the code of conduct.
simple stuff
Posted by: renndawg on August 21, 2005 03:11 AM