You have probably heard of these strange religions, which sprang up, mostly in the Pacific, after primitive groups encountered Europeans. If not, here's a brief description.
Discussions of cargo cults usually begin with a series of movements that occurred in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The earliest recorded cargo cult was the Tuka Movement that began in Fiji in 1885. Cargo cults occurred periodically in many parts of the island of New Guinea, including the Taro Cult in Northern Papua New Guinea, and the Vailala Madness that arose in 1919 and was documented by F.E. Williams, one of the first anthropologists to conduct fieldwork in Papua New Guinea. Less dramatic cargo cults have appeared in western New Guinea as well, including the Asmat and Dani areas.
The classic period of cargo cult activity, however, was in the years during and after World War II. The vast amounts of war matériel that were airdropped into these islands during the Pacific campaign against the Empire of Japan necessarily meant drastic changes to the lifestyle of the islanders, many of whom had never seen Westerners or Japanese before. Manufactured clothing, medicine, canned food, tents, weapons and other useful goods arrived in vast quantities to equip soldiers — and also the islanders who were their guides and hosts. With the end of the war the airbases were abandoned, and "cargo" was no longer being dropped.
In attempts to get cargo to fall by parachute or land in planes or ships again, islanders imitated the same practices they had seen the soldiers, sailors and airmen use. They carved headphones from wood, and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses. The cultists thought that the foreigners had some special connection to their own ancestors, who were the only beings powerful enough to produce such riches.
Many have noted similar thinking in other places, and other fields. Physicist Richard Feynman famously used "cargo cult" to describe some kinds of scientific investigations. And others have applied it to programming, and many other fields.
And so "cargo cult" has become a more general term, used whenever we see people going through the motions, in the hope that something magical will happen. We use it when we see people hoping that airplanes will appear, that an experiment will succeed, that a program module will not have fatal bugs, and so on — if they just go through the right motions.
Oh, and the light rail part of the argument? That, as the math texts say, is left as an exercise* for the reader.
Cross posted at Jim MIller on Politics.
(*And not a very difficult exercise. Using computer scientist Donald Knuth's (logarithmic) scale, which you can find in The Art of Computer Programming, I would rate this exercise at 10, at the highest, which means that you should be able to solve it in a minute, or less.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 15, 2007 01:33 PM | Email ThisThey have big advertising budgets, so the media organs in this burg trumpet the "yes on ST2" message.
There's no mass-transit cult. No substantial percentage of the population even wants the horrendously expensive trains. It's just a greedy and loud minority we're hearing.
Of course, now we know that Bell was right.
Do we go through the rituals of going to church, praying, and eating wafers and drinking wine, when what we really hope to get is love and peace of mind? Have we created a graven image of Jesus, which we bow to, instead of actually listening to his wisdom about turning the other cheek and loving our enemies and neighbors?
Who would Jesus bomb?
I must admit that I no longer understand the fundamental difference between a cargo cult and a major religion.
Why is faith in god supposed to be more reasonable than the cargo cult faiths?
Can anyone enlighten me?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 15, 2007 02:25 PMA group of toothless Meth heads working the Truckers.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on June 15, 2007 02:33 PMIf you really want to understand, try going through the Gospels with a commentary as your study guide.
Until you're willing to make that effort, you're not a candidate for "enlightenment".
Posted by: sro on June 15, 2007 02:44 PMIf we put in a light rail, and build stations, and subsidize it, and people use it - surely, then, it will Solve the Traffic Mess(tm).
Of course, if every train ran at full capacity, would revenue generated cover the cost of the train? No.
So it's a feel good spend-the-money-of-your-neighbor exercise that lets a select few ride a very expensive train at the expense of many others who will have to sacrifice spending on their personal & family needs. All hail the mighty Seattle liberal that sucks money from every other community so they can be a World Class City(tm)!
Posted by: steve miller on June 15, 2007 02:53 PMI would say that until you can try going through the Gospels WITHOUT a commentary telling you how you are supposed to interpret what you are reading, you are not ready for enlightenment.
IMHO
Posted by: Splinter on June 15, 2007 04:39 PMAs for light rail. Everywhere it has been built it has been a success. Most people do not want to drive, but do so because transit solutions are not as fast or easy as their car. Rail is one way to make them such. I realize that conservatives often have a hard time when things are based on science and studies, preferring gut feelings, hunches, and urban legends, but the evidence supports investing in transit and light rail.
Posted by: Giffy on June 15, 2007 04:50 PMIf by success you mean operate at an astounding annual loss, exceed budgets to install, and fall well below promised ridership, then by all means it's a success...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 15, 2007 05:04 PMGet a clue already, that Jesus guy is not coming back.
I was thinking Eric, myself, before Giffy chimed in, but I think Eric is looking down the road, but also goes along with more lane miles argument.
I would have thought the analogy would be better suited to global warming.
But gosh, there are a ton of things 'cargo cults' can apply to, including me and some of my pet projects.
Posted by: swatter on June 15, 2007 07:15 PMAs for the people's desire to ride the public transportation, you ought to back up your statement with a hard proof. I hold a contrary opinion that most people would simply drive on their own even if there is an ideal public transportation system that can cater to everyone's needs. Take Seoul, Korea for example. I should know because I am from Korea. Seoul is slightly bigger than Seattle but has 12 million people. It has massive network of subways (public) and busses (private), but the number of car ownership grows leaps and bounds. People ride the public transportation out of necessity, not because they'd rather ride the public transportation.
Public transportation in US in general will remain heavily subsidized for a long long time, and until Seattle gets the type of density like Seoul, Tokyo or New York, it will never work or financially viable.
Posted by: DopioLover on June 15, 2007 07:46 PMThe Bible was never meant to be read with your brain disengaged, like a romance novel. If you're that lazy, go buy a Harlequin.
Posted by: sro on June 15, 2007 08:57 PMWhat we need in this world is less blind followers who refuse to question their assumptions, and more skeptics and people who use their heads.
Sorry TB, I was just being snarky.
Giffy is right. If you read the bible with your brain engaged, you realize that it can't be literal truth. Oh, there's a lot of poetical wisdom in there, but you get the most wisdom out of the bible if you look at it as metaphorical. The whole concept of god is metaphorical. God is a metaphor for love, truth, nature, the universe, morality... I believe in all those wonderful things.
But there is no conscious entity that hears prayers, works miracles and sends you to heaven or hell. That's the stuff of cargo cults, suicide bombers and public transit supporters.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 15, 2007 09:15 PMIn their genius to get you on the transit bandwagon they think building no new freeway lanes will force you to consider transit.
meanwhile this same tactic of building no new freeway lanes contributes substantially to the overall increase in the petroleum demand and global warming gasses they so loath.
what kind of milage do cars get while parked on a freeway? compared to cars driving 60mph???
what kind of pollution is generated by hundreds of thousands of cars IDLING on freeways
what kind of increase in carbon consumption does this strategy "cost?"
Would a train system used by under 5% of the population make up for the impact on the economy and environment of an intentionally constipated freeway system??
Are the mass transit advocates so attached to achieving their goals that they are willing to accept the added cost to the environment/global warming and economy as fuel prices are passed on to consumers?
Posted by: daveo on June 15, 2007 09:34 PMhttp://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
That said, I thought the cargo cults was a great way to describe the folks that think rail is the answer.
All the taxation and property confiscation they can muster won't make anybody get on those things by their own desires.
It's like that old joke "no matter how many times I cut that piece of wood, it's still too short"
No problem, drivers will pay for 520. Tolls, and the GAS TAX will cover the expenses.
Meanwhile, transit gets full subsidies from the GAS TAX (gee, how many people drive the tracks from Everett to Seattle? Pretty hard on the shocks) and are HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED at the fare box.
Roads are funded by user fees - tolls, tabs, and gas tax. Transit has no equivalent funding.
And for your statement of recent transit systems exceeding expectations, and sources for that? Everything I've read shows that BART, MAX, and just about every other rail solution installed in the last 30 years shows FEWER riders and higher costs than anticipated.
One needs to look no further than the boondoggle called Sound Transit Light Rail than to see what kind of shaft we're getting...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 15, 2007 10:56 PMMy dog has a habit of using his paw to try and get something, a treat or such. This behavior is much like a cargo cult and it is interesting to watch and interact with him in this regard as he goes through the training process.
With the paw habit I've found a way to make 'lemonade' - by teaching him to 'shake hands'. A neat trick, and the pet is now a bit better dispositioned, overall.
I'm also reminded of a a corrolary to Murphy's Law, which states that if civilization were built like programmers built code a single problem would lead to the fall of civilization.
Go Figure.
-Doug
Tacoma
Meanwhile, transit gets full subsidies from the GAS TAX (gee, how many people drive the tracks from Everett to Seattle? Pretty hard on the shocks) and are HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED at the fare box."
No it doesn't. The state constitution limits the gas tax expenditures to roads. Transit is paid for by fares, sales tax, and federal grants.
That being said do you think the only people paying for megaprojects drive on them. It is certainly not the case for 520 and it is definitely not the case for all those fancy freeways to farmers on the East side. I live in Seattle so when I drive I use surface streets mostly. Lets say I commute to Fremont, which is about 5 miles from me. I am using less road money then if my commute took me across I-90 to Bellevue, which would be about the same distance. We all subsidize each other in some way or another.
Posted by: Giffy on June 16, 2007 10:15 AMThe only thing that will solve the traffic problem is a well-placed nuclear bomb. And even that solution would only last a few years.
But will light rail, or heavy rail, HELP with traffic problems? Of course it will, and it does.
Let me just put out two items rarely mentioned.
Building light rail will provide more space on your beloved freeways for YOU, gas guzzler lover, to pilot your awesome SUV.
Also, building light rail increases investment, new construction, jobs and tourist activity to some amazing proportion, which varies from city to city. Up to a 10 to 1 return on investment at maximum. Hey pal, I'm a capitalist. When I see a 1000% return on investment, I jump on it.
And Russell, if you have a problem with SUBSIDIZED mass transit, I will assume that you refuse to driveor walk on all public roads and highways, since those are SUBSIDIZED to a level even greater than mass transit is. You guys don't have any toll roads in your area, do you?
Posted by: Scott Mercer on June 16, 2007 10:30 PMHeads up "capitalist" - the economy as a whole would be far better off if those hoped-for sales taxes stayed in the pockets of the millions of private people and families in this region who'd spend those amounts with enlightened self-interest. Those are regressive taxes and they'd hit those who could afford them the least.
Posted by: clovenist on June 17, 2007 06:38 AMWRONG. This is one of the BIGGEST lies put out by the rail lovers.
Here's an excerpt from one of the links I posted previously, because obviously you did not read it.
Light rail is touted as a means of reducing urban traffic congestion. The claim is that it will lure drivers out of their cars and, thereby, reduce traffic congestion. If all of the light rail passengers would have otherwise been driving their own cars, light rail would, on average, be removing three cars in 1,000 from the roads. However, studies have shown that about 80% of new light rail passengers were former bus passengers. Taking this into account, the real impact on traffic is for light rail to remove less than one car in 1,000 from traffic.
Most here are not against public transit. I think most would support more buses or BRT along with increased capacity. We're just against hugely expensive boondoggles that benefit only a fraction of commuters, like light rail.
PB@48 - other modes of transporation have been routinely sabotaged by automobile interests for 70+ years. If sabotaging autoo dependan transportation is activey what is being engaged in (which is ridiculous), even a monomaniacal glance could see it as a balancing of past transgressions toward the public advantage of maintaining a multilayered and more effective system of personal mobility.
But transportation choices are just another tool to pave the way for despots and our cars and superhighways are our only defense against the freedom hating ghouls, right?
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 17, 2007 05:55 PMThat is a cure,that is a hell of a lot better than the batch of urban village flubber the developers have cooking now.
The damn developers want to keep making urban village flubber so they can charge more for the square foot due to the gentrification of older properties along the Urban village corridor..
They dont care if it will be a milk run from tacoma to Everett.
They just want to slow down,and divert the other modes onto the urban village milk runs to rake in the traffic count and put cash into the urban village pachinko machine..
They call it visionary.
I call it Flubber.
-----Original Message-----
From: Picard, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:38 AM
To: Okamoto, John
Cc: Howard, Charlie
Subject: FW: ORANGE BARRELS IN MIDWAY
Dear Mr. Worthington:
Your question concerning two-lane on ramps to the freeway system has been
forwarded to me for a response. My name is Chris Picard and I manage the
state's 20 year highway plan for this region. First, I would like to thank
you for taking the time to ask this question.
My response will be short and most probably not be the answer you are
looking for. From your question, I believe I can come to the conclusion
that you are not a strong believer in ramp metering. Ramp metering is the
process of spacing out single occupant vehicle (SOV) traffic as they enter
the freeway system through the use of a traffic signal. Very generally
speaking, the more congested the freeway is at any give time, the longer the
wait is for SOV traffic to access to freeway. This occurs while buses and
car pools (High Occupancy Vehicle or HOV traffic) are given a "bypass lane"
which allows them to move ahead of the SOV vehicles waiting for the green
light. This break for HOV traffic is meant to encourage a mode shift from
SOV to HOV. If we can get some people out of their SOV cars and into car
pools, van pools, or buses, it will result in more space on the freeway for
those who simply cannot make this mode shift for various reasons.
This ramp metering system was put in-place for one primary reason; to keep
our existing freeway system operating as efficiently and effectively as
possible. There comes a point in highway congestion when the freeway is
operating at less than optimal capacity. The freeway will simply breakdown
under the load of all the traffic wishing to use it resulting in huge
backups and very often associated accidents. Ramp metering was implemented
to help keep this situation from occurring as much as possible. It also has
a safety benefit in that cars wishing to merge with mainline traffic are
spaced out so that this maneuver can happen more easily.
If we were to eliminate the ramp meters and add another freeway ramp
creating two lane on-ramps you would get to the freeway a little bit quicker
but at that point your commute would break down. That is simply because
there is not enough vehicular capacity on our freeways (and you can pick
nearly any freeway in this region) to accommodate the number of vehicles
wishing to use them. We have developed plans to add capacity to many of our
freeways but at this point in time there is no money which will allow us to
move forward into the construction phase.
Chris R. Picard
http://www.its.umn.edu/Education/K12Modules/RampMetering/article1.html
Posted by: Publicbulldog on June 17, 2007 06:33 PMThanks for sharing the HOV/SOV/Ramp Meter exchange btw... very interesting justifications without addressing the obvious... couldn't they have simply admitted to the capacity and alignment planning errors they continually have to correct for instead of saying they don't have enough money or justifying every other band-aid?
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 18, 2007 11:52 AMLight rail is touted as a means of reducing urban traffic congestion. The claim is that it will lure drivers out of their cars and, thereby, reduce traffic congestion. If all of the light rail passengers would have otherwise been driving their own cars, light rail would, on average, be removing three cars in 1,000 from the roads. However, studies have shown that about 80% of new light rail passengers were former bus passengers. Taking this into account, the real impact on traffic is for light rail to remove less than one car in 1,000 from traffic.
Where are you getting this "one car in 1000" from?
Let me see if I read your own writing correctly. 80% of new light rail passengers were former bus passengers. That means about 20% of new light rail passengers were former DRIVERS. You're not going to tell me all those people (20%) were WALKING to work, or bicycling to work, were you??? Or maybe they're homeless people that just ride around on the train all day? Not likely.
That means if the light rail carries 25,000 people per day, that's 5,000 drivers off the road per day. Okay, maybe a few of those people were carpooling, so, let's say 4,500 cars per day NOT USING YOUR HIGHWAYS that are using them currently. That's enough cars that it will make a measurable difference. Thank you. But, if you like the idea of ever increasing traffic loads on your freeways, hey, knock yourselves out.
Russell: Fare box recovery is quite higher than 10%, on average. New York has the most successful fare box recovery rate, at about 65-67%. In Los Angeles, they're complaining it's too low at about 25%. I believe the average fare box recovery in North America is around 45%.
Posted by: Scott Mercer on June 19, 2007 02:45 AMRecovery would not meen as much to me if rider ship was say 20 percent.
In that case it would be worth it in my opinion to pay for that many people to be off the roads.
However at 10 percent ridership,along with the social engineering lies that go with it, recovery means everything.
I am not confident at all in the current mass transit strategy.
I am not willing to pay for something that I know is broken.
Recovery would not meen as much to me if rider ship was say 20 percent.
In that case it would be worth it in my opinion to pay for that many people to be off the roads.
However at 10 percent ridership,along with the social engineering lies that go with it, recovery means everything.
I am not confident at all in the current mass transit strategy.
I am not willing to pay for something that I know is broken.
Taking total passengers on the train per day and saying 20% of those will be off the roads is too simplistic because not all of those people are traveling the same distance are they? If 10% of those hop on the train for a 2 mile stretch, it's not the same as someone whose on it for 50 miles in terms of "congestion relief", is it? That's why person-miles is the true measure of it's affect on congestion. And that number is THREE-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of all miles traveled. That's where the 1 car in 1000 comes from.
As for it's cost, here's some data:
There isn't a single light rail transit system in America in which fares paid by passengers cover the cost of their own rides. The aggregate deficit for 2000 (the latest year for which complete data are available) was more than a billion dollars. The average cost per passenger mile is around $1.20. These costs are far higher than the average cost per bus passenger mile of about seventy-five cents. Of course, no transit option matches the average cost of automobile transportation, which is about thirty-four cents per vehicle mile.
Light rail's inefficiency is matched by its unfairness. On average, taxpayers pay nearly 90% of the cost of light rail passenger travel. This is worse than the average for all transit modes. When all transit modes are considered, riders pay about one-third of the costs. Light rail compares even more unfavorably with auto transportation where private passenger vehicles currently pay more than 100% of their share of the cost of the road system.
Take the money being thrown around for the light rail boondoggle, invest in more capacity and buses and you can have a bus arriving at every major stop every 10 minutes. That's fairness and a real way to improve congestion.
PBD - Do you think you are not already being coerced into a pattern? Is there a preferable coercion?
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 19, 2007 05:32 PMConsidering that rail and dedicated bus along corridors where employed serves as many or more people and businesses along primary spines than a roadway, shouldn't it be treated as an asset equal to or greater than an additional high speed HOV lane to the overall transportation system? Back in 1970 Magnuson brought back federal funds covering 3/4 of the costs to seed and build a light rail system for Seattle and the region. The voters at that time screwed the pooch buying many of the these same fantastical arguments against rail that are being applied now. The cost of that system, for 50 miles of rail and 500 miles of bus routes, 37 years ago was 1.3 billion. The bonds would have been paid off in the 1990s. To come close to that same build now costs in the dozens of billions, and ten years from now it will be even more, and 30 years from now? When are we going to learn from our past? Nobody is going to take our cars away and force us to ride trains. More options will be available and people will choose to use them or not.
PBD - by dissing urban villages (which is a weird term) are you preferring more faux rural suburbs where the closest basic services are not within walking distance but a high speed corridor moves riders quickly to town? I'm not sure I get the conspiracy, other than I'm ALL for making fun of adding more UVs to the city.
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 20, 2007 10:37 AMSeattle's population base is shifting. Families are moving out. Schools are closing. Seattle will continue to lose influence on the region. Why build rail systems serving a city that is collapsing. That is to say many commuters are interested in commuting to destinations other then Seattle. For example Eastsiders are more interested in the commute from Bothell to Bellevue.
Privatize trains and buses.
Posted by: Snuffy on June 21, 2007 07:35 AM