Informed but opinionated commentary and analysis on urban transportation topics from the Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal. Names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

Our Mission: Monkeywrench the Anti-Transit Forces

 
Wendell Cox is Not Mediocre -- He's Just Average -- 9

"It is the unfortunate destiny of the ridiculous to be subject to ridicule."
James Howard Kunstler

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal has illustrated that Wendell sometimes mixes a little “boilerplate” together with all that fudge. Now to one of the more remarkable communications we've received, with reference to Tokyo (. . . we read the mail and, oh boy! . . .):

“GO TO www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-tok.htm [“The Public Purpose,” Urban Rail Success Stories: Tokyo”], AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS:

“’Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail)."

“THAT IS FALSE, SO OBVIOUSLY AND STUPIDLY FALSE THAT WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD PUT IT ON THE INTERNET?”

We've concluded that Wendell Cox and his fact checkers (if any) have some explaining to do.

It is not -- repeat, NOT -- true that “virtually all” of Tokyo’s rail service is “grade-separated,” and that there is “little or no light rail.”

---The ONLY fully-separated rail lines in and around Tokyo are the subway lines (which are mostly underground -- naturally), and a few railway lines built relatively recently as “suburban” extensions of the subway system. (There is one location where subway trains may be seen, on “subway” track,” at a grade crossing. We’ll tell you about this in due course, but we’re not going to do Wendelll’s homework for him.)

“Considering the intensity of services which they operate, it may come as a surprise to those who have not visited Japan to learn that the commuter lines serving [Tokyo] have many level crossings. The flighting of trains into slow and fast groups or ‘bundles’ can be helpful in allowing road barriers to be raised for road traffic” (Squeezing Capacity Out of Commuter Lines,” Satoru Sone, 1990. In “Developing Metros 1990.” Sutton, UK: Reed Business Publications).

It is true that the various operators have invested large sums for grade separation over the past several decades, but full separation of all rail lines in the Tokyo region lies far in the future.

---”Light Rail” as a mode distinct from streetcar or heavy-rail lines does not exist in Japan (where “LRT” refers to upgraded and modernized streetcar lines). Much of the “commuter rail” mileage in the Tokyo region (and other large Japanese metropolitan areas) cannot be classified as “light rail” or “heavy rail” in any meaningful way.

Japanese law recognizes two broad categories of conventional rail lines: “tetsudo” (railways) and “kido” (tramways). The primary distinction is that “kido” may be built within the alignment of public roads, and do not necessarily have car-floor level platforms (the universal “tetsudo”) practice. These categories overlap to a considerable extent. For example, most subway lines are built under “railway” licenses, but the Osaka system was built under a “tramway” license.

Some Tokyo-area rail lines were built by the government; others were built by private companies which were nationalized. Still others were built by private companies which escaped nationalization. These lines were worked by steam locomotives when built, and were later electrified. The government railway system was later privatized, and Tokyo-area lines are operated by the East Japan Railway (“JR-East”).

Many other lines were opened with electric traction. Some of these were built under “railway” licenses, but the majority were built under “tramway” licenses. In the Tokyo and Osaka regions, there is one basic railway “specification” that distinguishes operators with “railway” heritage from those with “tramway” heritage (we’ll tell you about this later, but not today -- do your own homework, Wendell!).

A double-track electric railway, with level crossings and car-floor level platforms and no in-street operation. That describes MetroLink in St. Louiis . . . and most Tokyo-area rail lines. If MetroLink is “light rail,” why are the Tokyo lines not “light rail”? If a line opens in a configuration that is clearly “light rail,” and is then gradually upgraded , at what point does it cease existence as “light rail” and begin life anew as “something else?” Your Favorite Transit Pundits doubt that anyone at “The Public Purpose” or “Demographia” would have any idea how to begin addressing these questions.

If you’d like to read up on the subject of Japanese rail transport, “Literature about Transportation in Japan” provides an extensive bibliography. (See: homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Oliver.L.Mayer/japan/verkehr/lit.htm.)

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 12/30/2002 02:08:00 PM

 
Wendell Cox is Not Mediocre -- He's Just Average -- 8

"It is the unfortunate destiny of the ridiculous to be subject to ridicule."
James Howard Kunstler

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer


From the Cabalmaster:

Your Favorite Transit Pundits consider the “Urban Rail Success Stories” pages on “The Public Purpose” as a weak attempt by Wendell Cox to establish his bona fides as a transit supporter (see “Keys to Urban Rail Success,” www.publicpurpose.com/ut-railkeys.htm). This might be described as “Wendell’s world view” on rail transit (we wonder if he’s noticed that few others share it).

You won’t see it up front, but Wendell eventually does define “success,” as follows: “controlling traffic congestion.” This requires “high residential population density and massive central business districts.” There are, Wendell asserts, “two additional issues:” 1) rail must be “grade separated” in order to provide “auto competitive speeds,” and 2) there is little potential for “suburb to suburb” travel on rail systems.

Wendell also writes: “Light rail provides little or none of the rail service [in the “urban rail success sites”], because to compete with the automobile requires automobile competitive speeds, something that is not possible without significant grade separation (In a fully grade separated alignment, light rail could replicate the performance of metros). As a result, light rail plays little role where rail is an effective strategy.

Wendell’s strategy (as we Opinionated Ones see it) is to pick five examples of metropolitan regions that would probably not exist in their current form without extensive urban rail transit -- and label them “success stories.” In addition, he seeks to demonstrate that light rail is ineffective as a mode and therefore has no reasonable field of application.

Now that you have the context, you might want to check out the “success story” pages:

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: Hong Kong” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-hk.htm). This entry includes the following sentence: “More than 90 percent of the rail ridership is either metro or commuter rail --- less than 10 percent is light rail.” (For information on Hong Kong’s urban and suburban railway, LRT and tramway lines, see: www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/9585/index.html.)

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: London” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-lon.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).” (For details of the Docklands Light Railway, see: www.dlr.co.uk. For details of the Croydon Tramlink, the planned “West London Tram Scheme” and the “Cross River Tram Scheme,” see: www.tfl.gov.uk.)

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: New York” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-nyc.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).” This is true with reference to the City of New York, but not to the metropolitan region. (For details of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and Newark City Subway, see: www.njtransit.com/sf_lightrail.shtm.)

-----“Urban Rail Success Stories: Paris” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-par.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).” (For details of the two existing LRT lines in the Paris region, and planned additional lines, see: www.lrta.org/Paris.html.)

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: Tokyo” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-tok.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).”

We hope we’ve illustrated that Wendell sometimes mixes a little “boilerplate” together with all that fudge. This practice entails certain risks to one's credibility, as we'll document next time.

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 12/27/2002 02:24:00 PM

 
Wendell Cox is Not Mediocre -- He's Just Average -- 7

"It is the unfortunate destiny of the ridiculous to be subject to ridicule."
James Howard Kunstler

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer


From the Cabalmaster:

Wendell Cox is Not Mediocre -- He's Just Average -- 7

Lurking some more at Wendell’s website, we consider the “Urban Rail Success Stories” pages on “The Public Purpose” as a weak attempt by Wendell Cox to establish his bona fides as a transit supporter (see “Keys to Urban Rail Success,” www.publicpurpose.com/ut-railkeys.htm). This might be described as “Wendell’s world view” on rail transit (we wonder if he’s noticed that few others share it).

You won’t see it up front, but Wendell eventually does define “success,” as follows: “controlling traffic congestion.” This requires “high residential population density and massive central business districts.” There are, Wendell asserts, “two additional issues:” 1.) rail must be “grade separated” in order to provide “auto competitive speeds,” and 2.) there is little potential for “suburb to suburb” travel on rail systems.

Wendell also writes: “Light rail provides little or none of the rail service [in the “urban rail success sites”], because to compete with the automobile requires automobile competitive speeds, something that is not possible without significant grade separation (In a fully grade separated alignment, light rail could replicate the performance of metros). As a result, light rail plays little role where rail is an effective strategy.

Wendell’s strategy (as we Opinionated Ones see it) is to pick five examples of metropolitan regions that would probably not exist in their current form without extensive urban rail transit -- and label them “success stories.” In addition, he seeks to demonstrate that light rail is ineffective as a mode and therefore has no reasonable field of application--and by avoiding examples in smaller cities where light rail has been successful.

Now that you have the context, you might want to check out the “success story” pages:

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: Hong Kong” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-hk.htm). This entry includes the following sentence: “More than 90 percent of the rail ridership is either metro or commuter rail --- less than 10 percent is light rail.” (For information on Hong Kong’s urban and suburban railway, LRT and tramway lines, see: www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/9585/index.html.)

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: London” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-lon.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).” (For details of the Docklands Light Railway, see: www.dlr.co.uk. For details of the Croydon Tramlink, the planned “West London Tram Scheme” and the “Cross River Tram Scheme,” see: www.tfl.gov.uk/trams.)

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: New York” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-nyc.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).” This is true with reference to the City of New York, but not to the metropolitan region. (For details of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and Newark City Subway, see: www.njtransit.com/sf_lightrail.shtm.)

-----“Urban Rail Success Stories: Paris” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-par.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).” (For details of the two existing LRT lines in the Paris region, and planned additional lines, see: www.lrta.org/Paris.html.)

-----”Urban Rail Success Stories: Tokyo” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-rs-tok.htm). The last sentence reads, “Virtually all rail service is grade separated metro or commuter rail (little or no light rail).”

We hope we’ve illustrated that Wendell sometimes mixes a little “boilerplate” together with all that fudge. This practice entails certain risks to one's credibility, as we'll document next time.

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 12/17/2002 12:18:00 PM

 
Wendell Cox is Not Mediocre -- He's Just Average -- 6

"It is the unfortunate destiny of the ridiculous to be subject to ridicule."
James Howard Kunstler

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer


From the Cabalmaster:

After a long, too long hiatus...

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal has just found another example of “weak and lame” on a “Demographia” page: “Japan Cities, Ranked by 1990-2000 Population Change" (see: www.demographia.com/db-japancitych.htm).

One important reason why some large Japanese cities have gained population while others have lost it has to do with political boundaries -- and nothing more.

Some cities include large tracts of sparsely-populated land (Sapporo, Sendai, Yokohama); others do not (Nagoya, Osaka). You will not find any hint of this on “Demographia.” (The various Japan Prefectural Atlases make excellent “graphic” references; one recent title is “Nippon Bunken Chizu 1999,” Tokyo: Jinbunsha, 1999.)

It would be useful if the Denizens of Demoographia would take the time to flag those cities which annexed land since the time of the “preceding count.” In other words, for Tokyo, "1930 1940*” with the asterisk alerting the reader that the city annexed land between 1930 and 1940. (We wouldn’t suggest holding your breath while waiting for Demographia’s Denizens to make this improvement.)

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 12/16/2002 05:58:00 PM

 
SEATTLE MOTORHEAD MADNESS - A RETROSPECTIVE

"It is the unfortunate destiny of the ridiculous to be subject to ridicule."
James Howard Kunstler

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer


From the Cabalmaster:

SEATTLE MOTORHEAD MADNESS - A RETROSPECTIVE
(DEM BUGGAHS WUZ CRAZY BACK DEN!!)

The Secret Worldwide Transti Cabal is pleased to bring you the following list of motorhead dreams and schemes -- er, "freeway plans and proposals." These have been file with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) since the early 1950s. These plans, summarized by an FOC from WSDOT documents, cover nearly 150 miles of freeways beyond what has actually been built in Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue and the surrounding suburbs.

Seattle / North King County:

--The Empire, aka R. H. Thomson, Expressway, extending north from the I-405/SR-167 interchange in Renton. This would follow Martin Luther King Jr. Way (formerly Empire Way) S through Seattle's Rainier Valley, Mt Baker and Madrona, then slice through Lake Washington Park to connect with SR-520 at the "ramps to nowhere." It was planned to continue north in a tunnel under Union Bay, skirt the University of Washington campus to the east, and continue north along 25th Ave NE to an interchange with the proposed Bothell Freeway (1.)

--a downtown connector for the above, extending along E Madison St to I-5.

--The Bay Freeway, extending from I-5 via Seattle Center to the Alaskan Way viauct, generally along Mercer and Broad streets. (2.)

--The Connecticut Street Viaduct, skirting downtown Seattle to the south between the Alaskan Way Viaduct and I-5. (3.)

--The Northwest Expressway, extending north from SR-99 at the north end of the Alaskan Way viauct. This would follow the Burlington Northern railroad alignment along Elliott Bay and through Interbay to the Ship Canal, swing northeast to 8th Ave NW, continue north to about NW 100th St, then continue east to Aurora Ave N.

--A new Lake Washington bridge from I-405 in Kirkland to Sand Point. It would join a northeast loop freeway, extending from Aurora Ave N along NW 100th St to Northgate, and continue along Victory Creek and Thornton Creek to Sand Point, where it would turn southeast along Sand Point Way and Union Bay to join the Thomson Expressway. Part of the route through Sand Point was proposed for construction on what is now the Burke-Gilman Trail. (4.)

--A Bothell (SR-522) freeway, extending from I-5 along Lake City Way and Bothell Way to Kenmore, and then through Bothell to the SR-522/I-405 interchange. Part of this route was proposed for construction on what is now the Burke-Gilman Trail; it was later revised to extend north through Lake Forest Park to Brier, then turning southeast to Kenmore and Bothell. (5.)

--The 50th Street Expressway, extending between the Thomson Expressway and Aurora Ave N along a depressed (open-cut) alignment parallel to N 50th St. (6.)

--The East Side Freeway, aka I-605, extending east from the Burien Freeway near Redondo, turning north near Berrydale to parallel SR-167 and I-405 to the east, through Bellevue, Redmond and Woodinville to SR-522. A later revision would have routed the freeway along the east shore of Lake Sammamish. (7.)

--The Petrovitsky Freeway, extending east and west, mideway between Renton and Kent, connecting I-5 and the East Side Freeway.

--A freeway from the SR-509/SR-99 interchange north of Highland Park, extending northwest to Seattle South Community College, then turning southwest to reach Fauntleroy and connect with a new Cross-Sound bridge. (8.)

Tacoma / South King County:

--Extension of I-705 out N 6th St in Tacoma to connect with SR-18.

--A new freeway in Tacoma, extending from I-5 north and west, along an alignment near Yakima Ave, turning north again near Union Ave to reach the shore.

--Completion of the SR-509 freeway between Sea-Tac and Tacoma, following the shore through Des Moines, Redondo, and Dash Point, then along Marine View Dr and E 11th St to downtown Tacoma. (9.)

--An SR-7 freeway from Tacoma south to Spanaway along Pacific Ave.

--Completion of the SR-167 freeway from Puyallup into Tacoma.

--An SR-161 freeway between South Federal Way and Puyallup. --A bypass east of Tacoma, between I-5/SR-167 and SR-512. --A west bypass, between SR-512/I-5 and SR-16 via Lakewood Center and Fircrest.

--A bypass south of downtown Tacoma following S 38th St westward from SR-7, swinging northwest to join SR-16 near Fircrest.

Notes:
1--A bond issue was approved by Seattle voters in 1960 to finance the Thomson Expressway. But after a long and heated battle, the Seattle city council refused to approved any more money for studies in 1969. It was then dropped from Seattle's comprehensive plan, and voters rescinded the bond issue in 1972.

2--A tax increase for the Bay Freeway was approved by voters in 1960. But opposition mounted, eventually resulting in a court order requiring a second vote before the project could proceed. Voters decided against the project in 1972.

3--Although approved by the city council in 1963, the Connecticut Street Viaduct was not built due to lack of funds, and was deleted in the early 1970s.

4--The north Lake Washington bridge was studied from the mid-60s, but cancelled as the result of public outcries against "paving the lake" during the late 1960s.

5--The Bothell Freeway attracted strong opposition during the late 1960s, and had been deleted from long-range plans by 1973.

6--Cancelled due to strong opposition from community groups.

7--Recommended in a 1968 study, but opposed by community groups in Federal Way, Bellevue and east of Lake Sammamish, and eventually cancelled.

8--Cross sound bridges have been considered between Kingston and Edmonds, between West Point and Rolling Bay on Bainbridge Island, between Fauntleroy and Southworth via Vashon Island, and at other locations. The idea was seriously studied from the late 1940s, but did not proceed due to cost. Opposition on grounds of environmental and development impact by communities west of the sound did not develop until the late 1960s.

9--Plans for extension were strongly opposed by community groups in Federal Way and Des Moines. Plans to build through Federal Way were canceled in the late 1960s. Funds for the extension through Des Moines were budgeted in 1973, but the project was cancelled due to community opposition there.

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 12/13/2002 01:10:00 PM

 
WORLD RAIL PROJECTS

"It is the unfortunate destiny of the ridiculous to be subject to ridicule."
James Howard Kunstler

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal has compiled the following list for your interest.

---One of the best transit sites on the web, "metroPlanet" www.metropla.net provides information, maps, photos and links for the world’s heavy-rail (subway) systems. The news page is at: www.metropla.net/news.htm.

---"Rinbad," sponsored by the Branch Line Society (UK), has several lists of recent and planned rail line openings: www.rinbad.demon.co.uk/index.htm.

---The Light Rail Transit Association (UK) website www.lrta.org includes a list of world light rail and tramway systems www.lrta.org/world/worldind.html and a news page www.lrta.org/news/newsindex02.html. A “fact sheet” (see: “Fact Sheet No 54. The Tramway / Light Rail Explosion, www.lrta.org/facts54.html) lists the 76 light rail and tramway systems that have been opened worldwide since 1980.

And finally, if you’d like to flummox your neighborhood rail transit basher, tell her/him that "countries all over the world are building rail transit; why, there’s even a subway in Outer Mongolia!" Then, give ‘em the following URL to the Ulaan Baator Metroo: ulaanbaator.narod.ru/. This is an elaborate, very clever -- and almost convincing -- ruse by some stereotypical "Mad Russian" (but don't let the secret out!)

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 12/12/2002 05:10:00 PM