(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal

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

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Tuesday, May 27, 2003

 
LIVE WEBCAMS ALONG TRAM LINES

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is pleased to bring to you another interesting link. An FOC turned us on to this link that contains a list of webcams along a number of tram (streetcar) lines, largely in Europe. See here www.tramways.freeserve.co.uk/Livecams.htm#index


Friday, May 23, 2003

 
NEW TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURE SUGGESTED

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is pleased to bring to you an innovative proposal for public-transit "performance measures."

An FOC theorizes that the quality of transit service is directly proportional to the number of management staff that actually ride the system, and calls this the "Managers Ride Index."

(Imagine, mused yet another FOC, if the managers not only rode, but actually owned the system!)

We Opinionated Ones hink that such innovative thinking should not go unrecognized! We think even Fudgemeister Wendell would agree with this one!


Thursday, May 22, 2003

 
Wendell Cox is Not Mediocre, but Sometimes, He's Asinine - 1

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is pleased to present our groundbreaking critique of you-know-who's "worldview." The gospel according to Mr. Fudge, as it were.

We invite all interested websurfers to check out the following page in Wendell's "Urban Transit 'Fact' Book." (Try not to laugh . . .) The page is titled "Keys to Urban Rail Success" (We asked you not to laugh . . .), and it's at www.publicpurpose.com/ut-railkeys.htm.

Since this is part of Wendell's online empire ("The Public Purpose"), we weren't surprised that the Weasel King offers a "key" without really saying what it opens.

(The above, for the benefit of websurfers pressed for time, is our mock-sophisticated way of pointing out that Wendell never defines "Urban Rail Success.")

Oh, there it is! "The prerequisites for rail success with respect to controlling traffic congestion . . ." That, of course, means "auto traffic congestion."

Getta loada that! "Controlling traffic congestion!"

So, if you want to design a successful rail system, don't worry about passenger traffic volume, passenger traffic density, operating efficiency with respect to existing transit, promoting pedestrian-friendly land use, and so forth.

You don't have to worry about those "complain-a-sauruses" called "passengers" at all.

All ya gotta do is control auto traffic congestion!

We doubt that even the Weasel King would dare put this on his website, but the logical corollary goes as follows: A rail system that fails to "control" traffic congestion should be scrapped forthwith. As in:

"STOP BUILDING RAIL SYSTEMS,
SCRAP ALL OF THE BLASTED THINGS,
EVERY LAST ONE,
DAMMIT! ™"

This obviously provides an opportunity for immense profit. We TransitCabalists see dollar signs dancing before our eyes. Our coup will be legendary . . .

(Yeah, we know: at least one of you websurfers is already mumbling, "Just what do these smart-as . . . er, Opinionated Ones . . . have in mind?" Read on!)

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal asserts that s/he who proves that a given rail system is not "successful" -- by proving that it doesn't "control" traffic congestion -- should by right receive the contract to scrap it. And so, the larger the rail system, the greater the profit.

There is, unfortunately, a problem: Wendell’s criterion contains a "Weasel Word" . . . no surprise here . . .

Note that Wendell didn't say "reduce" or "eliminate;" he said "control." This choice of words gives him lots of wiggle room:

--"Eliminate:" a question of fact. Present or absent; either it's gone or it isn't.

--"Reduce:" a question of degree; was that 10 percent reduction, a 30 percent reduction, or?

--"Control:" a question of interpretation, i.e. rhetorical argument; just what do you mean by "control," Wendell?

(Anyone wanting to thoroughly debunk the Weasel King might systematically document the degree to which he relies on rhetorical argument: rhetoric disguised as facts, rhetoric to support shaky or questionable "facts," and rhetoric to argue against facts that he doesn't like. But please, PLEASE don't do that; we'd lose our favorite target for ridicule!)

Back to our scheme: We're not going to bother with any rail system in the U.S., or even Europe. We're gonna PROVE, beyond question, that the "ultimate" rail network does not work, should therefore be scrapped, and that the responsible authorities should permit the Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal to manage the scrapping (out of gratitude, you see).

"Ultimate rail network" refers, of course, to Tokyo.

(TOKYO! Think of the loot, the LOOT!)

If you want to see how bad the rail "lack-of-success" story in Tokyo really is, then we've got just the link for you! www.mex.go.jp/info/index.html. This will take you to the real-time traffic information page on the Metropolitan Expressway Public Corporation ("MEX") website. Congestion levels are indicated by color. Options include the toll expressway network, and "ordinary" streets and roads in various areas of the metropolitan region.

Couple of caveats: Although the MEX English-language website www.mex.go.jp/english/index.html has a lot of information, real-time traffic information is available only in Japanese, and the link may not work without Japanese-compatible software. Also, "real-time" means real time, as in local time. So, if you're in New York and you want to check out the evening rush hour in Tokyo, you'll have to be online at 2 or 3 in the morning (the time difference varies by season because Japan does not observe daylight saving time).

This type of display is, of course, not unique to Tokyo and can be found online for some US cities: docs.lib.duke.edu/maps/guides/realtime.html and for Paris www.sytadin.tm.fr (If you like webcams, take a look at London traffic using the "jamcam" options on the BBC London website www.bbc.co.uk/london/travel/jamcams;if you want to see a London traffic jam, you'll have to take the time difference into account.) But it does support the view of Your Favorite Transit Pundits that only a weasel would seriously offer "controlling traffic congestion" as the one-and-only criteria for evaluation of "urban rail success."




Monday, May 19, 2003

 
US FORCES RESTORE IRAQ RAIL SERVICE

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal has previously brought you news and links about rail transport in -- er, that country formerly run by the guy with the mustache.

Now, it appears that US forces have discovered that trains are a good way to move supplies -- and people.

We in the Worldwide Secret Transit Cabal find this quite suprising, given George W. Bush's background in the oil industry, and his administration's proposals to gut Amtrak. We were sure Dubya would'a wanted to get as many Iraqs into slick, fast jobs from Toyota and General Motors ASAP!

CNN.com reports that one daily passenger service between Baghdad and the port of Umm Qasr was re-opened to the public on May 7. Resumption of service from Baghdad north to Mosul, and from Baghdad northwest to Al Qa'aim, northwest of the capital, were expected in the "near future." Further details here www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/07/sprj.nilaw.iraq.train/index.html .

(Still no word, though, about the guy with the mustache or his tunnel network under Baghdad.)


Friday, May 16, 2003

 
Wendell Cox Is Not Mediocre, But Sometimes, He's Dense -- 9 and 10

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

Continuing with our sophisticated, erudite analysis of urban transit traffic density, comparing and contrasting with the weak and lame “analysis” attempted by, well, you-know-who.

(More shameless self-promotion in the mold of the good Mr. Cox.)

FOR THOSE OF YOU TIRED OF THIS SUBJECT, THIS IS OUR LAST POST ON "COX IS DENSE."

The fact that “boarding density” and “traffic density” are not equivalent may be illustrated as follows:

---Tokyo’s Teito Rapid Transit Authority (“Eidan” -- Urban HRT) reports twice as many boardings per route-km as the Odakyu Electric Railway (Suburban). However, traffic densities are almost identical, because the average Odakyu passenger travels twice as far as the average Eidan passenger.

---The Paris Metro (Urban HRT) reports more than five times as many boardings per route-km as Japan’s Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co (Suburban), but traffic densities are virtually identical. The average Nishi-Nippon passenger travels much farther than the average Paris Metro passenger.

---The Lyon Metro reports nearly three times as many boardings per route-km as Washington, DC, Metrorail (and the Hamburg S-Bahn). However, traffic densities are identical, for the average passenger travels much farther in Washington (and Hamburg) than in Lyon.

(We’re eagerly awaiting Wendell’s flavorful (i.e. fudge-laden) exposition of why rail transit is not justified in Hamburg and Lyon . . .)

In terms of traffic density, the world’s three busiest urban heavy rail systems -- Hong Kong (150 million pass-mi per route-mi per year), Moscow (137) and Sao Paulo (120) stand out -- as outliers. Anyone who normalizes an index on an “outlier” (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-wrail.htm) risks revealing themselves as “statistically challenged” -- or, in this case, just plain dense (. . . given the topic at hand . . .).

The highest traffic density carried by ANY urban rail system in the U.S., Canada, Australia or Western Europe are found in Lisbon (40) and Vienna (39). The urban heavy-rail average for these countries is 14.4; BART scores an even 14, Washington, DC scores 12; Philadelphia and Boston score 10.

The light-rail average for the U.S., Canada, Australia and Western Europe is 4 million pass-km per route-km per year; Los Angeles scores 5.4, San Diego scores 5.2, and St. Louis scores 4.7.

It should not surprise that traffic density levels in the developed world -- with the single exception of Japan -- are significantly lower than in other countries. High traffic densities are associated with peak-hour crowding levels that most passengers in the developed world will not tolerate. The traffic densities carried by Russian streetcar systems are (or were; traffic has plummeted since the dissolution of the USSR) associated with very low levels of auto ownership and very high levels of peak-hour crowding -- sometimes to the point where doors could not be closed.

Another issue, which tends to inflate annual traffic-density statistics for Japan (and probably for other countries): weekday and Saturday traffic levels do not differ much, and Sunday traffic levels throughout much of the day resemble those carried on weekdays.

A “Public Purpose” page has a table, “Metro and Light Rail: Selected International Systems Ranked by Passenger Kilometers per Route Kilometer” (see: www.publicpurpose.com/ut-intl-pmrt.htm). This betrays the compiler’s total lack of understanding of the concept, and of its significance. This table is also a typical example of the poor presentation which we Opinionated Ones find typical of “The Public Purpose” annd “Demographia.”

The table headings read as follows: “Urban Area,” “Type of System,” “Passenger Miles (KMs) per Route Mile (KM),” “Year.”

Now, is that “Passenger Miles (KMs) per Route Mile (KM)” per second, minute, hour, day, or ?

The “Public Purpose” figures APPEAR to be “per day” or “per weekday,” but this cannot be determined from the table.

The “Public Purpose” table also contains this note: “Estimated daily one directional ridership (two way ridership would be double).”

Traffic density is not “ridership,” although it is of course related to same. It is possble for two systems with very different ridership levels to have equivalent traffic density -- and for equivalent traffic-density statistics to mask substantial differences in boarding counts. In addition, we do not see the point in calculating “one-way” traffic densities . . . unless, of course, one wishes to “lowball” this statistic.

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal has this advice for our friend, the good Mr. Fudge:

Don’t be dense, Wendell! Learn the difference between “traffic density” and “boarding density!”


Wendell Cox Is Not Mediocre, But Sometimes, He's Dense -- 10

We Opinionated Ones hope that we’ve managed a reasonable job so far of enlightening you about a serious transit planning issue, in reasonably-accessible fashion, all while engaging in our favorite sport, which is ridiculing Wendell. (He makes such an inviting target . . .)

Transit planners in other countries pay careful attention to traffic density (passengers traveling over each mile of route). But, this country, for reasons of simplicity, politics, convenience, politics, established practice, politics, and so forth, boarding density (passengers entering or boarding along each mile of route) is the standard yardstick.

We Opinionated Ones admit that “boarding density” is a useful measure for ridership forecasting purposes – call it “passengers attracted per mile of route.” However, estimating “how many” while failing to take into account “how far” – that is, the average distance traveled by each passsenger – may lead to serious design errors that will cost a small fortune to fix. Case in point: the Blue Line in Los Angeles. “Big Blue” was built for a maximum train length of two cars – and escaped a crippling car shortage during the initial years of operation only because a second batch, ordered for the Green Line, was on hand. Peak-hour trains quickly filled up. Then, after platforms were extended, three-car trains began operation early last year – and these are now full during peak hours, and some off-peak hours, too. We’re opinionated, but we think this line should have been built for four-car trains.

(Oops, how foolish of us! Train length doesn’t matter because “no amount of ridership” would make the Blue Line successful!! The esteemed Dr. Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California said so!!! Right here on our blog!!!!)

www.transitcabal.org/2002_08_01_transit_cabal.html

Scroll down to August 2, 2002 posts. If you don't want to do that, here is the item, reproduced:

From the Cabalmaster:

"Whoever you are, you do not have the courage to identify yourself. I do not know what to make of this but it does not look good. In any case, the world would be better off without the Blue Line. I said it again."

rest snipped for brevity...

NumberMan, he CONFIRMS he said what he was reputed to have said about the Blue Line. Let's run with it, man!

By now, we anticipate that at least one websurfer is now mumbling: If those smarta . . . er, “TransitCabalists” . . . are so smart, then how come they can’t explain the forecasting error in ten words or less?

Well, we can: Planners used a ridiculously low number for average travel distance.

(There! Exactly ten words!!)

So ridiculously low, in fact, that an FOC laughed out loud upon finding printed documentation in an early-planning document.

As a result, traffic density – which exists even if U.S. planners ignore the issue – was vastly underestimated.

The original forecast was about 55,000 passengers per weekday. Planners assumed that the average passenger would travel no farther than bus passengers do – about four miles – even though the rail line would provide much faster service.

So, 55,000 passengers per weekday, times four miles per passenger, divided by the 21-mile line length, gives about 10,500 passenger-miles per mile of route per weekday, or about 3 million per year.

Three million per year . . . say, isn’t that the same as light-rail traffic densities in Gothenburg and The Hague?

(Yes, Wendell, it is, and we’d just LOVE to hear you explain why these two cities should, well, “stop building rail systems, dammit!”)

The “problem” (at the good Dr. Gordon might see it) is that the Blue Line attracts a much longer average travel distance than four miles. An FOC reports that onboard survey data showed an average travel distance of about 8 miles during the early 1990s, exceeding 10 miles during peak periods.

The current “annnual average” is about 60,000 per weekday. Multiply by eight miles, divide by the 21-mile line length, and get almost 23,000 passengers traveling over each mile of route per weekday, or nearly 7 million per year. In other words, more than double the forecast “workload.”

(Hey, Wendell! Did you know that the L.A. Blue Line carries more traffic per mile of route than heavy-rail systems in Oslo, Norway, and Newcastle, England?

(The same traffic per mile of route as light-rail systems in Frankfurt and Stuttgart, Germany?

(The same traffic per of route as the Berlin S-Bahn?

(Almost as much per mile of route as Chicago’s heavy-rail system??

(No?

(We’re not surprised. We think that you and your cohorts don’t have the slightest idea of what this is all about . . . but we suspect you’ll learn, the hard way, as others catch on . . .)

A significant issue for planners is what level of traffic density justifies investment in rail transit. Pinpointing a threshold figure is difficult. This question has never been studied systematically in this country (as it has elsewhere), and there are site-specific issues that influence the answer. However, the U.S. “threshold” for low-cost light rail, without tunneling or extensive grade separation, is about 5,000 pass-mi per mile of route per weekday, or about 1.5 million per year. This represents the minimum traffic-density level at which low-cost light rail becomes economic, paying back the cost of construction through increased transit operating efficiency and social benefits (reduced travel time, cost savings over auto travel, and so forth).

If significant tunneling or grade separation is required, the threshold is about 10,000 pass-mi per mile of route per weekday, or about 3 million per year.

On the other hand, the practical limit or “ceiling” for U.S. light rail is about 20,000 pass-mi per mile of route per weekday, or about 6 million per year. This density level implies rush-hour volumes that are beyond the effective capacity of most light rail systems (owing to limitations on train length, service frequency, and the fact that U.S. consumers will not tolerate the sort of “crush” loadings that Tokyo residents stoically endure). So, in the U.S., traffic densities significantly greater than these figurees suggest the need for heavy rail.

The L.A. Blue Line is the proverbial exception that proves the rule. Although this line carries 60,000 – 70,000 per weekday, busiest-hour passenger volumes are not much greater than 3,000 per hour. This is a remarkably low figure in light of the weekday ridership. It may reflect characteristics of the corridor, or may arise simply because of limitations on peak-period service (three-car trains) and lack of tolerance among passengers for Tokyo-style crush loads. We don’t believe that anyone really knows what would happen if this line could operate, say, six-car trains.

Wendell Cox may be incurably dense with reference to transit traffic density (after all, he’s Wendell).

But, seriously, we Opionated Ones hope that others will give this subject the careful study it deserves.

Light rail in Los Angeles carrying the same traffic density as light rail in Stuttgart, Germany, and almost as much as heavy rail in Chicago!??!

Sounds too good to pass up, doesn’t it?




Monday, May 12, 2003

 
Wendell Cox Is Not Mediocre, But Sometimes, He's Dense -- 8

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

For Wendell is Dense Installment 6, click here. For Installment 7, click here (Adobe PDF 5.0 files). These are data tables.

Continuing with our remarkable, landmark, groundbreaking analysis of urban transit traffic density, comparing and contrasting with the poor surrogate, “boarding density,” used by the ever-dense Wendell Cox.

(Hey, Wendell’s into shameless self-promotion, so we thought we’d try it, too.)

First, a bit of a recap: “Traffic density,” passenger-miles per mile of route, sounds like a mouthful but simply describes the number of passengers who travel over each mile of route (usually in both directions). Traffic density has to be tied to some unit of time (year, day, or weekday).

“Boarding density,” boardings per mile, describes the number of passengers who enter stations, or board vehicles, along each mile of route.

To summarize the results on the tables above, we’ve prepared the following list of unweighted annual “Traffic Density Averages,” using the major mode categories described previously:

URBAN HRT:

U.S, Canada, Australia, Western Europe: 14.4 million pass-mi per mile of route.
Eastern Europe: 41.5 million.
Asia: 37.2 million.
Former USSR: 48.7 million.
Latin America: 48.6 million.

LRT:

U.S, Canada, Australia, Western Europe: 4 million pass-mi per mile of route.
Asia: 7.4 million.
Latin America: 11.2 million.

STREETCAR:

U.S, Canada, Australia, Western Europe: 2.3 million pass-mi per mile of route.
Eastern Europe: 10.0 million.
Asia: 2.7 million.
Former USSR: 6.7 million.

SUBURBAN:

U.S, Canada, Australia, Western Europe: 2.2 million pass-mi per mile of route.
Asia: 1.6 million.

LARGE CITY SUBURBAN:

Asia: 44.8 million passenger-miles per mile of route.

ICTS:

U.S, Canada, Australia, Western Europe: 1.8 million pass-mi per mile of route.
Asia: 6.9 million.

MONORAIL:

U.S, Canada, Australia, Western Europe: 4.7 million pass-mi per mile of route.
Asia: 1.5 million.

There is a strong correlation between “traffic density” and “boarding density” (r-squared = 0.9). However, one would expect this, because the two are not independent. The two are not independent because “traffic density” equals “boarding density,” multiplied by average travel distance. A high correlation between two variables that are not independent means little.

(Got that, Wendell??)

The problem for U.S. transit planning, which seldom considers traffic density and related issues, is that the correlation between “boarding density” and “average travel distance” is very weak (r-squared = 0.1). In other words, a line with a relatively low boarding density may have a high traffic density, and vice versa. Not taking this into account may lead to serious problems that are expensive to fix.

The strong correlation between “traffic density” and “boarding density,” compared to the weak correlation between “boarding density” and “average travel distance,” is not a paradox. The strong correlation arises because 1.) “traffic density” = “boarding density” times “average travel distance,” and 2.) “boarding density” is a much larger number than “average travel distance.” Wendell may try his best to convince you that the strong correlation is significant, but it isn’t, because the two variables are not independent.






Wednesday, May 07, 2003

 
TRANSITCABAL CONTEST: Document Cox!

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

WIN AN ANNUAL TRANSIT PASS
FOR THE URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEM OF YOUR CHOICE!

From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is pleased to announce our first contest!

The prize: an annual transit pass, or its equivalent (e.g. twelve monthly passes), to any urban transit system in the WORLD! (Or, for commuter rail, up to two monthly passes for, say, the Metro-North Commuter Railroad or the Long Island Rail Road; we’ll consider similar operations on an ad-hoc basis.)

The challenge: Provide bona fide evidence that documents the source(s) of Wendell Cox’ funding!

Besides his own firm, "Wendell Cox Consultancy" and his personal websites, www.publicpurpose.com and www.demographia.com, Wendell is or has been listed in the recent past as "Associate" or "Senior Fellow" at the Heritage Foundation, the Texas Public Policy Institute, the Independence Institute, Heartland Institute, and many others.

These titles probably indicate that he’s been hired to write an anti-New Urbanism or anti-transit paper or two, and little else.

Many of Wendell’s critics and opponents believes that he receives much loot from pro-highway, anti-urban, anti-smart-growth, right-wing and Libertarian interests.

(We’re shocked – utterly SCANDALIZED – we thought he did it just for fun!!!)

Wendell himself has refused to disclose who his clients are, other than to cop a plea of “customary professional practice.”

Just to show that we’re serious: Dana Gabbard and Kymberleigh Richards of Southern California Transit Advocates have researched the funding received by the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles (www.transit-insider.org/master.html?http://www.transit-insider.org/brufunds.htm). Imagine such a page documenting Wendell’s funding!!!

As for "funding" of the Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal, we'll accept some if you have any to offer!

What? You think we get PAID to do this? Well, no. We don't have goofy billionaires backup us, say, unlike the CATO Institute who has the goofy owners of secretive Koch Industries. We wish!



Tuesday, May 06, 2003

 
WENDELL WIMPS OUT!

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

WENDELL WIMPS OUT!

[or:]

WENDELL COX IS WIMPY, WIMPY, WIMPY!

From the Cabalmaster:

Intrepid websurfers may remember our three-part refutation Wendell Cox's “Lexus Argument” – his critique of the Hiawatha Corridor LRT project and the proposed Northstar commuter rail line in Minneapolis www.publicpurpose.com/ut-msplexus.htm .

Your Favorite Transit Pundits challenged Wendell to respond, directly as well as on your favorite blog.

He didn’t.

Wendell insists that his Lexus argument is not serious. With reference to another permutation, he writes:

"The Jaguar Argument is used to demonstrate the absurdity of spending so much money to attract a new commuter to light rail" (see: The Jaguar: Symbolizing Public Policy Absurdity).

Wendell also states -- explicitly -- that he does not find it “necessary to respond in detail” to anyone who fails to provide “on-point refutation of any point raised by Wendell Cox or ‘The Public Purpose’” (see: www.publicpurpose.com/ut-weyrich2001.htm).

We provided "on-point" refutation, and Wendell did not find it necessary to respond.

We extended the Fearless Fudgemeister a second opportunity to explain why his demonstration of "absurdity" is not in itself absurd – in other words, like arguing against the existence of Santa Claus by denying the reality of the Easter Bunny.

The silence was deafening. (Gee, you’d think he didn’t like us or something . . .)

The reason for Wendell’s non-response is obvious. As the late boxer Oscar Bonavena would put it, "He’s chicken! Cheep! Cheep! Cheep!"

Quite in contrast to, say, Dr. Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California. We disagree sharply with Dr. Gordon, and, we admit, shamelessly lampoon him at times. But he wins our utmost respect (yes, R-E-S-P-E-C-T) for one thing. He has the courage of his convictions and is not afraid to “spar” with those who hold opposing views.

Wendell, on the other hand, hides behind an “old guard” of sycophants, who take to task anyone who dares to criticize the Sage of (suburban) St. Louis:

"I find it enlightening that people like [Your Favorite Transit Pundits] are free to make the Wendell Cox/Saddam association and chose [sic] to do so. Apparently there are some people that lack the ability to responsibly excercise [sic] freedom."

(The preceding was penned by one of our favorite Usenet critics, who we’ll call "The Nattering Nebish of Napalm" for his frequent "flamethrower" attacks against any and all who dare to disagree with him.

(Note that he doesn’t seem to have anything resembling a sense of humor, either . . .)

Non-response by the "man behind the curtain" provides clear and convincing evidence that Wendell’s "Lexus Argument" (. . . aka “Jaguar Argument,” or whatever he wishes to label it . . .) has as much to do with reality as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We’re claiming victory by default . . .

"How we love it so!"

George C. Scott as George S. Patton in the 1970 war film classic Patton, musing about Patton's well known, medieval, archaic love of war.



Monday, May 05, 2003

 
QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

Robert W. Rynerson penned these pithy paragraphs, part of a piece published in Issue 649, Rail Travel News (August 31, 2002): "Across an Imagined German Border." (Rynerson, worked for the U.S. Army Rail Transportation Office, Berlin Brigade, in summer 1969 home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm.)

After describing the remarkable improvements in service frequency and speed along the rail line in eastern Germany used by the former Military Trains, Rynerson writes:

"No clever new proprietary technology is involved. The secret to the improvement between the old Germany and the new is that the old Reichsbahn was run remarkably like some American railroads: ripped up second main tracks, speed restrictions due to crumbling roadbeds and maintenance budget cutbacks, obsolete equipment, outdated signals and no electrification outside of the pre-WWII projects. The new service is on the same right-of-way as the old, and constructed with off-the-shelf components. It involves track and roadbed improvements, electrification, and stations and passenger rolling stock designed to speed up boarding and alighting.

"Of course, the situations are different. The Reichsbahn was ravaged by war and the post-War Soviet reparations. The U.S. railroads were ravaged by government policies and quarterly-report shareholders. Effects were almost identical."