Read a Pacific Northwest, liberal perspective on world, national, and local politics. From majestic Redmond, Washington - the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

LIVE from Seattle: Kemper Freeman Jr. brings flying libertarian circus to CityClub

Today, Seattle CityClub is holding the latest forum in its "Community Matters" series of election-related events. The subject of today's discussion is "Transportation on the Ballot: Proposition 1 and Initiative 985".

The discussion consists of two debates: One between King County Councilmember Dow Constantine and libertarian Bellevue Square owner Kemper Freeman, Jr. over Sound Transit Proposition 1, and between Tim Eyman and Ron Sims over I-985.

KIRO 7 chief political correspondent Essex Porter is moderating the debates.

We're about twenty minutes into the Proposition 1 debate so far, and the main lowlight has been the slew of favorite false claims and distortions from our local flying libertarian circus - presented by Kemper Freeman Jr. in his low, gravelly voice. Already Kemper has trotted out the tired, misleading "only one percent or less of all trips occur on transit" canard, and he has also argued that rail isn't cost effective as buses (an unfair apples to oranges comparison).

Among Kemper Freeman Jr.'s other claims so far, in his own words:
  • Seattle has "the eighth best bus system in the country"
  • "We're being sold a very expensive fib that light rail can do it better" than buses (here he's talking about the cost effectiveness of the Link system)
  • "Hundreds of buses and hundreds of bus routes can do better than a light rail line" (Dow quickly pointed out that it would actually take thousands of buses to do the job of light rail)
  • Sound Transit's promises "have already been made and broken"
  • "I did support Transit Now" [the Metro bus package] in 2006
  • "I-985 does a lot of things that I think are good for transit and all of us" (By letting anyone use high occupancy vehicle lanes during rush hour!?)
Dow has done a pretty good job of refuting Kemper's nonsense, especially considering that reframing is naturally tough when you're up against the libertarian flying circus, which has nothing to offer but anti-transit propaganda.

At one point, Dow stated emphatically, "The other cities that have successful bus systems...all of them...have light rail."

UPDATE: Bill LaBorde of the Transportation Choices Coalition just asked Kemper how he can talk so enthusiastically about creating bus rapid transit and bus lanes (instead of rail) while at the same time supporting I-985, which would open high occupancy vehicle lanes and bus lanes to general traffic.

Kemper dodged the question, instead talking about eliminating "pinch points" by widening highways. Memo to Kemper: Building bigger and wider urban canyons does not ease gridlock. It simply does not work.

UPDATE II: Someone just asked about tunnel and bridge safety. Dow explained that it's actually safer to be underground during an earthquake (because the tunnel moves with the earth) and that engineers believe light rail across I-90 is feasible.

Comments:

Blogger SurferDude said...

Already Kemper has trotted out the tired, misleading "only one percent or less of all trips occur on transit" canard

Anyone care to explain how that is misleading? Or are we just throwing that against the wall and seeing if it sticks?

October 23, 2008 10:14 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

It's misleading because it's a worthless measurement.

Here's pro-transit conservatives Paul Weyrich and Bill Lind. They explain it best:

Common sense and experience, those two great conservative tests, tell us transit is important. The statistics that count total trips, even total urban commuting trips, tell us it isn’t. What gives?

What has to give is the unit of measurement. The seeming contradiction stems from the fact that counting total trips (or total commuting trips) does not effectively measure the present impact or potential of public transit. The anti-transit studies are applying the wrong yardstick. They are, in effect, trying to measure flour with a ruler, or count inches with a spoon. Their numbers are correct, but the meaning they draw from them isn’t. To measure transit’s current worth or future potential, we need a different measurement.

A measurement that allows us to calculate better the importance of transit – present and potential – is transit competitive trips. We need to ask not what percentage of total trips transit carries, but what percentage it carries of trips for which it can compete. Measuring transit by counting trips it cannot compete for is like asking how much orange juice you can get from a bushel of apples.


Is that concrete enough for you, surferdude?

October 23, 2008 10:29 PM  
Blogger SurferDude said...

Well, if those guys explain it best, I would hate to see it poorly explained.

"We need to ask not what percentage of total trips transit carries, but what percentage it carries of trips for which it can compete."

So, when taxing the entire commmunity, we should judge the worth of the project, by how well it serves the tiny minority that it can reach? Never mind the other 99% that don't use mass transit, they don't count because they live too far from a rail line? Sounds like taxation without representation to me.

And, the argument of a pundit who can't find a simple way to explain why 99% should pay for something they don't use.

"Measuring transit by counting trips it cannot compete for is like asking how much orange juice you can get from a bushel of apples."

Wrong analogy. Asking people to pay for something they don't use, while ignoring the fact that 99% of trips are made with personal transportation, invites comparison with the Boston Tea Party, not fruit juice.

October 25, 2008 1:00 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Well, never mind the explanation, then. You're obviously so anti-transit that you aren't going to accept any explanation.

Flipping your argument on its head...what about people who don't own cars but pay for roads? It isn't just the gas tax that pays for road construction and maintenance, you know. Is that fair?

Think of how unworkable society would be if we decided we would only pay for services that we used. Are we going to force victims of crime and fire to pay for the first responders who come to their aid? Force library patrons to support libraries all by themselves? Force families with children to be the only ones funding the school system?

But this is all beside the point. You do benefit from Sound Transit, surferdude, even if you don't ride it. Here's Republican Senator Robert F. Bennett of Utah:

Do you use public transportation? Of course you do. Even if you live out in the country, you use public transportation when you drive to the city.

"No, I don’t," you reply. "I drive all the way into the city. I don’t change from my car to a train or bus."

That may be true, but you still use transit to help you get around. How? If it weren’t for public transportation, there would be thousands more cars on the road. You would spend hours more driving in or out of the city, because congestion would be far worse than it already is. So even if you don’t ride public transit, you still use it, and it is still working for you.


Again, you do benefit from mass transit and you do, unknowingly, make use it, even if you drive to every place you go.

As for the idea that few people use Sound Transit's services:

Sound Transit’s latest numbers confirm rising fuel costs, congestion and environmental concerns continue to lure more Central Puget Sound residents aboard trains and buses. Average July weekday transit ridership was up 25 percent over last year — including a 38 percent ridership increase on Sounder commuter rail.

The American Public Transportation Association reported today that nationally, public transit systems experienced a 5 percent increase in ridership for the second quarter of 2008. Sound Transit’s July numbers show significant continuing growth beyond the second quarter 2008 gains that Sound Transit posted earlier. Second quarter 2008 weekday ridership grew 16 percent from the same three-month period in 2007, including a 31 percent gain for Sounder commuter rail.


By the way, your own math, using your own measurements, is wrong.

According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC):

Although its share decreased between survey years, 76 percent of all work trips were made by SOV in 2006. The reduction in SOV share from 1999 to 2006 appears to have been taken up by transit modes. Transit added 2 percent to its mode share from 1999 to 2000. Nearly 10 percent of work trips were provided by transit in 2006. The share of walking and other modal trips remained stable between the survey years.

What about non-work trips?

Again, transit is used for more than one percent of non-work trips. In 2006, it was around three percent, and it has grown since then. Walking, by the way, comprises over ten percent of non-work trips.

(For work trips, it's only about two percent or so).

And once again, these are your worthless "percentage of total trip" measurements. Not only are you using a worthless measurement, but the math you use for your worthless measurement is wrong.

So much for your argument.

October 25, 2008 9:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home