Well, it's been a few days coming, but I finally feel prepared to explain in some detail the reason I left my old cab company ("XYZ"), and decided to go to work for another company ("ABC").
Today, I'll provide some essential background, and name the offending scams my old cab company allowed to happen. Future posts will detail how the offending scams worked.
I spend the weekend with my friend, Johnny Wraith, who is a lawyer, and a very good one at that, my accusations that he is an alcoholic notwithstanding. We discussed the issues, and how they should be explained, for the purposes of maximum revelation, and minimum likelihood of being sued.
Having previously worked in the Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice field from 1981 through 1997, I was aware that the truth is an absolute defense in any lawsuit accusing a person of slandering or libeling another person, and was prepared to name names, and let the chips fall where they may.
Johnny reminded me that while the truth is an absolute defense against a lawsuit being successful, it does not protect one from being sued in the first place. The cost of defending the suit could be staggering, even if judgement was not granted to the plaintiff (say a cab company) against the defendant (say, Yours Truly, The Cab Guy). He further went on to point out that usually this was of concern only to people with substantial assets, or any assets at all.
Well, since I don't have substantial assets, my estate consisting of some personal property (furniture, computer, a television and stereo system, assorted books, CDs, and DVDs and the like), the few dollars I've managed to save, and my car, I felt relatively safe from retribution via a lawsuit.
However, the hassles of being sued are not negligible. Also, Johnny went on to point out that although I was relatively "poor" at this point in my life, I was not always so, and probably would not be so again in the future. For all of these reasons, and because it really doesn't add to my readers' understanding of what goes on in the taxi business, I have decided to refrain from naming names.
The miscreants who might happen to read my blog will recognize who they are, but will be unable to do anything about it. Anyone involved in the Phoenix Metro Area taxi industry will also know who they are, and may or not take pleasure in the knowledge that what they suspected was going on all along really is in fact happening. They may also take steps to protect themselves from being cheated.
Some additional background is necessary. I have worked in the taxi industry since approximately December 1, 1998, through the present. (NOT 1997, as I have stated elsewhere in this blog; I apologize for that error). I started with "XYZ" cab company, and stayed with them through late May of 2001. I became fed up with some of the practices at XYZ, and so moved on to "ABC" cab company.
I stayed on with ABC company for somewhat more than six years. Over time, some management and policy changes led to my gradual dissatisfaction with ABC. I heard that things had improved at XYZ, so after considering the situation for several months, I went back to XYZ.
In some ways, I was glad of the change, and in others, I wasn't so happy. Last week my nose was thrust, like that of a puppy into his own mess, into the truth of what was going on at XYZ. I quit them, after being threatened with termination, and returned to ABC. S why did I go back to ABC? Well, I was only dissatisfied with their policies; I wasn't being cheated by them.
Do you follow me so far? I know it can seem kind of convoluted, but if you've read my blog for any length of time, you know that I suffer from verbal diarrhea, and a love of excess detail.
So what were the offending scams?
Those of you in the cab community have already guessed that they probably relate to "feeding," in one form or another. Anyone who had this as their guess is correct. Feeding was going on at XYZ Cab Company. What surprised me was how many variations on this basic theme there were, running from a fairly passive form to a very active form of corruption.
For those of you not in the know, "feeding" occurs when a call is given to a driver in a manner that circumvents the normal dispatch system. It may or may not result in any overall benefit to the receiving driver, or the dispatcher (or any other company employee involved).
In it's most benign form, a driver may be "fed" a call to which he would have ordinarily been "matched." However, due to system operating parameters, the matching might not have occurred for several minutes. The motivation for the dispatcher to "feed" the call may be to get it off of "pending" status into "assigned" status, resulting in quicker service to the customer. Or the dispatcher may have just wanted to take a cigarette break, and needed to "clear his board" before doing so.
So, if there was no net benefit to the driver, or the dispatcher, and the customer got his cab quicker, what's the problem? I guess there wouldn't be a problem, if that's a far as it went. But corruption, even if relatively minor, is like rust: if unchecked, it eventually spreads, creating all sorts of havoc and destruction.
In subsequent posts, I'll detail some other more egregious examples of feeding, which provide tangible benefits to the driver and dispatcher (or other company employee) involved, to the detriment of other drivers, and even the customers that the cab company serves.
I can't resist giving you a little teaser about the offense for which I was almost terminated. It's called "ghosting" (also "cloaking", "hooding", or "stealthing"). Frankly, after learning how ghosting works, I came to see it as an ingenious method by which the "ghost cabbie" feeds himself, bypassing the need to directly involve a dispatcher, or anyone else!
Stay tuned for more details. I'm pissed, and want the world to know it!
I hope to see you out there on the road.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Monday, December 3, 2007
Cab Cheats Part One - Background
Monday, November 26, 2007
Hit or Stay? What Say You?
To provide some much needed diversion and entertainment, after work tonight, I went to my favorite casino, to play a little Blackjack. Watching other people in the game caused to me to think about why some people play the way they do.
I use a strict "basic strategy" style of play when I play "21", and vary my bets to take advantage of winning streaks, while diluting the effects of losing streaks.
For example, I almost always (greater than 98% of the time) hit a 16 when the dealer's up card is a 7 or better.
I know the math, and proven it for myself. Standing at 16, hoping the dealer does not have a "made hand" (17 through 21) is a statistical loser 72% of the time, because 72% of the time the dealer will in fact have a made hand, or draw to one, taking your money. Alternatively, hitting 16, even with its unfavorable chance of busting (eight of thirteen cards, the 6 through King), produces a statistical loss only 60 percent of the time, because five of thirteen cards (5 down to the Ace) will produce a tie, or a better hand than the dealer.
Putting it another way, this means that standing on sixteen (against a 7 or better) wins only 28% of the time, while hitting produces a winner 40% of the time. This is a significant difference.
So if you're a gambler, and like to play Blackjack, please leave a comment explaining what you do in this situation, hit or stay, and why. I promise not to try to argue the rightness or wrongness of your strategy. I'm just curious. Who knows, maybe I'm missing something here.
By the way, I won three hundred dollars on a two hundred dollar "buy-in" while playing at a ten dollar minimum table bet. That was certainly entertaining, and I diverted the winnings directly into my bank account. The icing on the cake? The casino gave me a ten dollar meal ticket, to encourage me to come back another time. I ordered a steak, egg and hash browns
I hope to see you out there on the road.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Big or Small, I Take 'Em All
All my life I've heard how important it is to not disregard the little things. Actually, the advice is usually stated this way: "Take care of the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves." This advice is so appropriate in the cab world.
At least once a day, someone will get in my cab and say something like,
"I'm sorry this is such a short trip, but I only need to go to..."
And they name someplace that's close by. This happened to me three times today. The only reason I can think of for someone to apologize for how short a fare might be is that some other cabbie, in the past, has made it obvious that he (or she) was very disappointed to get a short fare, as opposed to a longer one, and made that disappointment obvious to the customer. This experience probably left the customer embarrassed, and feeling that many or all cabbies feel this way, hence the need to apologize to me.
You don't need to apologize to me. I'm never sorry to get a fare, any fare, because they all fall to the bottom line. Sure, it can be tedious to get a whole string of five or six dollar calls, all in a row, but I usually don't worry about it. I know that by the end of the day, or week, or month, everything will balance out, and I'll have received my fair share of short, medium and long fares, and make a pretty good living from doing my job.
You see, my average fare, with tip, is currently (over the past year) about seventeen dollars. Today I took ten calls in about eight hours, and booked $191.00, a little above my per-call average, but it's in the ball park. A normal day is usually about eleven or twelve hours, twenty to thirty calls, and total bookings of $275.00 to $325.00. (For the purpose of accounting for my time, I include "no shows" in my trip count, which tends to skew the per-call average downwards.)
If I were to adopt a business plan that demanded I refuse to make any call that was less than, say, twenty dollars, you can easily see I'd be giving up somewhat more than half my usual total bookings. After my expenses for gasoline (a variable expense equal to about 12 to 15% percent of bookings) and cab lease (fixed, regardless of bookings), I'd end up taking home way less than half of what I usually do.
Gas and lease for a $300.00 day is about $140.00, netting me about $160.00. Gas and lease for a $150.00 day (say maybe five to seven hours) would be around $125 or so, netting me $25.00. This would be a quick way to go broke. (Today was a horse of a different color: It was my "free" day. The company from which I lease my cab only charges me for six days, if I keep the cab for seven. Thus, the seventh day is free. So my total net income was about what I'd usually do on a regular day. I don't need to work the "free day." But today I had nothing better to do.)
So I take every call that our dispatching system offers me. More calls, however big or small they are, equals more income, which can only be a good thing for me. Now, if you call me personally on my cell phone, I do require a twenty dollar minimum payment. I assume you want me, rather than some other random cabbie, because of the superior level of service you think I provide. Let's face it, you have
Folks, never apologize to a cabbie for taking a short trip. If you feel a cabbie is disdainful of you because you're not going very far, ignore him. You are the bread and butter of the personal transportation industry, at least here in the Phoenix market, for the segment I serve. If every person who needed a "short trip" were
Personally, I don't want to do that. I like what I do. Sure, I've had higher paying jobs, with more "status" or "prestige." But those jobs always came with a cost. I had to do what someone else told me to do. I had to do it his way. On his schedule. At his whim. For the same pay as other people in the same job, who likely didn't do it as well as I did. To a person like me, that's a mind-numbing trap.
True story: when I was an adult probation officer, for ninety months in a row, more than seven years, I operated at 150% or more of expected minimum performance requirements. But my pay was identical to the guy who could barely manage to stay above 97%. As a matter of fact, for eighty-four of those months, all in a row, I was the top ranked APO in my department, yet I received the exact same pay that every other APO with a similar "time in grade" received.
At the risk of being tedious, allow me to repeat what I said earlier. I like what I do. I am my own boss. I get to work when I want, where I want. My schedule is my own. If I want to cut out early, I don't need permission. If I want to take a day off, I don't have to lie, and call in sick. If I work harder than the next guy, I'll make more than he does. If I make less, it's because I slacked off, I have no one to blame but myself.
Unless I decide to become a multi-cab owner, and lease cabs out to other drivers, I'll never get rich in this business. But I do okay financially, and I really like what I do. Not too many people, if they're really being honest, can say that about their job. I know. I hear the complaints from the back seat every day.
I'll trade the security of mediocrity for the rewards of excellence every day of the week. Especially if Sunday is free!
I hope to see you out there on the road.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Australian Cab Fare Prepayment Debate
I'm constantly on the Internet, looking
I forget the website from which I got this 'debate.' I doesn't really matter, because I changed all the names. "Tom" is the alias of the person running the site, with the responses being from "Tom's" readers; mine is the last.
[Post Update: After re-reading this post (on November 21, 2007), I realized that I should have indicated that ALL of the names, save for mine, were aliases. Sorry for any confusion. Also, in his comment, Lucky 327 reminded me where I found the original post. It's at Bytes From the Backseat. Sometimes, this blog is a lot like Russian history: it's subject to revision!]
"Prepayment for Taxis" by Tom:
I had an interesting if rather annoying conversation with a customer last week. Interesting because of his point of view. Annoying, because, like a reasonable percentage of my customers he was drunk.
Basically, he was saying that in his opinion all taxi fares should be
The point, according to him is it creates a problem between the passenger and driver if the driver asks for the money in advance. All that could be avoided if DPI (Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Taxi Unit) and all the other relevant body’s implemented blanket prepayment of all taxi fares. Further, in addition to that, he suggests an ad campaign utilizing TV, radio and print media to ensure everyone knows about it, thereby eliminating any trouble in the cab and also eliminating the problem of non-payers or runners.
Honestly the idea is solid, I mean, even carrying drunks would be less stressful if you knew the money side of things was already taken care of. Taxis are the only form of transport around that offers pay at destination. Sure, there are some issues with credit/debit cards, etc.
I think it’s time we moved out of the dark ages and made the change.
This entry was posted on September 29, 2007 at 4:37 and is filed under fares, info, opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “Prepayment for Taxis”
Red Foreman Says: October 24, 2007 at 5:27
I’ve read this blog for a time, on and off. Nice color scheme, and very informative. And yes, if there was someway to make everyone pre-pay, wouldn’t things be so much easier? I’m gonna add you as a link.
I have argued for this for years and run into all sorts of inexplicable opposition. The owner of the largest company in my city stated at a public meeting that there were a lot of unscrupulous drivers?! Apparently, he was oblivious to how that statement reflected badly on him. It was actually after being ripped off every week for 9 weeks that I finally quit driving, after 20-plus years, fed up. I’m happy to say I’ve finally found a job doing something I love, with people I respect, but I haven’t forgotten the need to protect drivers. The city I live in is pathetically conservative, and it is next to impossible to mobilize drivers to act in their own interest; I wish you luck. Let us know how it goes.
The Cab Guy Says: October 29, 2007 at 2:14
I drive for a large taxi company in the Phoenix, Arizona (USA) metro area. You know, I agree with you on this issue. But, I have the feeling that your customer meant “pre-payment of a flat rate fee”, rather than a “deposit against the ultimate
Here in Arizona, cab drivers have the right to ask for a deposit in advance of the fare. As a matter of fact, several police departments in the area recommend doing this.
I have a written list of conditions or circumstances under which I might ask for a deposit, which I will show to a potential customer if I am accused of prejudice or racism, or he doesn’t understand why it is appropriate to ask for a deposit. Most people comply immediately, because they’ve been asked before, or they see the logic. Most of the rest complies after I explain the situation.
A few rare individuals exclaim their indignation, saying that I should be ashamed of myself, and that I should just trust them. These people are then refused service. Generally they demand that I call them another cab. I always refuse to do this, and tell them why.
“Look, sir, I am allowed, by state law to require a deposit, for any reason, or no reason at all. Your refusal to comply leads me to believe you won’t pay me at all. There’s no way I’m going to put another driver through that. As a matter of fact, I’m going to notify my dispatcher that you won’t give me a deposit. He’ll make certain that any further calls from you will be cancelled.”
The way I look at it, if someone is offended by this practice, then they really don’t have any empathy for other people. Therefore, why should I trust them?
As to enacting something like a “prepay” system, I really don’t think there would be that many problems. Just estimate the trip mileage, calculate the fare from this estimate, add ten for fifteen percent for “wiggle room” (traffic delay, unexpected stops, etc.), give this total estimate to the customer, and clearly state that they will receive any change, if due, or owe a balance if the estimate proves insufficient.
I’ve used this procedure for years, and have never been accused of ripping someone off. I also do not worry about how the practice might affect my tip income, the way some cab drivers do. The way I look at it, I rather have 100% percent of what’s on the meter and no tip because of a deposit, rather than 0% of the meter plus tip because I failed to get a deposit.
In the old days, people could be trusted to pay someone what they owed, and that is why it was customary to collect the fare at the end of the trip. This custom has long since out-lived its useful life. It is an archaic practice that should have been eliminated a long time ago.
As a final note: this is what I say to people who refuse to give me a deposit because “the last guy didn’t ask for one”: “Well, if you’re so offended, then give him a call!”
Sincerely
The Cab Guy
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Free Rice
Did you know there is a way to improve your vocabulary and help provide free rice to the hungry people around the world?
I clipped the following story from another Blog, Taxi Tales, written by Bob, a cabbie in Barrow in Furness, Cumbria, UK:
Free Rice
Improve your vocabulary and donate rice to feed the hungry. Go on try it now, my rating was about 40, how well can you do? Click on the free rice link and get clicking now please.
FreeRice has two goals:
1. Provide English vocabulary to everyone for free.
2. Help end world hunger by providing rice to hungry people for free.
This is made possible by the sponsors who advertise on this site.
Whether you are the CEO of a large corporation or a street child in a poor country, improving your vocabulary can improve your life. It is a great investment in yourself.
Perhaps even greater is the investment your donated rice makes in hungry human beings, enabling them to function and be productive.
Somewhere in the world, a person is eating rice that you helped provide.
Thank you.
I couldn't have said it better myself, Bob.
Folks, I've been to the Free Rice site a couple of times. It took me about 5100 grains of rice, but I finally achieved a rating of 50. Please take a few minutes each time you're on the 'Net, and go to "Free Rice." I've provided a link on my sidebar, in the section called "The Cab Guy's Web Favorites. It's a fun way to improve your vocabulary, and feed the hungry.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Take That Horn and Shove It!
Hi there! Thanks for stopping by once again. It does my heart good to see that some people have an interest in what I have to say. Today I wish to relay to you my distress at how I think that car horn use today has gotten completely out of hand.
In the old days, when the earth was green and the air was clean, it seemed like people really understood what the car horn was for, because they only used it in one of the three ways that God had intended: to remind, to warn, and to announce their presence.
Let's say you were second in line at a red light. The light turns green, but the driver ahead of you doesn't go, even though it appears that the intersection is clear, and there is no reason he cannot. A short, friendly, single-toot would be appropriate to remind the driver in front of you that the light had changed to green. To keep it friendly, you, as the driver behind, would have had an obligation to wait at least two seconds, since the light became green; otherwise, you'd have been considered an impatient son-of-a-bitch. This short single-toot would have said, "Possibly you haven't noticed that the light changed, but it is green now, and it's time for all of us to move on. Thank you."
Now suppose you were coming up on a driveway where another driver was backing out, into on-coming traffic. Possibly he sees you, possibly not. To remove any doubt, and provide a friendly warning, a short double-toot of the horn would have served to say, "Hey, I'm here; just wanted to say hello. Thanks for not hitting me." Nobody's feelings were hurt when they heard the double-toot; they were grateful that someone else was watching out for them. Also, the driver who had used his horn would also be ready to apply the brake, or steer out of the way, just in case the warning wasn't heeded.
Now, suppose you had a date for Saturday night. And, suppose you are supposed to pick your date up at eight o'clock sharp. And further suppose that you really didn't want to have to interact with her family, especially her father. In cases such as these, a long double-toot, or a horny rendition of "shave-and-a-hair-cut-
These were the only three socially approved methods of using the car horn. Oh, sure, there were variations on a theme. If, after the single-toot was given, and two more seconds went by, and the guy ahead of you still hadn't moved, then you could go up to the
But it seems like these days that people's use of the horn has gotten completely out of control. And, it's use in situations that don't really make any sense is proliferating like wildfire.
Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:
Two days ago, I was sitting first in line, waiting for a green light. Now, remember what green means? No, it does not mean "Go." It means, "Proceed when the intersection is clear, and it is safe to do so." If more people would remember this, we'd have fewer people get hurt and their cars bent because they leapt out into on-coming traffic on the say-so of a green light. So, anyway, back to my situation: the light changed to green, but I could see that there was a cross-traffic car about to enter the intersection. Less than a second after getting the green, but long before it was safe to proceed, the guy in the car behind me started to blare his horn. Not a short, single toot, or a friendly double-toot, but a full on, ugly, "What the f@#$ are you waiting for, you dumb son-of-a-bitch?," blare. HOOOOONNNNNK! I ignored him, keeping my foot firmly on the brake-pedal. Naturally, he did not apologize when he saw the offending cross-traffic car run the red light. When the coast was clear, I waved at the guy behind me, and went on my merry way. He didn't wave back.
Yesterday afternoon, I was moving at about five miles per hour below the speed limit, northbound on Scottsdale Road, about to turn into a parking lot that was about a hundred yards up on my right. I put my turn signal light on about fifty-yards before my turn, and started to apply the brake as appropriate. Just as I started to turn, this jerk behind me started laying into his horn, blaring it for
Sorry, but that's what I do when I'm about to make a turn:
My final example is also the most illogical. I'm sure this has happened to you. You're tooling down the freeway, at a reasonable and prudent rate of speed. You decide that you want to change lanes, so that you can go a faster, but still reasonable and prudent, speed. You look into your mirrors to see if the coast is clear. The closest car behind you in the next lane over is at least seventy-five yards back, and moving at a steady rate, equal to yours. You put your blinker on, and proceed to move into the adjacent lane. You've moved all of half a car width over, when all of a sudden, you hear a car horn blare. Looking in your mirror, you see that the car that was seconds ago seventy-five yards back, is now right on your bumper. The driver is using the horn as if to say, "Hey, you cut me off!"
Listen carefully to me. If you're the deluded who was driving the car behind me, yesterday, westbound on the 202 at about noon-time, then you are one rude, ignorant, horse's ass. Until I decided to move into the lane you were in, but seventy-five yards ahead of you, you were fine with your speed and position in traffic. But, as soon as I put on my blinker, you decided that you just had to go faster, and so decided to accelerate, either to prevent me from moving over, or cow me back into the lane I was first in. I don't care how loud and long you blasted your horn. You're the asshole, and nothing can change that. You couldn't have cared a rat's hairy ass about the space ahead of you, until you saw that I wanted it. Then, like a spoiled little baby who only wants the toy that any other child wants, you raced up to cut me off.
I'm not fooled in the least. Again I say, I don't care how long and loud you honk your horn. I'm not moving back. As a matter of fact, bring it on: rear-end me. I don't care. I've been rear-ended before, by people better than you. As for the horn: all it does is let everyone around you know what a
This is a plea to return to the golden days of driving, when everyone was much more civil. Please, be less horny out on the road.
In the bedroom, it's just fine.
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Light Rail Blues - Part Five
Okay, I have finally gotten around to writing Part Five of this series. I really don't think there is a need to recap the other parts of the series. If you've gotten this far, you know what I said in parts one through four. If you're not familiar with what I've said, and you're really really interested, just go to the archives and read those posts.
As readers of this series can tell, I am not in love with the Light Rail system that Phoenix is getting. Among other things, I think it has design flaws that render it a less than optimal system. I want to discuss this, and contrast it with my preferred design.
For example, the placement of the rails in the middle of city streets means that it will have to compete with already existing traffic, and change traffic flow patterns in the neighborhoods that it transits. I have stated that because of this, travel on the Light Rail system will not be any faster than travel on the city bus. With the rails in the middle of the street, the Light Rail will be competing for space with other traffic, and will have to flow along at roughly the same speed, as it will use the same grade-level intersections, and therefore must respect the traffic lights. However, during rush hour, since it has it's own dedicated corridor, it won't be subject to slowdowns simply because of traffic volume. I am guessing that because of this, transit times along the Light Rail path will be fairly consistent, regardless of the time of day. But one must still consider what will happen when a train comes upon an intersection that is not clear due to blockage by cars that have not cleared the intersection between traffic light cycles. We've all seen cars enter an intersection late in the green part of the light, or even yellow, but not exit it before the red because of stalled traffic. This leads to gridlock, and unless this bad driving habit is somehow changed, the Light Rail will be subject to the same gridlock.
So the light rail trains will have to compete with automotive traffic, which is already a mess during rush hour. So let's, just for fun, throw in the mix the fact that Phoenix appears to be the red-light running capital of America. Do you think that this bad habit that many drivers have will tend to negatively impact the Light Rail system? I sure do. I'm wondering how many trains and cars will collide with each other due to the negligence of drivers, or even train operators. I feel fairly confident in guaranteeing that this number will not ever be zero, except, of course, prior to the first collision.
Another effect of placement of the rails in the middle of the street relates to passenger access. With the rails in the middle of the street, so, too, will be the stops. Passengers entering or exiting the system will have to cross the path of automotive traffic to use the system. I personally don't feel very comfortable while crossing streets in the Phoenix Metro area, and I am a very careful pedestrian. I always wait for the the appropriate crossing signal, look both ways before starting to cross, remain aware of potential danger while crossing, move as quickly as I can, and still feel like I'm taking my life into my own hands when I do it. So what? Well, I see people crossing in an unsafe manner all the time, and wonder how they can do it. Yes, I know that the law grants pedestrians the right of way in crosswalks, but let's face facts: the laws of physics grants cars the "right of mass" in any car-pedestrian collision, with the usual result people that the pedestrian is usually injured, many times fatally. How many people will become maimed or killed by automotive traffic (due to pedestrian negligence, granted, but it still must be considered) while trying to enter or exit a train stop? Or what about people who habitually cross the street between intersections? Look for pedestrian-train collisions to be a less than rare occurrence in the future.
But what are some of the other effects of the design characteristics of a rail system? To start with, because it is a rail system, once in place, it is inflexible. It goes where it goes, even if, at some time in the future, ridership patterns change. If a bus route experiences a change in ridership, it can be discontinued, modified as to specific path, or even expanded or reduced (by increasing or decreasing the frequency of buses along the route), allowing the system to take advantage of the changed preferences of its patrons. Certainly the frequency of trains along the Light Rail path can be changed, if need be. But the path cannot be changed. It starts "here" and goes "there." If the patrons of the system demonstrate that they want a different "here" and "there", well, too bad. It is where it is, and it goes where it goes. Make no mistake, if ridership increases, the frequency of the trains will most certainly increase. But if ridership falls, even to practically nil, it won't, in all likelihood, be abandoned. To much money will have been invested in the system.
Also, as I stated in a previous part of this series, specific traffic patterns along the Light Rail route will be altered because of raised traffic barriers separating the train from automotive traffic. Left turns and street-crossing access will be severely impacted by these barriers. In some places already the distance between these access points has increased to up to half a mile, from the previous stretch of a block or so. This won't be good for traffic flow at all. If you've ever seen the intersection of Main Street and Roosevelt, in Mesa, lately, you'll know what I mean. At any time of the day, traffic piles up to turn left, or make U-turns to access the other side of the street, creating a hazard. During rush hour, the situation is positively nuts!
So allow me to recap my complaints regarding the design of the Light Rail system: 1. The trains won't really move any faster than the bus, or other traffic, except possibly during rush hour; 2. Collisions between cars and trains will occur; 3. Collisions between people and trains will occur; 4. Routes, once in place, are inflexible. 5. Existing traffic patterns will be negatively, and in some places, severely impacted.
So, what if we started from scratch? What if we agreed that, because of the traffic situation he in Phoenix, we decided that something had to be done? What would we do? Would we just throw something together, and applaud ourselves because we had done something which had to be done? Or would we take a more thoughtful approach, and critically examine the problem, and come up with an optimal system? Well, of course, from here on out, everything I say is just "spit balling," because we have what we have, and that's all there is to it. However, that does not mean that after the first line is completed that we must continue on, and expand the system according to the same basic design. Things can be done differently in the future, because I agree, something has to be done.
Now I'll grant you, once your design of choice becomes a rail system, your decision as to where to place the rails comes down to three choices: 1. Underground, as in a subway; 2. Grade-level, as we are getting here in Phoenix; and 3. Above ground level, as in the elevated train in Chicago. Each design has it's merits and it's flaws. A subway, because of all the excavation, cost significantly more than a grade-level or elevated system. I presume an elevated system costs less than a subway, but probably more than a grade-level system, and it may be esthetically unpleasing. I'm sure a grade-level system is much less expensive, but it has negative impacts such as those I've discussed. Would it have been a better option to pay more for a subway, or put up with the esthetic effects of an El? Would the costs have outweighed the benefits? Who knows.
Now I suspect that a grade-level system was cchose primarily due to cost factors, but esthetics probably also played a part. So with this in mind, rather than builing a light rail system, with it's problems, why wasn't the option of expanding the bus system chosen? Now, as I've stated previously, I'm no real fan of the bus system. But really, given it's operational limits, is the Light Rail system really superior to the bus in any great way? I don't think so. Not only does it shares the same streets, and move at about the same speeds, but it is inflexible as to route, and deeply impacts traffic patterns around it.
Why not just expand the bus system? Trains need operators like buses do, so would expanding the bus system have a greater employee cost over the train, for the sme given volume of ridership? Probably not to any great degree. Buses cost less than trains, so additional capacity for the bus system from a capital standpoint must be cheaper than the Light Rail system. Sure, a two-car train may carry more people, but what about the extended two-unit buses that I've seen tooling around certain parts of our city?
My bottom line is this; if the Light Rail system really can't accomplish it's task any better than the bus, why pay so much more for it? I say stick with the bus. But update the design. Here's where we get to the part where I fulfill my promise to show you my idea of a system that might have been better.
A couple of decades ago I had the oppotunity to stay in Vancouver, British Columbia, for a few days. I was up there for the 1984 World's Exposition. When not actually at the Expo site, I spent quite a bit of time moving around Vancouver itself, which, by the way, is a very pretty city. I got around by bus. But these weren't ordinary buses. They were electric. But they did not run on battery power. Along each side of the road along a bus line, there was an over-head electric line, just like you'll see over the Light Rail path. On top of each bus was a device that reached up to the electric line, enabling the bus to draw electric power. This device was not static; it had the ability to swivel in several dimensions, which allowed the bus to not negotiate curves and turn corners, but also change lanes, which enabled the buses to make both right and left hand turns. The ability to change lanes also allow the buses to bypass any obstacles in its path, and so the buses had the potential to move very quickly. The interior of the buses were similar to those we have in Phoenix. It seemed to be a very capable system.
At the very least, Vancouver's bus system was cheaper than the Light Rail to build, probably less costly to maintain, was more flexible, and didn't have near the negative impact on traffic that I'm prediting the Light Rail will have. It did the same job our Light Rail system is supossed to do, but it probably cost far less. I don't believe our Light Rail will out perform Vancouver's then-extant bus system. Too bad we didn't buy something similar.
This is my idea of a better way of doing things. If "more expensive" does not out perform "cheaper", I say go with cheaper everytime. It may not be as sexy, or look as pretty, but the money left over will compensate for this.
Thanks for paying attention. I've pretty much exhausted what I have to say about the Light Rail system. My little rant has grown into a big rant. It won't change things. We're still going to get the Light Rail system. But maybe when it comes time to expand it, the powers that be will put in a little more time considering a more optimal solution for our transportation problem.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Light Rail Blues - Query From A Reader
Recently, one of my loyal readers, Johnny Wraith, in the comments section, asked me a couple of questions that I thought were particularly pertinent to the subject that my series, Light Rail Blues, addresses. Additionally, he made the request that I write a particular type of story. Rather than just post my answers in the comments section of this blog, I decided to make his questions, and my answers, more visible to the general readership.
On Sunday, October 21, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Johnny asked,
"How will the light rail affect the taxi business?" and "If you could earn more by being a light rail operator, would you rather be a light rail operator?" This was his story request: "Please tell us a story about ladies changing their clothes in the back of your cab." Well, at least Johnny knows what he wants!
Here are my responses:
Johnny, you have a asked a couple of very good questions. Unfortunately, right now, I'd have to say that the answer to both is, "I don't know."
As to the first question, there are too many ridership variables to easily quantify the solution.
Here's one example: how many people, who are currently using taxis to get around, will use the light rail instead? Any positive number would tend to decrease taxi revenues.
Here's another: how many people, who are currently using their cars for an entire trip, will take a cab to a light rail stop, use the train to their destination (or to a system system exit point, and use a taxi for the balance of their trip)? A positive number here would tend to increase taxi revenue.
Taken all together, will the net effect of all the possible variables result in increased taxi revenues? Well, we're back to square one: I don't know. I think you'd agreed a simple answer to this question will require significant study and calculation.
My gut feeling, based on how low I predict ridership will be from the start (and for at least a few years) is that the net effect on the cab economy will be negligible overall. This is especially true for me, as especially to me, as I work the whole Valley; the Light Rail corridor is a small segment of my market. However, I do think that those drivers who specialize in serving areas adjacent to the light rail corridor may have to make adjustments.
Would I want to be light rail operator, instead of a cab driver, presuming I could make more money? Hell, I might do it for less money, if the benefits package is favorable. Right now I work about twelve hours a day, six days a week, and any benefits I get are paid for directly out of my pocket. This is because I am an independent contractor, and not an employee. As a light rail operator, I presume I would work a standard forty-hour week, as an employee, with benefits. Yes, I know that the cost of benefits are paid by employees, in the form of a lower gross salary or wage, but after all is said and done, net disposable income is what really counts, as it is what buys a lifestyle.
So, I think johnny's question really becomes, if you could have a better lifestyle as the result of becoming light rail operator, would you make the change? Probably. At least, as a light rail operator, I'd probably work quite a few less hours. And my chances of becoming the victim of an act of senseless, random violence or robbery would probably be substantially smaller. That's got to count for something, wouldn't you say?
As for me writing a story about ladies changing their clothes in the back of my cab? Well, I'm willing to produce such a story, but right now it will have to be fiction. Such an event hasn't taken place in my reality. Yet. But who knows? Maybe with time... be patient. And check back with me on a regular basis. I can't predict when ladies will want to change their clothes in the back of my cab. Or what I will do if it happens!
Thanks for your questions and request, Johnny. I'm glad to see that someone is paying attention.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Light Rail Blues - Part Four
You know, when I first started this series on the Phoenix Light Rail system, it wasn't supposed to be a series at all. My original intention as for it to be a relatively short rant about how inconvenient the construction of the system was for me, and probably a lot of other people. But, during the writing of that rant, I came to realize that I had a lot more to say about the situation. Naturally, having this forum, I decided to expand upon my little rant, and the result was this series.
Previously, I had promised that here in Part Four of Light Rail Blues, I would describe a system that I think might have been a better option over the current plan. However, I am writing this series as I go along; there was no grand design, no overall plan as to where I would go with it. Therefore, I have granted to myself a certainly flexibility in fulfilling my previous promise, and have decided that in this segment I examine how the Light Rail system might fulfill its promise, at least along a part of the line. My thoughts on a better design will have to wait.
Now look, I'm no expert when it comes to transportation issues. So many of you may think that I'm not really qualified to discuss our Light Rail system in any critical manner. But I am an expert on ME, which means I am qualified to discuss whether or not it will meet my needs, whether or not I would use such a system, and to describe a system that I think would meet my needs. You, too, are probably not an expert on transportation issues. But you, too, are an expert on YOU. Therefore, you, too, are qualified to have an opinion in the matter, even if it differs from that of the experts.
As a cab driver, I've have had the opportunity to discuss the Light Rail system we are getting with literally dozens, maybe hundreds (who the Hell knows, I haven't been keeping records) of my passengers. A fairly large majority of these people have expressed many of the same sentiments that I have written about. Here and there a few of people have told me that they think the Light Rail system will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or canned beer. Or readily available porn. Or whatever. However, when I ask those same people to think about the system from the point of view that I have, quite a few of them have come over to my way of thinking, and expressed the same kind of doubts that I have.
You see, once you get past the hype, and really start to examine certain aspects of an issue, it is possible to look at something and decide it won't provide the benefit that it is supposed to, regardless of what the experts say! Everyone has the ability to look at the world around them, and come to some pretty certain conclusions as to how it works, or doesn't, whichever the case, even in the absence of hard numerical data and complicated, rigorous studies. This ability even allows you to make some pretty good predictions about the future, with regards to how the world works. This allows you to open your mind to the possibilities of "what if."
Allow me to give you an example of what I mean. I admit, it's a pretty disgusting example, but it will tend to prove my point. Actually, I think you should just agree with me: you can look at the world around you, think for yourself, and come to reliable conclusions on your own, even in the absence of hard data. If you did this, you could skip the next three paragraphs, to the fourth, which starts with "Welcome back." You could completely ignore my example, and really not miss much. I would recommend that you do this. Right now. Don't read the next section. I'm warning you: my example, although it really makes my point, is gross. Really gross. I mean it. You really would be better off not reading it. Trust me, it's true, and it really, really, makes my point, but you will be a long time getting over the experience. Still with me? Well, here goes...
Did you know that every time you use the toilet, you are flushing away some pretty valuable nutrients? It's true: the waste product of the typical American diet is rich in potential nutritional value. I can prove, through rigorous scientific analysis, that a certain percentage of human waste consists of undigested fats, carbohydrates and proteins, which are the essential components of food. Upon seeing my data, unless you thought I had jiggered said data, you would have to agree that, if properly processed, people could eat poop.
So if I processed human waste, and turned it into food, would you eat it? Do you think others would? I know that your answer to both questions is, "Hell, no!" You know why I know this? It's because, regardless of what the experts say, people won't eat poop!
See, you really can think for yourself, and you really didn't need to look at my "expert data" to do it. You knew the right answer all along. You are qualified to be critical about something, even if you're not an expert on that something.
Welcome back. Either you skipped down to this section, or you just returned from hurling. Either way, allow me to continue, under the assumption that I can be critical of a situation, and, even in the absence of expert data, come up with some valid conclusions. I've shown that you know how to do the same thing, if you're willing to do so.
I want to be open-minded, and re-assert a previous statement of mine: I am in favor of a mass- transit system, if it really will work as advertised. So will the Light Rail really prove to have the benefits that are promised, and actually grow into a system that will move a significant portion of our population from here to there? Maybe. I think that the potential is there, at least along part of the line. So, let's apply a little "what if?" What if the experts are right?
It is presumed by the proponents of the Light Rail system that, once in place, the patterns of civilization will tend to gravitate along the line, which is to say that people will want to live, work, and conduct the business of their lives closer and closer to the line. This probably will happen if the system proves its utility, or people think that it will have utility to them. To be fair to the proponents of the Light Rail system, I actually do think that population density along the line will increase. The evidence?
Well, in Tempe alone, the Light Rail line cuts right through several high-density neighborhoods. Starting on the east, near Arizona State University, the line goes right through the heart of a neighborhood that houses several thousand people, mostly apartment dwellers. Most of these people are students, and live within about a quarter of a mile of the line, so convenient access is certain. Further west, in downtown Tempe, a high-density, 26 story, condominium tower is under construction, virtually across the street from the line. A few blocks further west from this project, within walking distance of the line, several other high-density apartment/condo projects have been completed and are occupied.
Across the river, north and further west, on Washington Street, still in Tempe, even more high-density residential properties have been completed, fronting right on the line. Keep going further west and you will see that downtown Phoenix itself is experiencing tremendous growth in the number of high-density residential properties. I have to believe that, at least along this segment of the line, this trend in residential population density will increase.
Also along the line, the number of high-density commercial properties, such as office buildings, appear to be on the increase, complementing several other high-density properties already in the area, such the headquarters of the Salt River Project.
Along a corridor less than two miles long (Mill Avenue to 48th Street), and a few blocks wide (Salt River to Van Buren Street), probably ten thousand people, or more, already work, with thousands more soon to follow.
And let's not forget the cultural amenities available already in place. Every day, several tens of thousands of people attend Arizona State University, which is right on the line. Access to downtown Tempe, with it's plethora of restaurants, shops, and nightclubs (a virtual Mecca for the party crowd on weekends) is very convenient. In the core of Phoenix, just to mention two venues: Chase Field (formerly Bank One Ballpark, or Bob, a much friendlier name... but don't get me started) and the US Airways Center (formerly America West Arena... but who the Hell cares?) are right on the line. Also easily accessible are numerous nightclubs and other entertainment and cultural venues, such as the Convention Center, the Herberger, Dodge and Orpheum theaters, the Science and Technology Museum (to name a few), as well as several high-density hotel properties. Further north we have the Phoenix Library, Art Museum, Heard Museum, and the whole of the Central Avenue high-rise corridor.
So ridership potential is certainly there, at least along that part of the line (starting at the intersection of Apache Boulevard and Road in Tempe, and ending at the intersection of Central Avenue and Camelback Road in Phoenix). Even people who don't live along the line could certainly commute to a convenient point on the line, and continue their travel to any of a number of destinations along it. However, with all that the Light Rail appears to have going for it, will really use it to any great extent? Well, to be fair and frank, I certainly hope so, if only because some much money and effort has already been expended on its behalf. And because the promise is so tempting.
But... I have my doubts.
As I have stated in a previous segment, people, being people, are creatures of narrow habit. We have gotten into the habit of using our cars to get us from here to there, even if it is not necessarily convenient, or expedient, to do so. Witness the traffic jams on the freeways during rush hour. You and I know darned well that any number of the people in the cars trapped in the jams live on a bus line that can favorably compete with a car, at least as far as transit times and fare costs are concerned, especially where "park and ride" stations are available. But these people still use their cars.
Yes, yes, I did previously describe how I would use the bus, if it was more convenient, but don't do so. Am I being hypocritical? I don't think so. Remember, it was a theoretical example. I do live right on a bus line; the cab company base is on another line; one transfer allows me to get from here to there. But I don't make that commute on any kind of a regular basis. I drive a cab for a living, and my cab is with me, wherever I am, twenty-four hours a day. So I might not make that particular commute for months, maybe years, at a time, and then only then when I am dropping off the cab for an extended period of time, say for a vacation.
And I certainly didn't mean to imply that any great number of people do have a situation where the bus is competitive. But for those who live and work along a freeway corridor, or even along a surface street line with no transfers, the bus can certainly be competitive. But no tremendous numbers of people appear to be taking advantage of it. Is this your situation? If so, are you taking advantage of the bus? If not, why not? Keep in mind, that your reasons are probably not all that different from those of everyone else who shares your situation.
I know that automobiles are an ingrained part of our culture, especially out here West, where we have tended to grow out rather than up. Being able to get in our cars, and go where we want, when we want are huge factors that come into play when it comes to the personal choice of which mode of transportation is likely to be employed in moving from one place to another. But personal choice tends to become a habit, even when circumstances change. The Light Rail system will be a change of circumstance. But will it cause an appreciable change in habit?
Quite a few of you who live, work and play along corridors where the bus is competitive with your car don't use it, whatever the reason. Isn't it fair to assume that the people living along the Light Rail corridor might have the same resistance to using it?
Do you currently do live, work and play along the Light Rail line currently under construction? Will you do so in the future, either along the current line, or any future line? If so, let me ask you a question.
Will you walk from your house, or place of business, or entertainment venue, to a Light Rail station, and wait for the next train? Don't be so quick to answer.
What if it's the middle of Summer, and it's over a hundred degrees outside? Which will you choose?
Car or train?
Sure, it's a rather extreme example. But you're tough. You'll gut it out, for a while at least. But then, maybe, just maybe, you'll go back to your car, at least until it's cooler. But what's cool enough? 90? 95? 85? Okay, let's be brave, and say 90. Anytime the temperature is below 90, you'll wait for the train. If it goes above that, use the car. Seem fair?
So how many days during the year does the temperature rise above 90 degrees? I'll wager that the answer is north of 35 percent. Want to bet against me? How will this play into the habit of using the train? I don't know for sure, but I know that it will have a measurable impact. Thirty-five percent of the time, in my example.
And what about all the other excuses that otherwise reasonable people might have for not using the Light Rail? Will their resolve to use the system prevail? That remains to be seen.
So, "what if" the experts are right? What if a significant number of people really will use the Light Rail system, proving them right and me wrong? Actually, I hope that this is the outcome. You see, the cost isn't much if I am wrong. My pride is damaged, perhaps, and I am out the hours that it has taken me to compose this series. I've been wrong before, and squandered my time in less fruitful ways. It's no great loss to me, or anyone else, for that matter.
But, "what if" the experts are wrong? What of the costs then? Will the system have been worth it?
Just remember: something had to be done!
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
PS - I have re-read, and re-written, certain parts of this piece, over and over and over again, and I'm still not completely satisfied with how it turned out. It kind of rambles around, here and there, in ways that I did not expect that it would when I started it. So be it. I am hoping, though, that you will forgive me for my imperfect expression of feelings on a subject about which I am passionate. At least I didn't end the last sentence in a preposition. That's something, isn't it?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Light Rail Blues - Part Three
In Part One of this series I examined why it was the the Phoenix Metropolitan area came to have a Light Rail system. Part Two examined the flaws in the execution of the Plan. Here in Part Three I wish to demonstrate that I am not opposed to a mass transit system, per se, and would use a good, useful system. (I realize that in Part Two I said I would describe a better system, but decided that would be a fairly large task, so I decided to break into more manageable parts. Here in Part Three I'll define some terms, and describe the circumstances under which I would use a transit system. In the next installment of this series I'll give you some of my ideas for a better system).
First, allow me to explain to you what I perceive to be the differences and similarities between a transit system, a mass transit system, and a rapid transit system.
To me, a transit system consists of one or more modes of transportation combined with a systematic network of routes, enabling a percentage of the population of an area to move around that area, without having to possess or employ their own private means of movement.
Such as system might involve public and private ownership of any part of the system, and/or public or private management of the system. Modes of transportation could include, but not necessarily be limited to, buses, light rail, subways, elevated trains, and even minibuses or vans. A network of routes could include regular, scheduled service along various corridors, available to whomever might show up at a station or stop. But, it could also include ad hoc , point-to-point, service for various-sized, coherent groups that travel in concert at specified times. This last sentence is really just a long-winded description of something we've already heard of: carpools and vanpools.
I was non-specific as to the percentage of the population to be moved. It is conceivable that it could range from a tiny fraction of the population, to a quite sizable majority, depending upon the perceived utility of the system to the population it serves.
Mixed private and public ownership or management of such as system is not a radical idea. Here in the Phoenix area, various governmental agencies own some of the modes of transportation, while some of the management and operation of the system is accomplished by private companies who have contracted to provide such services. Oversight and planning for our system is the purview of committee made up of representatives from the governments of the various municipalities served by the system.
I define mass transit as a system designed to move a significantly large portion of the population, and may even be the primary, or close secondary, method of getting people where they are going. The New York subway is my idea of a mass transit system.
A rapid transit system is clearly what it implies: a way to get people from here to there in a rapid fashion, but excludes personal operation of the mode of movement. Thus, the New York City subway system would qualify as such, because to my understanding, it is probably the quickest way to move around in that city. San Francisco has it's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, which implies that it is relatively speedy. Personal cars and the like are excluded from this definition.
To my way of thinking, how a population, and how much of a population, utilizes any transit system is a function of several factors, including, but not limited to, coverage (does it get me where I want to go?), convenience (can I go pretty much when I want to?), ease of use (are access points within reasonable walking distances?), and value (does the cost compensate me for any lifestyle compromises I might have to make?).
Value is a particular sticking point: it doesn't matter how low the fare is if I don't think the system will serve my needs. For example, I used the bus just two days ago to accomplish a particular task. My personal car was at the taxi base, where I had left it after picking up a cab that I expected to keep on a fairly permanent, 24 hour per day basis. Not wanting to leave my car at the base unattended, I parked the cab at my house, walked about 75 feet to a bus stop, and got on a bus. The trip, which was about twelve miles, took one transfer and about 75 minutes, not counting the initial 20 minute wait for the first bus. I had to walk about half a mile to the taxi base, which took an additional ten minutes. A cab ride would have cost about $24.00 and taken, at most, 15 minutes. On a one time basis, I thought the $1.25 fare was a huge bargain, even at the cost of over an extra hour of my time, which worked out to five times as much time as it would have taken in my car, or by cab.
However, if I had to make that same commute, every day, twice a day, five days a week, for as long as I was employed, if I had another option, such as using my personal automobile, I wouldn't use the bus. In my mind, the extra time expended would far outweigh any money saved over using my car, even after factoring in all the costs of private car ownership.
But let's make some adjustments. Suppose the time could be reduced by, say, 60 percent, making the transit time approximately 30 minutes. Now because a faster system would probably have higher capital and operational costs, let's suppose that the fare was increased by 400 percent, making it five dollars. Now we're entering the realm where it really does make sense to for me use the transit system. The fare would be a total of fifty dollars per week. I'm pretty certain I could recoup that in reduced fuel, maintenance and insurance costs, or at least come pretty close. And now I'd view the time on the bus, or train, or whatever, as a benefit, not a burden: a relatively short time to relax on my way to and from work, rather than a tension filled period of "fighting traffic."
So have I demonstrated that I am in favor of having a useful transit system available, and would use that system if it served my needs? Well, I hope I have. And honestly, I think that many people, certainly not all, or even majority, but a lot, think the way I do. Will a significant population served by the Light Rail system really use it? I don't think so. But I might be wrong. We'll see.
So, the bottom line is that Light Rail is indeed a transit system. But, based on what I said in Part Two, I do not think it can be described as a mass- or rapid-transit system.
What about you? Are you waiting with baited breath for the debut of the train? Or are you, like me, yawning from a lack anticipation?
Next time I'll describe a system that I think might have been a better choice.
Sincerely
The Cab Guy
Monday, October 15, 2007
Light Rail Blues - Part Two
In "Light Rail Blues - Part 1" I examined the genesis of our now under construction light rail system here in the Phoenix Metro area. But here's a brief recap anyway, just in case you haven't read that article, or in case you have read it, but forgot what I said. By the way, if you did read it, but forgot what I said, there's no need to feel ashamed. I wrote it myself, just twenty-four hours ago, and have already forgotten what I said. Hold on a minute while I go back and read it.
Okay, I'm back. Here's the gist of what I said:
1. A long time ago, Phoenix had a trolley system, the rails being in the streets.
2. Cars became more popular, and started to need more of the street.
3. Something had to be done.
4. The trolley was perceived to be irrelevant and inconvenient, and was removed.
5. The streets became clogged with cars, and travel became impeded.
6. Something had to be done.
7. A freeway system was built. It soon became clogged.
8. Something had to be done.
9. New freeway funding was authorized, but light rail had to be built.
Here is my description of the light rail system, the result of the most recent assertion that something had to be done.
"Our light rail system is being built at grade level. In the middle of the street. Along currently existing bus lines. Where traffic is already crowded."
So let's examine what all of this means to us, the citizens of our fair Metropolis.
First of all, grade level is commonly meant to mean "on the surface." So a light rail system at grade level, in the middle of the street, will obviously take up room that was previously occupied by automotive traffic. In most places, the streets are not being widened to any appreciable degree, so there will be less room for cars. Less room can also be translated into "slower speeds." The light rail trains will also have to move at slower speeds. Which is not much of an inducement to get people who wanted to get there five minutes ago to get on the train.
The design of the light rail system, being that it is in the middle of the street will have other effects that will impede traffic. Moving a car from one side of the street will become problematic. Where previous medians allowed crossovers to occur perhaps every block or so, the barriers separating the light rail from the cars will generally increase distances between crossovers, to as much as half a mile in some places.
Not very convenient, is it? But, keep in mind, something had to be done.
Now, although I commented that the light rail is being along currently existing bus lines, I must apologize if I have given you the impression that I consider this to be a design flaw or defect in the system. I don't. To me, it makes sense to build transportation systems along already existing traffic corridors, as these are the very corridors that people are already using. We already know that people along these corridors want to get from wherever they are to wherever they want to go.
But will people eschew the bus, and hop on the train? And more importantly, will people along the corridor who are not already using the bus get on the train?
Well, that all depends on certain factors. If the buses are left in place, maybe current users will remain on the bus, especially if there is a fare differential. Also, people, many times being creatures of narrow habit, have a tendency to continue to use something that works, unless the new thing is clearly superior, and provides additional desired benefits.
Yes, I know that many of you may wish to argue with me on this point, citing how fast many people trade in their cars, or buy new computers, or cells phones, etc., using this as evidence that I am wrong about people resisting the adoption of a new system, and therefore argue that people will drop-kick the bus and hop on the train.
However, keep in mind that "superior" and "additional benefits" are subjective. I think we all know someone who traded a three year old car with fifty thousand miles, for this year's model, because to them, "subjectively", a car with fewer miles and more cup holders, is "superior" and provides "greater benefits" such as "enhanced reliability." But let's be objectively honest: a new car is really no more reliable than a well maintained three year old. Let the odometer turn 100K, and then we'll talk.
So, I still think a lot of people will stay on the bus.
But what about the people not currently using the bus. Will they get on the train? Talk to anyone who tells you they will use the train. Ask them why they aren't currently using the bus. Whatever excuse they use to justify not using the bus, ask them how the train will be different as to that aspect. Show them why they are wrong. Then laugh at them, on the inside, mind you, as they start to squirm.
Here's an example of such an exchange:
Q: "Why don't you ride the bus?"
A: "It doesn't go where I want to go."
Q: "But doesn't the train follow existing bus routes?"
A: "Well, yes, I guess so, but..."
Q: "Why else?"
A: "It's so inconvenient, I'll have to walk to a stop, and wait for it to come."
Q: "Won't you have to do the same for the train?"
A: "Well, yes, I guess so, but..."
Q: "Why else?"
A: "It takes so long to get where I want to go."
Q: "But won't the train move only as fast as the bus?"
A: "Well, yes, I guess so, but..."
Q: "Why else?"
A: "Well, I don't like associating with the kind of people who ride the bus."
Q: "Doesn't this make you an elitist, possibly racist, person?"
A: "Well, yes, I guess so, but..."
Try it out yourself. It's fun.
But people will still claim that light rail is good, because something had to be done.
As for traffic crowding, well, do you really think that, given people's fascination with cars, light rail will take enough cars off the street to appreciably change this? I don't.
But what the heck, isn't it true that something had to be done?
Sure, but was this the right way to go about doing something? In part three, I'll give you my opinion as to what might have been a better way to accomplish that something.
But keep in mind, opinions are like armpits. Everyone's got a couple, and they usually stink.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
Light Rail Blues - Part One
As a professional cab driver, I am really starting to become revolted by the traffic hassles being caused by the construction of a light rail system here in the Phoenix Metro area. As near I can tell, even when the first line of the system is completed, the situation will not improve to any great degree. Allow me to explain.
A long time ago, when the earth was green and the air was fresh, which is to say prior to World War II, Phoenix had a trolley system in the downtown area, with some extensions into what were then the suburbs. It was no technological wonder by any means, but it worked well at doing what it was designed to do: moving people from here to there in a relatively efficient and convenient manner. The tracks ran down the middle of various city streets, but were not much of an impediment to other street traffic, mostly because cars were not as widely common as they are today.
As our country in general, and Phoenix in particular, became more affluent, personal automobiles became more and more common, even for those in the lower socio-economic classes. So more and more and more people came to own more and more cars, competing for space on the city streets. But even though there were more and more people and more and more cars, there wasn't more and space on the city streets. For a while, this wasn't a problem, so nobody thought that something had to be done.
Over time, as the population of our fair city increased, so to did the population of automobiles. People, being people, are generally not content to stay where they are. They want to go places. And people, being people, are generally not content to be patient about getting to wherever it is they want to go. They want to leave now, and get there five minutes ago. I don't know why they wanted to be there five minutes ago. Surely nobody else would be there yet; they were probably stuck in traffic. So they'd just have to stand around and wait for everybody else to get there. But that's want they wanted.
Now cars, being cars, are more than happy to fulfill the function for which they have been designed, which is of course to move people from here to there. Right now. If properly cared for, they are more than willing to drop whatever it is that they do when they are not moving, and take their owners to wherever it is that their owners want to go. Right now. Of course, being cars and not time machines, they cannot get there five minutes ago. But, cars understand their shortcomings, and do not fret over the time concerns of their owners.
The natural result of all the people going places, and all the cars taking them there, was that our city streets became more and more crowded. The situation became intolerable. Something had to be done.
What was done was the trolley system was removed. I do not know exactly where this occured, but I'm pretty sure that the last trolley bell was rung in Phoenix over fifty years ago.
But of course, the population of both people and cars increased. Traffic became more and crowded. All the space created by the removal of the trolley was used up. People did not want to drive less; they wanted to drive more. They wanted to go now. And get there five minutes ago. Something had to be done.
So, about twenty years ago, or so, a comprehensive freeway system began to be built in the Metro area. Today, most places in the Phoenix Metro area are within just a few miles of a freeway on ramp. But of course, at the same time that more and more freeway miles were built, the population, people and cars, increased. More and more. And more. And then, of course, some more.
The freeways were becoming more and more crowded. But the sales tax enacted by a vote of the people, enabling the freeways to be built, expired. But people wanted more freeways. Something had to be done.
What was done was that additional funding was approved. But it came with a couple of caveats. The bus system was to be expanded. And a light rail system was to be built.
Now, I have written a brief thumbnail sketch of the situation, and to be fair, I may have gotten some of the facts wrong. But, as I understand it, the essence was that if people wanted more freeways, they would also have to have light rail.
I am not opposed to mass transit. I am also not opposed to light rail. I'm all for it. In theory. To be sure, I would much prefer a rapid transit system. But we are not getting "rapid transit." We are getting "light rail."
Our light rail system is being built at grade level. In the middle of the street. Along currently exisiting bus lines. Where traffic is already crowded.
But, something had to be done.
Will this being an improvement to our current traffic woes? I'll examine this issue in my next installment.
Meanwhile, try to increase your store of patience. Upgrade the sound system in your car, and buy more CDs. With longer songs. Maybe get some books on tape. Try walking short distances, or getting a bicycle.
Here's an idea, self-serving as it may be: call a cab. I'm all for that.
But don't imagine that travel times are going to get shorter any time soon.
Sincerely,
The Cab Guy
