It was a bad headline and a bad take on an important issue from a writer at a publication that ought to know better. Last week, M.J. Rosenberg, writing at TPM Cafe, penned a quick post entitled "Question for Paul Krugman: Why Does the DC Metro Suck?" In the space of a few short words, Rosenberg revealed that arguments in favor of increased public transit shouldn't just be directed at environmentally negligent conservatives. There is a lot of work to be done winning over writers, voters, and leaders on the left as well.
The source of Rosenberg's anger was a rough two-week period for Metro that affected morning commutes on some of the busiest lines into downtown Washington, D.C. (mine included). He writes:
Thank God for Paul Krugman. Reading his absolutely superb "The Conscience of a Liberal" while making my daily commute between Maryland and Capitol Hill, I almost failed to notice that every single train ride over the last two weeks has been a nightmare.
They have been so bad that I actually managed to read an entire 240+ page book in about five round trips (not bad, considering each trip is supposed to take less than a half hour).
Even with a delay, it's unlikely Rosenberg could have arrived at his destination much more quickly by car -- and had he driven downtown, he could have counted on paying $12 to $15 in parking fees. Were he a regular driver, he'd quickly learn that roadway delays are more common and capricious than delays on the Metro system. Drivers around D.C. never complain about a bad two-week period; every fortnight is terrible.
Had he been stuck in automobile traffic, he would have paid for the privilege of his idling engine to the tune of $3.20 per gallon, and while he might have been able to read his book, such behavior is generally frowned upon by highway patrolmen.
In short, Metro at its worst is still pretty good for commuters.
Every weekday, Metro handles some 725,000 trips in the D.C. area. Close to half of all Washingtonians commute via public transit, along with over a quarter of those in D.C.'s inner suburbs. As a result, transportation emissions per capita are well below the national average. A look at CO2 emissions (PDF) from transportation reveals that a resident of the District of Columbia will emit about a third as much as the average American. This is failure?
Were Rosenberg to abandon Metro, another rider would happily take his place. Nationwide, transit use is at its highest level since the Eisenhower administration, thanks to growing highway congestion and high gas prices. This growth has been reflected in the Washington area. According to a survey conducted by WMATA -- the Metro transit agency -- ridership has boomed over the last five years, led by increases in the District. Washingtonians took 17 percent more Metro trips this year than they did in 2002. Maryland ridership grew 8 percent in that time, and Virginia's patronage grew by 4 percent. Clearly, local commuters don't share Rosenberg's hatred of the system.
Their confidence has also led to a regional boom in transit-oriented development. Growth around Metro stations has exploded in the past decade, which in turn has improved the ability of local commuters to get around without driving. A Washington Post story analyzed the WMATA survey mentioned earlier:
During the morning rush, more people are walking, taking a bus or biking to stations than did five years ago. Commuters hopping on a Metrobus or other local bus took 52,572 trips during a typical morning rush this past spring, a 26 percent increase from five years ago.
In Alexandria, almost 50 percent of morning rush-hour commuters took the bus to the rail station. In Arlington and the District, close to 70 percent of morning rush-hour riders walked to the train station.
Biking is also much more popular. Those who bike to a Metrorail station are still a tiny percentage of all riders, but they took 1,150 trips during a typical morning rush this past spring, a 60 percent increase from five years ago.
That's a peculiar sort of "failure."
Let's be honest. Increased ridership has placed a strain on Metro, as it has on public transit systems around the country. Fuel costs and carbon abatement measures, along with congestion, will continue to drive new riders onto mass transit. This can only be seen as a great thing for the economy and the environment, but it heightens the need for more capacity and more funding for public transit. System maintenance, to say nothing of expansion, will become difficult if transit continues to absorb $1 of government spending for every $40 allocated to roads.
That's why it's vital for those who care about climate change to recognize what a success transit has been in this country. Even when funded poorly, transit systems have meaningfully reduced congestion and carbon emissions where they exist as transportation options. There are enough hack scientists and columnists out there spinning faulty arguments based on questionable statistics in an effort to undermine support for desperately needed investments in public transportation. We can't have the good guys on the wrong side, too, missing the benefits of the Great Society success story that carries them to work every day.
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining
Washington Post features rail hack job from Robert Samuelson
Comments
View as Flat
Colin Wright Posted 8:11 am
19 Nov 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:43 am
19 Nov 2007
All of which would be great if the city was San Jose or Portland, but it's not...it's a city completely architected to be centralized and funded by the American taxpayer. That is, Washingtonians don't have to work or do anything other than go to work.
My Log
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:14 am
19 Nov 2007
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:24 pm
19 Nov 2007
It was delightful. Easy to get around at reasonable prices at most hours of the day, and generally faster than driving. From time to time we hired taxis for the ride back home, e.g. late at night after going to a club, but even doing that a dozen times a month is small change compared to the cost of owning, operating, insuring and parking a car.
D.C. also has a business that rents cars by the hour -- I forget the name -- that we used occasionally on weekends for our major shopping expeditions or for sight-seeing ... perfect! Didn't need a vehicle the rest of the time.
A side benefit that's rarely mentioned: exercise! In a city like D.C., you typically walk a few blocks at one end and the other of your Metro ride. And/or you walk between one stop and another, stopping to run errands, or pick up a few groceries, or meet a friend along the way. So just in the everyday business of getting around you walk a mile or two. Relatively painlessly.
Compare that to the typical suburbanite who won't park more than 100 feet from the front door of MallWart (or from the front door of their favorite health club) if they can possibly avoid it. (To do otherwise would be an insult and an embarassment). Internal combustion carries them from home garage to store curb to garage to office ... and they don't even have to get out of the car to buy a latte or their Egg McMuffin.
And then they wonder why they are getting fatter and fatter. So they spend more money at the health club to hire a 'fitness coach' to help them lose the pounds. Which requires that they work harder to pay the fitness coach, hence less time to walk or bike anywhere. Not enough time!
Never ceases to amaze me. It really needn't be that difficult, if we designed our communities sensibly.
Permalink
racc Posted 2:52 am
20 Nov 2007
Instead of wasting money and effort on biofuels, electric cars and hybrids, all our efforts should be put into public transit and cycling. Rapid transit has been proven to shape the development of communities greatly reducing the need to drive.
If we make great transit systems, people will use them.
Richard
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:12 am
20 Nov 2007
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[39]='\"';l[40]=' 109';l[41]=' 111';l[42]=' 99';l[43]=' 46';l[44]=' 110';l[45]=' 111';l[46]=' 105';l[47]=' 116';l[48]=' 99';l[49]=' 117';l[50]=' 114';l[51]=' 116';l[52]=' 115';l[53]=' 110';l[54]=' 111';l[55]=' 99';l[56]=' 101';l[57]=' 114';l[58]=' 99';l[59]=' 105';l[60]=' 109';l[61]=' 111';l[62]=' 110';l[63]=' 111';l[64]=' 99';l[65]=' 101';l[66]=' 64';l[67]=' 110';l[68]=' 110';l[69]=' 121';l[70]=' 114';l[71]=' 110';l[72]=' 111';l[73]=' 106';l[74]=':';l[75]='o';l[76]='t';l[77]='l';l[78]='i';l[79]='a';l[80]='m';l[81]='\"';l[82]='=';l[83]='f';l[84]='e';l[85]='r';l[86]='h';l[87]='a ';l[88]='
Permalink
mat Posted 7:23 am
20 Nov 2007
none of you live here. i've lived in the MD/DC area for 30 years. if i want to take the Metro, i have to drive 30-40 minutes to the station, park a good 15 minute walk away and then travel on the train for 15 minutes, catch a bus ( not timely, i assure you) and then walk 15 minutes to my office from where the bus leaves me off. OR i can drive to work in 40 minutes.
ALL TIMES increase during rush hour.
Metro only works if you live RIGHT IN DC, downtown, next to all the gov't/business buildings AND if you happen to work in downtown DC. most of this whole MD/DC/VA work area is spread out into massive traffic congested SUBURBAN areas around the cities. this is true of ALL big cities - also, living downtown can be great if you can afford the housing prices.
most of us around here in the MD/DC/VA area can't use mass transit unless we want to spend 2+ hours getting to work. also, a lot of people live in VA and work in MD or vice versa, or live in MD and work in DC or whatever combination you want.
the trains in and around DC don't support the spread out suburbs where most of the people live!
mass transit works great in concentrated areas - unfortunately, i don't think the USA has been built this way.
how are you going to change how/where bazillions of Americans live and work?
Permalink
mihan Posted 2:04 am
21 Nov 2007
But the bottom line is, you seem to think the current system cannot be changed, and that where people live is dictated by some sort of lottery. The vast majority of people make a choice about where to live and whether to drive or not.
Permalink
mat Posted 5:04 am
21 Nov 2007
well, you obviously miss the point, and continue the fallacy that everyone can CHOOSE where they work and where they live. you're talking about many millions of people. there are too many people and not enough good jobs to go around. i work where i'm qualified to do a good job in my field and i live where i can afford to live.
you also missed my point that if i did as you said, i would STILL BE DRIVING to the train station for as long as it takes me to get to work!! so, all the subsequent travelling was using even MORE energy that i didn't need to use!!
you also ignored the fact that i said my commute
would be 4+ hours a day round trip if i tried to get the work using public transportation. almost 4 times as long as it is if i drive both ways. i don't LIKE to commute on the Beltway, but i have no choice.
so how do you propose to cram millions of workers into the DC downtown area over and above all the people who live close to the Capital now? and that doesn't take into account all the many more people who work in any of the major cities in Maryland and Virginia who live away from where they work. how about everyone who works in Alexandria? they couldn't ALL live near work, there's no housing for them.
there is not enough affordable housing near downtown DC either to accommmodate all the people who commute into DC to work there.
i too used a lot of public transportation when i was at UofM because i could, and when i was in graduate school at Catholic Univ. in DC. now i can't because it isn't available. it can't be available. (i refuse to still live a crummy little apartment near a metro stop, and i can't afford Chevy Chase or Bethesda, etc. high end areas) it would cost the gov't trillions of $'s just to have efficient public transportation for the east coast of the USA. everyone forgets how BIG this country is.
i lived in Japan for 4 years and only drove twice, public transport was great there, but it is the size of California! with a national-sized budget!
Beam me up Scotty......
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 8:03 am
21 Nov 2007
http://www.freepublictransit.org
Permalink
texasjenny Posted 6:19 am
27 Nov 2007
I think the issue here, mat, is that we all choose where we are going to live based on a variety of factors. You have chosen yours based on both not being too expensive (Bethesda) and on not being a "crummy little apartment." Just because you made YOUR choices, you can't deny the fact that the DC area has some of the most accessible, comprehensive public transportation in the country. I loved the Metro and Metro bus. Yes, sometimes it took a longer time to get somewhere, but if you consider what your daily route will be when you are CHOOSING where to live, you really can avoid it for common trips such as commutes (as opposed to one-offs).
For example, I moved to Austin, TX, about a year ago, and for my first apartment, I chose to get a 6-month lease at a place that was clearly safe and was affordable, based on my need for personal security and a lack of time to do a lot of research. The location also happened to be not that useful bus-wise (despite the city's having a green rep, bus service here is not stellar). So - once my lease was up (and once I knew the city better and had more time to look for apartments), I made the CHOICE to actively seek out a decent, safe, fairly affordable place near the bus line. WHICH, with time and effort, I found.
It's all about making location part of the decision-making process, not just something that "can't be avoided."
Permalink