As someone who started riding Seattle Metro buses during the Nixon administration, and who even allows his own precious children to enjoy the joys of communal transport, I don’t want to overstate the danger presented by taking (or waiting for) the bus. If you look at the statistics, riding the bus in Seattle is no more dangerous than say, living in Belltown. On an annual basis, only a very, very small minority actually find themselves pummeled into unconsciousness.
That being said, I do feel compelled to present a counter-point to the breathless, well-funded and incessant evangelism for “transportation choices.” In other words, a reality-check to the steady drumbeat that demonizeshighly effective and convenient packet-switched transportation (cars) in favor of a slower, odoriferous, circuit-switched system that lacks even the hint of romance that (heavy rail) trains can provide.
Bottom line. There’s a reason bus ridership continues on a downward trend. for most types of trips and riders, it’s just an inferior mode of transportation.
The latest example? See the surveillance video below. It reveals yet again why the vast majority of commuters prefer the “transportation choice” of their own four-wheels. This time, a 17-year old (pregnant!) young woman in Seattle has the audacity to protest the theft of her iPod — and gets a beating in return. Ahhh, the glories of liberating yourself from the oppressive shackles of the automobile…
Note the joys of standing room only commuting.
Regrettably for Metro, (and the taxpayers who funded it) much of the goodwill garnered from this award-winning (and expensive) ad campaign is now mitigated away. Thanks to the television coverage given the latest beatings, the real-world impression which is depicted by the image atop this post. Here’s an idea. Take the money spent on “selling” us on the bus system, and spend it instead on policing the bus system.
Or even better, end the policies that have created this regressive “mobility apartheid” and give the people what they really want — free parking, more lanes, and strict enforcement of the Growth Management Act.
Robert Scoble’s most recent post about technology and cars is thought-provoking but IMHO lacks what geeks are supposed to like most — and that is data. With that in mind, let me provide some documentation into why people buy cars, fully reinforced with supporting data backed by large sample sets and geeky things like regression analysis.
At it’s essence, Robert’s post claims that smart car company CEOs should put geeky features like iPod holders at the top of the product differentiator list, and those who fail to do so will suffer badly:
“Fact: every other car company CEO knows that what differentiates cars today is GEEKY FEATURES +not+ engine, transmission, etc.”
Why do People Buy the Cars they Do?
Needless to say, robust research exists in the arena of what drives people to buy what they do. These data sets include people outside of California. A good synopsis of recent data regarding automotive purchases is here.
“In their 2007 survey, based on 2,600 consumers across five countries (United States China, France, Germany, and United Kingdom), Capgemini documented the following factors as being very important to consumers in their vehicle purchase decisions. Ranked in order of stated importance: reliability of brand, safety, price of vehicle, fuel economy, quality of interior/style, after-sales service, brand name of vehicle, products and services, extra options at no extra cost, vehicle availability, sales/delivery date, trade-in value, environmental factors, product/feature options, ability to research information on Internet, 0% or low financing, additional warranty coverage/service credit, and cash-back incentives.”
I’m not seeing “geekiness” as a priority here. One could argue that it fits under the heading “product/feature options”, but even granted that, it’s 13th(!) on the priority list. Hardly the prime directive for a CEO. In fact, I would argue a reasonable shareholder in an auto manufacturer would ask for the ouster of a leader who puts it first.
Outside the bubble of Bay Area California, it seems more likely that it’s non-geeky things (like how much you can haul) that really matters. Data from Google Insights comparing quantity of search requests bears this out:
Far more Americans perform searches about big pickups than they do about gas-sipping hybrids:
Profits per car? No comparison. The Prius contributes only one third of what a pickup does for every vehicle sold.
It is true that interest in Prius cars is strong in geeky areas like Silicon Valley:
As an aside — Robert stresses the safety features of his Prius. Indeed, the car ranks extremely high according to the IIHS. Regrettably, this does not seem to be reflected in recent search data.
More data. China is the largest auto market in the world. What’s the number one brand there? GM’s Buick. I’ve been there, and I can tell you that practical real-world cars dominate. Drive around for a few days on the streets of Beijing and see how many Prius you come across. To say sales of geeky hybrids there are “dismal would be an understatement.”
I agree with Robert that I want the CEO of the company I own stock in to get geeky. Geeky with data though. CEO’s should prioritize based on relevant information at hand and pursue the opportunities that really matter.
Disclaimers: I own a 1964 Chevy Corvette and a 1974 Pontiac Firebird. GM is a supporter of my Tweet House gatherings. My wife drives a Highlander. I bought a gadget-laden BMW X5 that spent much of its time in the repair shop at great expense getting said gadgets repaired. I bought a lot of Toyota stock (down 40% now) after reading an article in MIT Technology review about how awesome the Prius was.
Sundar Pichai, Vice President of Product Management at Google was interviewed by Bloomberg TV today. In the brief piece, the Bloomberg people raise the issue of overreach by Google, and if free is the right price for an OS (Rob Enderle says no.) Pichai stresses the importance of innovating, and interestingly that “We completely expect some of our products to fail.”
Video below. Despite my editing, deleting, and reuploading multiple times, it still retains a few seconds of content I edited out.
Despite the many keystrokes dedicated to this topic, I have not encountered the authors who have taken the time to actually run the numbers and prove the obvious. I am sure that fault is my own — and that the analysis is out there — but my searches have probably been inadequate. Or then again, it could be that they just don’t feel the need. I mean when our two biggest states — ultra-blue New York and California are the poster children for bad budgeting, what more do you need?
Regardless — I have run the numbers, and if you hold a reality-based worldview similar to the Economist which recognizes that entitlements and union-driven demands are at the root of the fiscal mess our states face, and that those types of spending priorities comes more from dems, there’s nothing new here.
To measure “blueness” I used the data provided by wikipedia on how states leaned in their 2008 Obama vs McCain vote. 2010 deficit data came from the CBPP. The CBPP did not include those states in surplus (Red states Montana and North Dakota), and I decided to drop them, because I’m lazy, and wanted to be extra fair to the utopians.
Scatterplot below. As expected, it depicts a noticeable relationship. XLS file here.
Bottom line? A robust Pearson correlation of .32, without factoring in any other variables. “…social researchers would consider a coefficient of .30 or more as indication of a “strong” change when measuring human behavior…”
Wondering how we’re doing financially compared to other states? According to the Wall Street Journal, not very well. The image below speaks volumes. Not only about Washington, but the country as a whole. Those “Blue” coastal progressive states look to me (and many others) like they’re progressing — into bankruptcy.
Full data here. We’re 2.1 Billion in the hole which puts us 17th from the bottom in amount, 14th from bottom in terms of percentage of total budget.
Which takes me to my favorite fiscal topic, the 520 bridge “rebuild.” (It’s not a rebuild, it’s an entirely new shiny gold-plated bridge — in a different location) When you consider that project we’re even more behind. The DOT acknowledges that the project is 1.9 billion in the red — before it’s even begun.
It’s being funded by bonds, which — thanks to defaults — just got a lot more difficult for states to sell now. (it’s not a “crisis” say experts). A bond that a few weeks ago garnered $1,000,000 is now only taking in $960,000 in revenue Hmmm. I wonder if the WSDOT has updated their funding plan given this new hurdle/expense?
No worries, the current plan is to build the new bridge as far as they can with the money they have, and then stop where it hits Seattle (I’m not kidding…) Then finish it off someday, when things get better.
Oh, and gas tax revenues are also far less than originally forecast.
Given the latest news, and factoring in the inevitable (84% chance) cost overruns, the big new shiny part may stop in the middle of the lake…
