Month: January 2023

I know that I should shrug it off as another meaningless study, but the INRIX 2022 Global Traffic Scorecard, as reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 12, 2023, annoys me. Initially it was the article, which accepted this tally of congestion without any analysis of assumptions or methodology. Then I looked up the study on the INRIX website and found that they too gave short shrift to the means by which they reached their startling conclusions. Only by further research could I divine the approach taken, and that is when I really got miffed, realizing that this was another misleading use of statistics.

The Inquirer article told us that Philadelphia was “captive” to the fourth-worst traffic congestion among urban centers in the United States and sits eighth among the world’s cities (OMG, worse than Los Angeles!!!!). Citing the INRIX report, the Inquirer stated that a “typical Philadelphia driver” spent 114 hours stuck in traffic during 2022. That would mean that an average Philadelphia driver sat in their car waiting for traffic to clear for almost 5 days over the last year. Outrageous, if true.

These results “are based on millions of anonymized data points collected from smartphones, GPS systems in cars and trucks, and cities’ own reporting of crashes, incidents, and congestion. Over time, INRIX identified and mapped the most common trip corridors in each urban area…. Tracking travel times on these corridors gives a clear picture of travel times and congestion” according to INRIX. The study goes on to say that the cost of this congestion to travelers is almost $20 per hour for each car.

The questions about this study are legion, though the Inquirer asked none of them. The first is, what is a “typical Philadelphia driver”? Does this only refer to commuters during peak hours? Did they include my 10:30 pm trip to Trenton a to pick up my kids at the train station when there were no traffic delays? Is my wife a typical Philadelphia driver when she’s commuting to Germantown in the morning, but not when she stays late, and heads back into the city around 9:00?

And what is meant by congestion? Do they count every time a car stops for a red light? If you’re travelling the Schuylkill at 45 mph, which would delight any Philly driver, is that congested driving? Is that offset by the rare times when you can zip along at 70? And how do they account for the nut driving down the shoulder at 60 while the rest of us are stopped? 

An article on StreetsBlogUSA did answer some of these questions. Apparently, INRIX segmented their data by time of day and trip characteristics, so presumably we are talking about commuters. Congestion is whenever traffic falls below “free-flow” speeds, which INRIX says it developed using actual traffic data. That would mean a steady 45 on the Schuylkill is congestion. The cost was computed using a $12.81 wage rate, multiplied by 1.13 occupants per vehicle multiplied by 1.37 to reflect the aggravation of sitting in your car, as if aggravation is measurable. If these were the type of assumptions INRIX made, it’s no wonder they don’t highlight them.

More importantly, the Study says nothing about why the congestion occurs. All it does is create an insignificant ranking that generates inconsequential headlines. Actually, that’s probably for the best. The last thing we need are more major road renovations that will take years to complete at incredible cost overruns, slowing traffic even more. The flip side is that if we did that, we could move up to number 6 on the rankings, or even higher (Philly strong)!!!

I know that I have overacted to this drop in the bucket of life. Yet we are inundated with statistics that are similarly suspect, and it is so easy to just accept them as valid. Take something as simple as wind chill factor. Throughout the winter we hear weather prognosticators say, “The temperature is 30, but it’s going to feel like 10 because of the wind.” NO, IT’S NOT. Wind is not a constant. It gusts. It may feel like 10 or below when you’re walking through a center city wind tunnel, but it won’t feel that way if the gusts calm, and you’re walking in the sun.

The pandemic was prime time for statistics. We would routinely hear that COVID rates had doubled in an area over the last week but were never sure if that meant that they went from 2 to 4, or 1000 to 2000. It often depended on who was promulgating the statistics, and what they wanted to accomplish. Sifting through the mass of data is impossible, which means you have to rely on the good faith of those that do, and that can be problematic, to say the least.

The malleability of statistics is a big reason why so many discussions on crucial topics like climate change come to a scratching halt. Statistics about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or the rise in sea levels are thrown around like nerf balls, bouncing harmlessly off readers’ noggins. Whatever those statistics say, someone will conflate them into an immanent world collapse, or deflate them into a meaningless blip.

The problem is that it takes overstatements to get most people’s attention. A nuanced approach may work well on some late-night talk show (back when we had such shows), but if you want newspaper headlines, or shared Facebook posts, you better be controversial and extreme. In the end all this does is provide fodder for dissension, not consensus.

So, what can we do? One thing is to discern when statistics help explain something and when they don’t. Some trumped up congestion rate adds nothing to our understanding of traffic flow. We know that traffic can be bad during rush hour, and at any other time if you are unlucky enough to hit an accident or road construction. Putting a number on it is meaningless. Just like you know that you better bundle up if the wind is blowing in the middle of January without a wind chill factor.

Also, look at the source. When the CDC gives you trends during a pandemic, best to pay attention. When it’s a friend from high school passing along climate change information issued by the American Petroleum Institute, be skeptical. Sometimes that takes some searching, because the API is probably issuing those statistics through Americans for a Cleaner Tomorrow, but it’s worth the effort.

Finally, look at methodology. If those issuing the statistics make you look hard for their assumptions, like INRIX, they probably are not a good source. Those above board will proudly highlight how they reached their conclusions and provide guidance on what you can do in response.

I know I jumped on my soapbox here, but the flood of worthless stats we see is one of the those burrs in my side that I just can’t shake. It’s just so easy to be misled. I know that I have, many times. Oh, the glories of the modern world. 

I just finished Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. I first read this novel almost 30 years ago, and, not surprisingly, had little or no recollection of it. I recalled that I thought Stranger middling, but it is considered a classic of science fiction, and was on my shelf for some reason, so I thought that I would dive back in. After finishing it, I realized that Stranger is an exemplar for everything that makes classic science fiction so interesting and so exasperating.

The plot of Stranger is typical sci-fi. Michael Valentine Smith is the sole survivor of an earth expedition to Mars, where he was stranded as a baby and raised by Martians. He is discovered by a subsequent expedition 20 years later and brought back to earth. Over the course of the novel, he learns the ways of us earthlings, and contrasts it to Martian teachings, not in a good way.

Smith intuits that we Earth dwellers fail to grok (the Martian word for understand, that means so much more) the basic Martian principal that each of us is God. Once we come to accept that tenet we can live in peace and harmony. Apparently, we can also acquire telepathic powers, as well as the ability to make things (and people) disappear. Smith also reveals that death is not the end, allowing us to accept our transformation into a new type of existence. And, oh yes, grokking this axiom removes all sexual inhibitions.

The idea of Stranger is interesting. The thought of a human raised with non-human beliefs having to adapt and understand earthly ways opens doors for an examination of human institutions and mores. Heinlein focuses mainly on religious practices, and the inbred contradictions and hypocrisy they engender. Not surprisingly, Smith’s message that we are all God does not go over well with the established churches.

An engrossing story could have emerged out of this premise if the book was not so badly written. I was shocked at the incompetence of the writing from someone who is so revered. After all, Heinlein won four Hugo awards, four Nebula awards and was named a Grand Master by the Science Fiction Writers of America. Yet, his writing style would be embarrassing for a college Freshman in a Creative Writing 101 course.

For example, any time a character wants to emphasize a point, they use “ain’t”. As when patriarch, lawyer and doctor Jubal Harshaw is interrupted in one of his lectures to Mike, he bellows back, “I ain’t through”. I guess that’s supposed to tell us that this is important, but it just sounds silly. Worse are the caricatures masquerading as characters, like the two male aides to Harshaw who talk as if they just escaped from a Bowery Boys movie (“I’ll murdalize you Sach”).

Then there is the way the way ideal relationships between men and women are depicted. I know that Stranger was published in 1961, but even in that pre-women’s lib era it should have been embarrassing to conjure what is little more than a male high school freshman fantasy. Women are smart and capable, but submissive. They revel in being ogled by men and are quick to hop into bed with any Martian trained male, once they too have been enlightened. One woman even goes so far as to say, “If you hear my scream, and reach into my mind and I’m in real trouble, [feel free to intervene]. But I was coping with wolves when you were still on Mars. Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it’s partly her fault. So don’t be hasty”. Oy vey.

The fact that this book is praised as a classic, says much about the world of sci-fi. For so long it was the domain of white male geeks. People who were intrigued by offbeat ideas but viewed the world through a prism of their own unfulfilled desires. These were the guys who would corner you near the beer keg at a party to regale you with the significance of some obscure space opera that “you just have to read”.

I say this as a lifelong science fiction fan. Yes, I immersed myself in Asimov, Clarke, etc. Yes, I thrilled at the concepts of interstellar travel, cyberworlds, and alternative dimensions. Yes, I cared whether Star Trek was more highly praised than Star Wars (which it should be). I like to think that most of the works I gobbled up were not as cringeworthy as Stranger in a Strange Land, but I can’t bet on it. Many of these writers had a scientific background, but were literary hacks who had a decent idea they spun out into a novel. Not a bad way to make a living.

The promise of sci-fi is its ability to create a surrogate world, and then use that world to comment on our own. It is both useful and thought-provoking. It can be a vehicle to introduce a different viewpoint, and new uses of technology. Science Fiction can capture the imagination in ways other literature cannot. Stranger did that, and I am sure that is why it was so highly thought of.

As science fiction has matured it has grown out of the world of the Fantastic or Weird Worlds magazines. Today’s sci-fi authors are just as inventive but apparently care more about logical structure and literary quality. Plus, a lot more women seem to have entered the field, which can only broaden its perspectives. There is still plenty of dross, but that’s true in every genre.

I don’t read as much science fiction as I once did. The ideas are can be mundane and repetitive. Plus, many sci-fi writers seem to think anything under 400 pages is not worth the while. Still, when sci-fi clicks it is as intriguing as anything out there. A platform for creative minds with a slight bent that should not be overlooked, despite its weaknesses.

P.S. Some sci-fi I can recommend – Anything by Douglas Adams; Atwood, Oryx and Crake; Bester, The Demolished Man; Fforde, Early Riser; Le Guin, the Dispossessed; Melville, The City and the City; Mitchell, The Bone Clocks; St. John Mandell, Station Eleven (sorry Peter); Vandermeer, Annihilation; Zemiatan, We.    

It was nice to get away over the end of year holidays. Even though I am retired, it still seemed like a break from routine, and that is always welcome. Of course, time does not stop, and there are inevitable surprises. Some personal (a broken pipe) and some general. I would not have guessed that two of the more interesting surprises would involve the corporate world. (Of course, if I could have guessed they would not have been surprises).

First there was the meltdown of Southwest Airlines. This one hit close to home since my mother-in-law was supposed to fly back to Indianapolis via Southwest on December 27. That flight, along with thousands of others, were cancelled, with no prospect of a rebooking for close to a week. For her it was not a major inconvenience since she had no pressing need to get home, and was staying with her daughter, my sister-in-law. However, for many others – stuck at airports, needing to get back to work, staying in hotels – it was a fiasco.

The other corporate news was the continuing saga of the collapse of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange platform, along with arrest of its chief executive, Sam Bankman-Fried, who has been charged with multiple counts of fraud. Two former FTX executives have already plead guilty, and are cooperating with authorities, so there is not a lot of doubt where Bankman-Fried will end up. Too bad Bernie Madoff has left us. They could have shared a cell.

Having spent most of my career working in corporate America, these events fascinate me, though for different reasons. The Southwest debacle appears to have been caused by the airline’s failure to invest in an updated scheduling system, leaving it unable to react to the massive storm that spread across the northern part of the country. The FTX meltdown seemingly arose from a lack of oversight which opened the door for malfeasance. 

Southwest was a classic corporate failure, generally emanating from the conflicting goals of planning for long term success – which requires the outlay of significant cash – and providing investors with the immediate returns they demand. CEO’s cringe at the prospect of standing in front of investors trying to justify low quarterly earnings, knowing that explanations of expensive technological upgrades will not go down well. It is easier to live with old systems, which generally work, and hope that a snowmageddon, literal or metaphorical, doesn’t hit. It appears that Southwest lost that bet.

No one who has done time in a corporation can be shocked at Southwest’s actions or inactions, as the case may be. We know that while corporations want to appear to the world as Stark Industries, innovators with endless creative drive, they are more in the realm of Scrooge McDuck, hoarding wealth while expending as little as humanly possible, except for executive compensation. Good times or bad, budgets will have to be cut and employee bonus pools limited for the common good. Is it any wonder that in such an atmosphere major expenditures are perennially delayed?

Corporate veterans also know that airline CEOs around the country are letting out a long sigh of relief, because this could have happened to any one of them. When, in 2008, ACE competitor AIG tanked due to investments in subprime mortgages, we all knew that we had dodged that bullet not because of C-Suite insight, but because management had not thought of going that route. Similarly, I have no doubt that all airlines cut corners, delay upgrades and pander to short term gains, just like Southwest. The question is can they stay one step ahead of disaster. Only time will tell.

FTX is a different animal. By all accounts the Bahama based company had little oversight. The current FTX administrator, John Ray III, who supervised the liquidation of Enron, described FTX as having an unprecedented failure of corporate controls, resulting in a complete absence of trustworthy financial information. It’s many investors were, in essence, flying blind.

It would be easy here to jump on the bandwagon claiming that I knew Bitcoin was rotten from the start, patting myself on the back for my wise investment strategies, but that would be disingenuous. I am the first to admit that I have never understood cryptocurrency. I like to believe that I could have grasped it by perusing the inevitable “Bitcoin for Dummies”, but it never seemed worth the time. Laziness saved me from ever seriously considering diving in.

Even if I had, the lack of oversight would hopefully have scared me off. Throughout my career, I have listened to business people decrying regulation, intimating that if only government would get out of their way they could really shine. Yet time and time again we have seen deregulation lead to corporate collapse, requiring significant pubic bailouts. It is not a coincidence that the Saving and Loan scandals of the 1980’s and the sub-prime mortgage recession of the 1980’s both came after a significant decrease in government supervision of the impacted sectors.

There is no doubt a balance that needs to be struck between governmental oversight and business operations. But it is foolish to think that businesses will properly govern themselves absent big brother. It’s not that companies are inherently evil. It’s just that there are so many opportunities to compromise on sound governance that the temptations are too great. Not only are the corporate earnings at stake, but so are individual careers. It is just too easy to rationalize cutting a corner here or rounding a number there.

Business oriented media does nothing to make up for a lack of oversight. Everyone thinks of business journals as hard hitting and practical, but often they are just People for the corporate set. Magazines and news shows did piece after piece on Bankman-Fried, lauding his entrepreneurial spirit and bold innovations, all without researching whether there was beef in the burger. As Paul Krugman said, discussing Enron, “Whom the gods destroy, they first put on the cover of Businessweek”.

Unfortunately, there are no great lessons to be learned from Southwest or FTX. Even if you devote all your spare time to researching companies you are unlikely to foresee snowmageddons or fiscal fraud, while branding yourself as someone no one wants to talk to at parties. It is just a risk we all take living in a world where we must rely on so much that is beyond our control or comprehension. Welcome to the modern world.