UnSound Transit

Mass transit users save $9500 per year says APTA

2008-11-20T12:23:00.000-08:00

America is Dropping Cars and Hopping Trains, but Transit is Pressured

Posted: November 11th, 2008 10:42 AM EDT

Stephanie I. Cohen
MarketWatch

NATION - Higher fuel prices over the past two years combined with household fiscal concerns are leading record numbers of Americans to ditch their cars and hop on trains, subways and buses each day, a pattern that if sustained would help the U.S. to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions.

But transit agencies are facing a classic Catch-22: Just as public transit is seeing record-breaking levels of users and more cars sitting in the suburbs, state and local governments are struggling to find dollars for transit improvements and expansions needed to bring more riders onboard.

"Throughout the state of Georgia and across the nation, transit providers are stretching every available dollar to meet rapidly increasing demand," Beverly Scott, general manager of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority told congressional lawmakers last week.

"Numerous projects on the drawing boards throughout my state are unfunded, simply because of a lack of available funds at the state and local levels for transit investment," she added.

Public transit in the Atlanta metropolitan area served over 14 million customers in September, a 13.3% increase in total ridership over September 2007, according to officials.

The pattern is similar in many regions of the U.S. In the second quarter of 2008 commuter rail ridership showed a double-digit jump in cities throughout California, Maine, Florida, Pennsylvania and Florida, compared with the same quarter a year ago. Commuter rail service moves commuters between urban and surrounding suburban areas.

Amtrak reported an 11% jump in users last year.

In 2007, 10.3 billion trips were taken on public transportation, the highest ridership number in 50 years, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Total figures at the end of 2008 are expected to set a new record.

The switch for most drivers is being prompted by a desire to cut transportation costs. On average, a transit user saves more than $9,500 a year by taking public transportation instead of driving, according to a 2008 report by the American Public Transportation Association.

"Rising gasoline costs have contributed significantly to our ridership growth," William Crosbie, chief operating officer of Amtrak, told Washington lawmakers last week.

More riders, more costs

Yet as oil prices surged over the past year, the number of miles drivers logging on U.S. roadways steadily dropped while public transportation trips simultaneously rose, according to analysts.

Waves of new riders can create a tailwind when systems that are already functioning at full capacity become strained and revenue that comes from riders doesn't actually cover operating and fuel costs, as is the case in many areas of the country today. Over one-third of the urban rail stations in the country are considered "substandard" by the Department of Transportation.

Cities all over the country are in need of transit dollars. The Muncie, Ind., transit system needs $2.1 million to buy four replacement hybrid buses. The Denver, Colorado Regional Transportation District, which witnessed a 13 % jump in riders last year, is looking for $235 million to finance transit station improvements and expand service, while New York City needs $680 million to revitalize stations and improve rail lines.

But instead of expanding service, a recent survey showed that 35% of public transportation providers have been forced to cut or plan to cut the level of passenger service they provide in spite of the growing demand, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

The culprits? Local governments are grappling with budget deficits, shrinking contributions form Washington for transportation projects, and increased operating costs for transit services.

Add to this the fact that public transit operators run into the same fuel costs problems that drive commuters to rails and buses in the first place.

Clarence Marsella, the general manager of the Denver Regional Transportation District, noted in a recent presentation that more riders equal more costs and that small increases in the price of diesel fuel can lead to a $100,000 jump in annual operating costs for the Denver transit system.

Fuel costs for the Denver system for 2009 are expected to be roughly double what they were in 2007, while overall ridership increased by 10% over the past year, according to Marsella.

Going private

At the same time, expanding public transportation -- adding more service to more locations -- requires money that is becoming increasingly hard to find. This has led some local officials from San Francisco to Philadelphia to seek out private dollars -- from private equity firms and investment banks -- to cover the cost of capital investments.

Current government estimates indicate the U.S. will need to pump as much as $60 billion into public transportation and infrastructure projects in the coming decades. According to the Department of Transportation, $21.8 billion is needed to maintain and improve the country's transit systems annually.

The National Council for Public Private Partnerships has been holding presentations across the country to educate officials on how to tap private sector capital to fund public transportation projects, and shift the construction costs and operational risks to the private sector.

Private funding for public projects isn't new and the number of projects using private funds seems to be growing. In late September, John Hancock Life Insurance Co. and two other partners announced they had won a $2.5 billion, 99-year lease to operate and develop Chicago Midway Airport. If completed, the airport would be the first privatized major airport in the U.S. In April, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced he would pursue private partnerships to fund transit projects.

But some Washington lawmakers remain uneasy with private control over public assets. This week, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., and Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters noting that the current financial crisis on Wall Street is leading to more and more so-called public-private partnerships that lack "adequate transparency" to protect the public's interest.

"We are particularly concerned about efforts by private investors to exploit the financial crisis to place a number of the nation's transit agencies at risk of default and financial collapse," the letter said.

Seatle Light Rail: cost of reducing carbon is ludicrous

2008-11-20T12:12:00.000-08:00

Seattle’s Expensive and Ineffective Rail Tax Proposal
Rail tax advocates are at it again in a number of US metropolitan areas, including Seattle. A recent story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer caught our attention because of claims being made proposed rail expansions that would be financed by a proposed tax increase. Two issues stand out:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: According to the article, the proposed plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the Seattle area by nearly 100,000 metric tons annually. Sounds like a big number. It isn’t. Based upon previously announced Sound Transit spending announcements (an equivalent increase of $1.1 billion annually, including capital and operations costs), the cost of this reduction would be about $11,000 per metric ton. That is 220 times the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change ceiling of from $20 to $50 per ton (the amount of spending per ton is the maximum amount necessary to accomplish deep reversal of GHG concentrations between 2030 and 2050). The Sound Transit plan is not only expensive in general terms, it is profligate in the amount of spending required to reduce GHG emissions. This is illustrated by the fact that at $11,000 per metric ton, it would cost more than double the Gross Domestic Product each year to reduce US GHG emissions by 50 percent --- an often cited goal.

Traffic Reduction: The article also cites a Sound Transit report indicating that the expanded rail system could reduce driving by 30 percent. Never before has there been a forecast of such a reduction in traffic in any urban area in the world and surely it won’t happen in Seattle. Indeed, it would be charitable to call the 30 percent reduction prediction “laughable.” In other rail projections, the expected traffic reduction rarely exceeds 1 percent, and even then is not achieved. Despite having studied transportation investments for decades, never before have we seen such absurdity. If Sound Transit were subject to the same regulations as apply to used car salesmen, heavy fines and even jail terms might be in the offing.

Source Wendall Cox

The Myth of Light Rail being Green

2008-11-20T11:49:00.000-08:00

Another green tale is derailed

Milwaukee Journal May. 11, 2008

Does Mother Earth really want Milwaukee to build light rail? Maybe not.

Rail backers lay out lots of reasons, none yet convincing, for why we should spend a billion bucks to install trains. Their trump is the environment - that it is rail alone, and not buses in whatever form, that uses energy efficiently and emits less carbon.

Only that's not true. Light rail in practice uses about as much energy to move a passenger a mile as does your average car, reports transit expert Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank. When it comes to carbon dioxide per passenger mile, light rail beats the average car only in some cities - mainly where electricity doesn't come from coal or oil. Nearly everywhere, you put out less carbon by driving a Prius than by taking the train.

This isn't what most people expect. Still, O'Toole, a longtime critic of light rail, confined himself to data from federal transit and energy agencies. When I checked with head researcher Steven Polzin at the transit-friendly National Center for Transit Research, he said the numbers were good and the conclusion true. Most people assume rail is far more efficient, "but the empirical data isn't very compelling," he said.

Two trends are at work, says Polzin. Even as car mileage has been rising, by about 1.5% a year, light rail has not been getting more efficient, "mainly because we made it bigger and nicer." The vehicles grow heavier, air conditioning better, lighting brighter, the station's got an escalator - it adds up.

If you fill the trains, per-passenger energy use is lower, but, says Polzin, the average load per railcar has fallen in the long run as rail expands to more marginal markets. The share of commuters taking public transportation has fallen in 20 of 25 cities since the installation of light rail or, for older systems, since 1970, say federal figures. Most of those lured by trains came off buses, not out of cars.

The upshot, says O'Toole, is that while light rail puts out about 0.36 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger mile - and more than a pound a mile in Baltimore, Pittsburgh or Cleveland - a hybrid Prius puts out 0.26.

Minneapolis actually did lower carbon emissions with its light rail line, saving 16 million pounds of carbon dioxide when passengers switched from buses. It's also saving millions more by replacing old buses with hybrid-electrics. But while light rail cut carbon at a cost of $2.20 a pound, says O'Toole, buses did it for 60 cents.

Cost counts. If you really want more people to ride, you have to make their wait shorter and their trip faster. "Riders are not sensitive to steel wheels or rubber tires," he says. "They're sensitive to frequency and speed." Spend less than the $83 million a mile that Minneapolis' planned second line will cost and you can afford more frequent service. For most places, says O'Toole, you do better if you buy buses, especially smaller, cheaper ones.

This is what's on the table in Milwaukee - bus rapid transit, in which hybrids run frequent service on reserved lanes with few stops. Other cities have installed it for about $1 million a mile.

It's also got a big efficiency advantage, Polzin notes: Because buses have a much shorter lifespan than railcars - 12 years vs. 40 - and because hybrid technology means they're becoming more efficient, you're more likely to be riding on something clean. With rail, newer technology means you have to replace the whole system. With buses, you can start buying, say, fuel-cell vehicles the moment they come out.

Which counts if your aim is cleaner air. All it lacks is that indefinable panache of riding rails or paying extortionate transit taxes. Buses, even rapid, hybrid ones, by comparison seem plebian, almost as much as O'Toole's other suggestion for cleaner air: fixing road bottlenecks and timing traffic signals so cars carrying the other 98% of us don't waste time flatulating in traffic jams.

It doesn't feel as green. But what counts, feelings or facts?

Green benefit of light rail is vastly overstated

2008-11-20T11:15:00.000-08:00

The carbon cost of building and operating light rail

Rail mass transit is supposed to be good for the environment. But a leading critic of Sound Transit's Link light rail project offers metrics that suggest the environmental costs are much higher than those of more vanpools, more carpools, more buses, and, particularly, more bicycling.
By Emory Bundy

Excavating a six-mile, twin-bore tunnel and hauling away the rocks and muck is like digging a huge hole and pouring money in it. The lesson has been confirmed by the Beacon Hill tunnel, an experience so sobering that it prompted Sound Transit, which is building light rail from downtown to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, to bail out of a First Hill station, to save $350 million and reduce risk exposure. Sound Transit pegs the cost to tunnel north from downtown Seattle at $500 million per mile.

Worrying financial costs aside, what about the environmental costs and benefits of rail transit? Surprisingly, rail's environmental costs are quite adverse.

Start with the tunneling, which turns out to entail a prodigious outpouring of energy and release of greenhouse gases. To extend light rail service north from downtown, the next phase, Sound Transit will have to dig through and remove more than 600,000 cubic yards of rock and muck – equivalent to a pile of debris 350 miles long, three feet wide, and three feet high. Sound Transit plans to expend lots of energy digging and excavating that stuff: 17.4 trillion British Thermal Units, according to its environmental-impact statement, equivalent to the energy in 140 million gallons of gasoline. That much gas, or diesel, would fill 8,000-gallon tanker trucks lined up from Seattle to Canada. If all the energy consumed by tunnel-excavating and hauling is generated by gasoline or diesel, it will emit nearly 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gases, CO2, into the environment.

As an offset, Sound Transit claims it will save 14,000 tons of CO2 annually by running light rail trains on electricity, sparing the region emissions that otherwise would be generated by automotive traffic. Even if granted, it would take 90 years from completion of the line to break even on the energy transaction. If Sound Transit should manage to cut tunnel-related greenhouse emissions in half, by aggressive use of hydro electricity and human labor, an implausible proposition, it still would take 45 years to break even.

Moreover, the agency's calculations assume no improvements in automotive fuel efficiency. Yet Congress in this session might enact a measure to raise average mileage from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2018. That one conservation measure, a 40 percent per mile improvement even before the tunnel will be complete, would extend Sound Transit's greenhouse gas pay-back period to the year 2088.

Further, public transit's contribution to fuel efficiency is exaggerated. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's 2006 Data Book, per-passenger energy consumed by rail transit is only 19 percent more fuel efficient than today's automobiles (2,784 vs. 3,445 BTUs per passenger mile). If the improvements before Congress are enacted, shortly cars will be more energy-efficient. Bus transit already is 25 percent less fuel-efficient than cars (3,445 vs. 4,323 BTUs).

And the data make the energy performance of rail transit appear better than it really is. The reason is urban rail in the U.S. primarily is used in New York City, where it's more fuel-efficient than elsewhere, due to the packed subways. Here, the local rail energy consumption average is inferior to New York's.

The most cost-effective and energy-efficient transportation option, it turns out, would be making more productive use of existing capabilities. There is a lot of spare capacity on King County Metro Transit buses and those of other local agencies, even on a large share of the rush hour routes. One obvious way to use that spare capacity is to make more of the bus rides free or much lower-cost. But when Chuck Collins, former Metro Transit director and former chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council, put forth his Ride Free Express plan to make markedly better use of existing transit capacity, and incrementally strengthen the most heavily-used routes to handle new levels of demand, Sound Transit and its political allies tromped on it.

vanpools would be another easy way to increase utilization of our present systems. According to the Department of Energy, vanpools are three times more fuel-efficient than transit, 1,294 BTU's per passenger mile. They're far less costly to operate and much more flexible than rail transit. But they're discriminated against, as a commuting mode. Bus transit is heavily subsidized, rail transit is hugely subsidized, while vanpools are but slightly helped. Today, Sounder commuter rail costs $20 per boarding (one-way trip) to operate and, factoring in annualized capital costs, a total of $100 per boarding. (The average fare is less than $3.) Van-pooling, by contrast, is almost 100 percent paid for by those who use it.

vanpools could swiftly surpass Sound Transit rail in ridership, at a tiny fraction of the cost, with superior energy efficiency. Again, Sound Transit and its allies stomped on this idea, also pushed by Collins, and the environmental community sat on the sidelines.

There are numerous other environmental costs to rail. Sound Transit is paying nearly $393 million, almost five times the "very conservative" price tag it told voters, to gain access to Burlington Northern Santa Fe's rail corridor between Everett and Seattle for the Sounder trains. A substantial chunk of that money will be used by the railroad to encroach on Puget Sound tidelands – one of the largest industrial fills of tidelands since Washington adopted the Shoreline Management Act in 1971. For most of the distance, the line runs right along the shoreline, not many feet above high tide, which might be oblivious to the impact of global warming.

Another environmental drawback is that Sound Transit actively promotes and subsidizes sprawl by operation of Sounder commuter rail. It provides spacious, handy free parking at all Sounder stations and intends to build a lot more so people can live hither and yon, drive their single-occupancy vehicles to the train, and take long, lavishly subsidized trips to downtown Seattle to work. The same perks are provided for Tacoma Link, as a commute avenue to downtown Tacoma. Sound Transit Executive Director Joni Earl illustrated the inducements to sprawl in the February/March 2007 edition of Mass Transit Magazine, which featured her on the cover: "Because I ride the train, I talk to customers a lot," Earl declared. "There was a guy I just started chatting with, and he said his wife and he wanted to live more in the country. They've always been in Seattle and wanted to raise their children in a more suburban-type setting. And he said the only way that made it possible was Sounder."

But the greatest harm to the environment and the public comes when you calculate the lost opportunities. Much could be done to move people and reduce congestion in energy-efficient, cost-effective, health-enhancing ways, but Sound Transit is sucking up a huge share of the fiscal oxygen. Vanpools and better use of existing transit have been mentioned. Carpools are a third option. Incentives and programs to increase carpooling just a little would take more cars off the road, and save more energy, than anything Sound Transit aspires to do, and do it much faster, more reliably, with less risk. Completing the HOV system and instituting congestion pricing should be high priorities.

The leading forfeited opportunity is bicycling, the best possible transportation mode: cost-effective, energy-efficient, non-polluting, and healthy – save for the danger from surrounding cars.

Largely due to poor civic leadership, people are oblivious to the role of bicycles in numerous modern, European cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen. These cities might be flatter than Seattle and more compact, but modern bicycles and good route selection cope well with hills, and northern Europe is more afflicted with snow, ice, and cold. "Two-wheels rule the roads, it's difficult to get lost, and there are bike paths everywhere," a New York Times story about Amsterdam recently declared. "The best way to get around is by bike or on foot."

A quarter-century ago, Amsterdam and Copenhagen were accumulating heavy automotive traffic, more congestion, more accidents, squeezing out bicycles and pedestrians, just like American cities. Since then, they've worked and invested to facilitate and promote bicycling and walking, reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases, improve air quality, enhance the health of participants, and radically reduce the frequency of accidents. Much of the focus has been the provision of safe, exclusive corridors, often taking lanes or even streets that had been dedicated to (or encroached on by) automobiles. Also key is paying close attention to safe crossings, so that children, even young children, can safely bicycle to school, as most now do.

In those cities, the market share of transit is six to eight times what it is here – 16 percent in Amsterdam and 20 percent in Copenhagen, contrasted with less than 3 percent in Sound Transit's domain. Bicycling outstrips transit, with market shares well beyond 20 percent and growing. Here, it's roughly 1 percent.

Most local folks own bicycles, but they won't think of bicycle commuting because it's dangerous, for lack of safe routes. With a modest commitment, good planning and execution, and some of the money currently siphoned out of the economy by Sound Transit, bicycling could quickly surpass transit in market share.

On March 7, City Council member Peter Steinbrueck hosted a civic forum featuring Brian Hansen, a bicycle planner from Copenhagen. The large audience got a picture of what an enlightened city can do to improve and extend bicycle commuting and, by doing so, save energy and money, reduce greenhouse gases, and improve health and safety. Not to be upstaged, especially not by Steinbrueck, four weeks later Mayor Greg Nickels announced his $240 million bicycle plan, an impressive number, although there is only $27 million in hand to support it over the next 10 years.

Sound Transit compounds the bicycle imbalance by poor planning to facilitate cyclists. Recently it announced that light-rail cars will accommodate 200 passengers (by cramming them on) but only two bicycles. Two!

They just don't get it

Source crosscut 2007

Washington State Ferries plans to save money by building boats out of state

2008-11-18T11:34:00.000-08:00

Ferries built out of state could cost state less

Washington State Ferries could save millions of dollars by opening new ferry construction to shipyards outside the state, slowing the vessel speed and idling slower at the docks.

By Susan Gilmore

Seattle Times staff reporter

Washington State Ferries could save millions of dollars by opening new ferry construction to shipyards outside the state, slowing the vessel speed and idling slower at the docks.

Further, the state should put off building two new 144-car boats and instead build four like the 64-car boat planned for the Port Townsend-Keystone route.

Those findings were presented Monday to the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC), by consultant Kathy Scanlan of the Cedar River Group, a public-policy consultant used frequently by the ferry service.

The JTC, comprised of state lawmakers, was created during the 2005 legislative session to review and research transportation programs and make recommendations to the Legislature and state government.

Consultant and naval architect John Boylston, who contracts with the Cedar River Group and the JTC, also briefed the lawmakers, saying the state could save 20 percent in ferry-building costs if the bids were open to any U.S. shipyard. Currently, bids are accepted only from Washington shipyards.

He said in Mississippi labor is 20 percent cheaper than here, and steel prices here can be 30 percent higher than on the Gulf Coast.

Boylston said Halter Shipyards in Mississippi built the first Island Home, a model being considered for the Port Townsend boat which is now in use in New England. Halter told him it could build a Washington Island Home ferry for $47 million, far below the single $65 million bid offered last week by Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle.

But what Todd and Boylston said drove up the cost, in part, was the state's 18-month construction schedule — something Boylston said is impossible for any shipyard to meet. If Todd gets the bid, it will pay $6,000 each day it is late.

Boylston said Todd's bid seemed reasonable. The Halter estimate didn't include extra design work, required bonds, which would add $2 million to the price, an estimated $2 million to bring the boat to Washington and the estimated $2 million penalty Todd will face for a delivery one year late — which Boylston said is certain to happen.

The state plans to decide in the next two weeks whether to accept Todd's bid.

In other findings given to the JTC by Scanlan:

• Reducing vessel speed by 1 knot (1 knot equals about 1.15 mph) could save $6 million a year — 12 percent of fuel costs — although it could affect schedules. Slowing idle speeds at the dock from 60 rpms to 30 could save $27 million between 2009 and 2030.

advertising

• The state should put off until 2021-2030 construction of two of proposed six new 144-car boats now in the design phase, and instead build four Island Home boats to serve Port Townsend, Point Defiance and the San Juan Island inter-island route.

• The state's cost estimate for the 144-car boats is low. The state's estimate is $115 million per boat in 2008 dollars; the consultants put the cost at $135 million.

The JTC was also given ferries' new customer survey, Monday. It found:

• There's been a sharp drop in commute trips on the ferries, from 68 percent of the total in 1993 to 48 percent this year.

• Ferry fares could rise as much as 60 percent before the cost of lost riders exceeded revenue from higher fares.

• Fewer than one in 10 riders say they could change their travel habits to avoid peak commutes.

• A 20 percent fare increase would decrease those driving on the ferries by 9 percent, increase those walking on by 9 percent and increase the percentage of those who wouldn't take the trip by 53 percent.

• When asked important issues on their ferry-riding decision, time was three times as important as cost.

Tolls without the toll-booth heading for SR 520 and I 90

2008-11-18T11:18:00.000-08:00

Toll-booth-free tolling on SR 520 and I-90

As early as 2010, the east-west transportation corridor could see a return to the pay-as-you-go model, done without the slowdown of a toll booth.

By Matt Rosenberg
November 18, 2008.

The State Route 520 Tolling Implementation Committee's "November Scenario Evaluation" document (pdf) released last week shows that the most robust regional financing for replacing the dangerously sub-par 520 bridge comes from time-variable tolling starting in 2010 and tolling the parallel I-90 span across Lake Washington, starting in 2010 or 2016. Tolling in this key east-west corridor would be done on the fly, electronically, with vehicle windshield transponders and overhead gantries — no toll booths. Tolls that vary by time of day are likely, though flat rates are also an option. Special lanes that would be free to buses and ride-sharers could be made available to solo drivers, for a price.

The committee's members are WSDOT Secretary Paula Hammond, Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Director Bob Drewel, and Washington State Transportation Commission board member Richard Ford. This latest analysis, along with public comment, will inform a January 2009 final report from the committee to the state legislature, which is then to approve a tolling plan for the SR 520 bridge and perhaps the I-90 bridge as well. Then, specific toll rates would be set by the state transportation commission and approved by the legislature, with construction of pontoons for the new 520 bridge beginning later in 2009 if all goes as envisioned.

The weary and crowded 1963-vintage 520 bridge connects Seattle with Eastside job centers such as Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland but is at major risk of catastrophic failure in a 70 mph windstorm, or earthquake. At the same time, growing regional traffic congestion has prompted a public warming to expansion of regional transit, and bettered the odds for a system of electronic, time-variable tolling on major highways and state routes across metro Puget Sound. A priced-lanes pilot project for carpoolers and solo drivers is already underway on SR 167, and flat-rate electronic tolling in place, to rave reviews, on the new southbound span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

The 520 tolling committee's latest report reveals that:

# Starting tolling in 2010 instead of at bridge completion in 2016 would pry loose an additional $400-$500 million, lowering the costs of bond borrowing for construction, which is to be repaid by tolls;

# The most revenue toward completion of the $3.7 to $3.9 billion project comes from tolling both the SR 520 and I-90 bridges starting in 2010 ($2.4 billion, Scenario No. 9) or 520 in 2010 and I-90 in 2016 ($2.4 billion, Scenario No. 4);

# One-way tolls on both bridges would range from 75 cents off-peak to $2.95 at peak hours in Scenario No. 9, and from 75 cents off-peak to $3.25 at peak in Scenario No. 4;

# Tolling 520 alone starting in 2010 (Scenario No. 7) would cut peak-hour traffic volume in the vicinity of 17 to 26 percent while peak-hour flow would rise three to seven percent on I-90;

# Tolling both 520 and I-90 starting in 2016 (Scenario No. 9) would deliver peak-hour volume cuts of 10 to 11 percent on 520 and 12-16 percent on I-90, as commuters shift travel times or use transit;

# Time-variable tolling increases peak-hour speeds on 520 by 13-16 mph, nearly double the speed gain from flat toll rates.

Tolling opponents somehow imagine they are due a free ride because the construction, maintenance, and operations costs of Puget Sound roads and bridges, as population continues to swell in coming decades, can somehow all be covered by the incredible shrinking gas tax and ... what? More sales tax hikes or vehicle fees? They're nice if you can get 'em, but the well only runs so deep.

Pay as you go is the way to go in this day and age — coupled with cost-saving, performance-based consortium contracting to design, build, operate, and maintain surface transportation facilities and systems.

The four-lane SR 520 bridge across the lake is to be replaced with a six-lane structure. Current plans call for two "general purpose" lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction, the former would be tolled via either a flat or time-variable rate if a plan is adopted. This is confirmed by WSDOT, though it can get a bit confusing because one doesn't necessarily think of general purpose lanes as being tolled. On the I-90 bridge, the agency also confirms, tolling would be on all general purpose vehicle lanes, except under one scenario that exempts eastbound traffic from Mercer Island. On both bridges the possible HOV lane could be designated a High Occupancy and Toll (HOT lane), free to transit and ride-share vehicles, but also available, for a toll, to solo drivers.

The more time-variable tolling, and the sooner, the better: It will further drive alternative choices such as ride-sharing and telework, and raise more money for regional surface transportation needs, transit included.

The policy decisions to come on tolling the SR 520 bridge, and perhaps the I-90 bridge as well, are an important turning point for the state and region. Going forward, a broad regional plan to implement time-variable tolling on several highways and major state routes is needed. That would allocate scarce peak-hour capacity, ease congestion, and help pay for billions more in needed safety, repair, and mobility improvements on I-5, SR 99, SR 704, SR 509, US 2 and I-405/SR 167.

The question is, how serious are we about doing this? The legislature will provide the first piece of the answer when it next meets.
Editor's Note: This article first appeared at Cascadia Prospectus.

Matt Rosenberg is a senior fellow at the Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a transportation think tank that is part of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. E-mail him at mattr@discovery.org.
View this story online at: http://crosscut.com/2008/11/18/520-bridge/18637/

DC sluggers worry HOT lanes will destroy their free rides

2008-11-14T13:48:00.000-08:00

Slugs' Fear HOT Lanes Will End Free Rides
Carpoolers' Worries Not Fully Weighed, N.Va. Official Says

By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 10, 2008; B01

Commuters who carpool along the Interstate 95/395 corridor to the Pentagon or the District continue to raise concerns about the proposed HOT lanes that will replace the HOV lanes from Dumfries to the 14th Street bridge.

The carpoolers, also known as "slugs," accept free rides from strangers, allowing drivers to use HOV lanes that require a minimum of three passengers per vehicle during rush hours. The slugging system in Northern Virginia is considered to be among the most extensive and successful in the country.

Slugs fear that allowing toll-payers into the existing carpool lanes will tempt affluent drivers who now welcome passengers to drive solo instead. Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors and a frequent slugger, last week called for an independent study of how the HOT lanes would affect the impromptu carpooling system. He also complained that the private companies planning the toll lanes have not fully addressed the questions and concerns of slugs and HOV drivers.

Stewart said he is skeptical of the plans because they are taking a system that works and turning it over to private companies. He also raised safety concerns about operating three traffic lanes in the two-lane footprint.

Slugging is thought to date to the early 1970s, when commuters hoping to form carpools for the HOV lanes would gather at bus stops. Slug is the term for a fake coin in a bus farebox, and it is believed bus drivers characterized the waiting carpoolers that way because the commuters, although waiting at bus stops, were not bus riders.

State officials said they have no desire to discourage the practice.

"Why on earth would we be building 6,700 commuter [parking] spots in the corridor if we were not serious about HOV and transit?'' Virginia Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer asked. "Slugging and transit are the most efficient and environmentally friendly transportation alternatives out there."

The goal of the HOT lanes is to use variable pricing to keep the lanes free-flowing. There is no upper limit on toll rates. Drivers who don't want to pay can use the free, non-HOT lanes. The companies that plan to convert the two-lane HOV facility into a three-lane toll highway say they will still allow carpools of three or more to ride free. But hybrid cars with fewer than three passengers, which are now largely allowed in HOV lanes, will have to pay the tolls, which could top $1 a mile. The companies also say they will create additional entry and exit points and crack down on cheaters, who they say make up 20 percent of the current HOV traffic flow.

The project also includes $195 million for the state to increase transit along the I-95/395 corridor, said Young Ho Chang, project manager for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

Stewart said he was afraid that the toll lanes would harm sluggers by clogging up the lanes.

"We need some guarantees here, not promises," Stewart said.

Last month, Prince William supervisors passed a resolution demanding all correspondence between VDOT and the companies sponsoring the project, Transurban and Fluor Corp. The resolution also demanded that representatives appear before the board to answer questions by February.

On Thursday, representatives of Transurban and VDOT met with Stewart for a previously scheduled meeting to update him and other Prince William officials. Stewart invited the media and said he hoped the companies and VDOT would be more forthcoming with their plans.

Experts are divided over the impact the project might have on sluggers. Some think that drivers with the financial means would pay the tolls to avoid the hassles of picking up passengers. Others say that slugging will increase as drivers try to avoid paying the fluctuating tolls.

If traffic bogs down, "we'll just raise the price until we chase everyone else off," said Timothy Young, development manager for Transurban, who attended the meeting with Stewart.

During the meeting, company officials declined to share projections about how many vehicles might use the HOT lanes, saying the information was proprietary. They also said many other financial and operational details were not available because the companies have not completed negotiations with VDOT, which owns the HOV lanes.

Company officials said they have held focus group discussions with sluggers but did not commit to an independent study, as requested by Stewart.

Young said the company and VDOT have held dozens of informational meetings with stakeholders in Prince William and other jurisdictions the project would affect. The project, which would extend the current HOV lanes south to Garrisonville Road in Stafford County, is undergoing review for federal environmental approval. He said he hoped that VDOT would complete the environmental process by the end of the month and that the project would receive federal approval by the end of the year. Then the companies and VDOT would negotiate a financial agreement by next fall.

A second phase, which would extend HOT lanes to Massaponax in Spotsylvania County, has just begun the federal environmental process, which could take 18 months to complete.

Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007 caused by "Design errors" concludes NTSB

2008-11-14T13:44:00.000-08:00

NTSB: Design errors caused 2007 bridge collapse

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER and JOAN LOWY – 21 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Undersized steel reinforcing plates were cited Thursday as the chief cause of last year's deadly collapse of a highway bridge in Minneapolis. Federal investigators also said the plates were overstressed by almost 300 tons of construction material piled on the bridge.

Investigators told the National Transportation Safety Board that the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge on Aug. 1, 2007, was unavoidable once gusset plates in the center span failed.

When that happened, it dragged other sections of the bridge and rush-hour commuters into the Mississippi River, killing 13 and injuring 145. The plates are commonly fused to intersecting beams to reinforce the connection.

Investigators focused on the U-10 gusset plates, which were designed at only half the required thickness. But they also discussed the construction materials on the center span over the Mississippi River.

"Had the gusset plates been properly sized, this bridge would still be there," said Bruce Magladry, director of the NTSB's office of highway safety.

Board members criticized Minnesota officials for allowing 287 tons of construction materials to be stockpiled on the bridge's center on the day of the collapse. During rush hour that evening, the bridge shuddered and then dropped into the river.

Investigators told the board that Minnesota did not have any policy on weight added to bridges for construction projects.

Minnesota's transportation commissioner, Tom Sorel, attended the hearing and told reporters, "We've changed our specifications to make sure that doesn't happen again." Sorel became commissioner this year.

Investigators said the half-inch thick plates were inadequate to handle traffic and other stress factors and did not meet engineering guidelines when the bridge was built in 1967.

The board's final ruling was expected Friday.

In a statement, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who had come in for some criticism on bridge upkeep, noted that the board ruled out corrosion or cracking, adding that the design flaw "was unrelated to subsequent inspections or maintenance of the bridge."

But board member Debbie Hersman noted that a Minnesota transportation official had noticed bowing, or bending, of the U-10 gusset years before the collapse, and the state took no action.

NTSB officials said that was because gusset plates were always assumed to be the strongest link. Hersman suggested that assumption was unfounded. Other board members agreed.

"Where does this urban myth come from that gusset plates are so strong?" she asked.

The bridge was called "fracture critical." That meant a failure of any number of structural elements would bring down the entire bridge.

Safety board investigator Jim Wildey said there is "nothing inherently dangerous" about this type of bridge, as long as each structural element is designed to withstand the expected stress loads.

In St. Paul, Minn., a group of collapse survivors gathered at a National Guard armory to watch the NTSB presentation on the Internet. Michele McLane, 41, said the hearing was "the last door to close for me."

McLane, who drove her car safely off the northern end of the span, said the experience left her emotionally traumatized. "I finally get it now," she said. "I finally understand."

During Barack Obama's campaign for the White House, he cited the bridge collapse and called for spending more on crumbling highways, bridges and tunnels.

In July, the House passed legislation authorizing an additional $1 billion next year to rebuild structurally deficient bridges on the national highway system. The bill would require states to come up with repair plans for troubled bridges.

The Senate has yet to act on the bill. If no action is taken during a lame-duck session that starts next week, lawmakers would have to start anew on the legislation in January.

Light Rail wins in Seattle, LA,; loses in Kansas City and San Jose

2008-11-14T13:12:00.000-08:00

Rail transit ballot measures lost in Kansas City and San Jose, but won in Seattle, Sonoma-Marin counties, and Los Angeles. From the point of view of sensible transportation policy, the biggest disaster of the election was passage of the California high-speed rail measure.

Sometimes I think it is wonderful that we can live in a country that is so wealthy that we can afford to build rail lines that cost five times as much per mile as freeway lanes yet carry only one-fifth as many people. But, as it turns out, we really can’t afford to do so.

The bursting of the stockmarket bubble in 2001 would have sent us into a recession but for the increase in consumer spending that resulted from the housing bubble. Now that the housing bubble has burst, our weak economy stands naked and trembling for all to see. Yet this did not much dampen enthusiasm for ridiculous rail projects.

First, the good news. After rejecting light rail seven times, then approving a plan that turned out to be unworkable, Kansas City once again resoundingly defeated a new light-rail plan. It would be nice to think that after 56 percent of voters rejected this plan that it will stay dead and buried, but these things always come back.

As it came back to Santa Clara County, California, which in 2000 approved a sales tax increase for a BART line from Fremont to San Jose. But the line turned out to cost a lot more than expected, so votes were asked for another sales tax increase. The latest count says that 66.27 percent said yes, which means that it failed because California requires a two-thirds majority to pass tax increases. But it was painfully close.

In two other ballot measures, San Jose residents gave up what little oversight they have over the nation’s worst transit agency, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Under VTA’s charter, the agency must submit its transportation plan to the voters every six years. In measure C, VTA asked voters to approve a plan that it had not yet completed. In measure D, VTA asked voters to repeal the requirement that it submit plans to the voters. Both passed by huge margins.

In Los Angeles, the “red” subway line is, by all accounts, a failure, costing 50 percent more to build than the original estimates and carrying less than half as many people as estimated. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) was content to focus instead on light rail. But L.A.’s new mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, wanted to complete the “subway-to-the-sea” line, and he managed to persuade 67.4 percent of voters to raise sales taxes to do so.

The “SMART” train is a proposed commuter-rail line in Sonoma and Marin counties that would end near (but not at) a San Francisco ferry terminal but otherwise not approach any major job centers. Voters twice before failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to fund it, but in this case, the third time’s the charm.

Finally, California high-speed rail passed with 52.2 percent of the vote. This commits California to spend $9 billion starting construction on what ultimately will be a $50 to $60 or more billion megaproject.

Backers of the plan are counting on getting matching or even more than matching funds from the federal government. They may even get it, but not without starting high-speed rail crazes in other parts of the country.

It is widely agreed that government failure caused the current economic crisis (though not everyone agrees on just what that failure was). Ironically, as NBC anchor Brian Williams noted during Tuesday night’s election coverage, “There is evidence that more people are now viewing government as the solution and not the problem.” It will be sad indeed if we end up suffering from more government failures as a response to government failures of the past.

Vote No on Pop 1 again

2008-10-28T13:43:00.001-07:00

Op-Ed - Vote No on the 'rail package'

By John V. Fox and Carolee Colter

Monday, October 27, 2008

Last year, we urged readers to oppose Proposition 1, the regional transportation package that was placed on the November '07 ballot. That $18 billion measure, including $7 billion for roads and most of the rest for light rail, was soundly defeated. But somehow the Sound Transit board interpreted that to mean they could come back again this November with another $18 billion ballot measure, only this time stripped of the roads component.

Repackaged under the banner "transit now," Proposition 1 would pay for construction of 34 additional miles of light-rail track, additional Sounder train service to the south, a First Hill streetcar, and a handful of express buses.

Even without roadway funding, it's still a global-warming, carbon-emitting lemon of a proposal and here's why:

- The measure allows Sound Transit to extend the existing sales tax of 0.04 percent and raise it by another 0.05 percent. This would bring Seattle's total sales tax burden to nearly 10 cents on the dollar - perhaps the highest rate in the nation. While the agency says the $18 billion package ($23 billion with interest) will be paid off in 2038, they've structured the tax to allow collection through 2053 and in an amount that literally would exceed $100 billion. Clearly officials lack confidence they can complete these light rail extensions within budget.

- It's a misnomer for Proposition 1 supporters to label this proposal "transit now." Light rail funded by the measure won't come on line until at least 2023. Meanwhile Seattle and the region continue to add population and commuters at an alarming rate - over 300,000 new residents since 2000. If we're going to get people out of their cars, we can't wait 15 years for a transit solution. As County Executive Ron Sims recently said, "We can't wait even 15 months." Sims, by the way, is one of the few regional leaders with the courage to speak out against Proposition 1.

- With gas prices rising, King County Metro reports a phenomenal increase in bus ridership - up 9 percent over the summer when ridership normally dips. Now with over 400,000 riders per day, area buses are crammed to the gills. At a time when we should be dramatically expanding the bus system, Sims reports that Metro lacks even the funding to maintain current levels of service. He's called for fare increases and asked Metro to tap into its reserve fund to make up the shortfall. For a fraction of the cost of Proposition 1's light rail extension, we could dramatically expand the number of buses and add dozens of new routes and truly provide "transit now."
*

But alas, Prop 1 allocates only about 2 percent of its total package for buses. To quote Sims again, "The plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years." Contrary to the claims of Prop 1 supporters, if we pour nearly all our transit dollars into a staggeringly expensive rail system, there's little left over for real solutions like buses, vans, carpooling, shuttle service, bike, and pedestrian amenities.

- Nothing exemplifies our misguided transit priorities more than our area leaders' obsession with rail - a plan that according to one study will serve only 0.4 percent of all trips in 2030. Earlier this summer area leaders including Mayor Nickels and members of our City Council had an opportunity to insist that a significant chunk of Prop 1's funding go to buses and other non-rail transit solutions. Rail is at least 40 percent more expensive to operate than buses (not counting the cost of adding several $100 million rail stations along each route). Instead, these officials asked that money's be inserted in the Prop 1 package for a costly toy of a streetcar line on Capitol Hill. Last year those same officials chose to divert monies Metro had dedicated for new bus routes in Seattle and instead use them to cover a portion of the operating costs for Paul Allen's South Lake Union Streetcar.

- Finally, and most damning of all, Prop 1 locks us for decades into an unsustainable car dependent pattern of growth. Our state's former Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald said it best in a recent issue of Crosscut, the local online magazine. Light rail, he says, assumes that most of the region's growth will be concentrated in or near the major urban centers including Bellevue, Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. But despite our local government's best efforts to concentrate growth along or near planned rail routes serving these areas, it's simply not happening. Population and jobs are exploding on the margins of the region's growth boundaries in areas like Monroe, Marysville, Mount Vernon, Mill Creek, Issaquah, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, Dupont, Duvall, Bonney Lake, and a dozen other formerly rural areas. These areas cry out for creation of small transit centers with buses, vans, car pools, paths and bikeways running to and from those hubs. Lacking funding for these solutions (because most of our area transit dollars are being poured into rail) folks in these outlying areas have no choice but to continue to drive their cars.

As the rail line for Rainier Valley makes clear, light rail is not really about transportation. It's about real estate, displacement, and gentrification. Consider that most of the small businesses and residents displaced by light rail construction were low income and minorities. It's the rail lobby and real estate interests driving Prop 1, hiding under the illusion that this plan will curb use of cars and promote "sustainable" patterns of growth.

On the contrary, passage of this measure will lock us into a regional growth scenario that will keep us and our children and our children's children dependent on the automobile for decades to come.

Vote "NO" on Prop 1!

John V. Fox and Carolee Colter may be reached via wseditor@robinsonnews.com

Please share your point of view on this story. Comments posted with First and Last names will be considered for publication in the print edition. You may request that your name not be published. You may also send your comment directly to the editor at wseditor@robinsonnews.com.

Gerry wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:43 PM:
" So, an effective, reliable, quality mass transit system is going to create car dependency, eh? Amazing these two were given an inch of column space.

As is usually the case with most rail opponents, John Fox and Carolee Colter are fighting a totally different battle: density, and re-development. In their effort to excuse and encourage suburban sprawl, these perma-activists are actually fighting the good things rail delivers: dense, affordable human-scale housing around rail centers. But, if your lot in life is to ignore middle income residents - in favor of the very poor and very rich - light rail is the big, bad boogeyman.

John Fox fought the redevelopment of Holly Park, and the quality of life enhancements which came along with it. Light rail, again, was the evil instrument of modernity in the Rainier Valley...and that so-called "gentrification?" Well, yeah. Property values go up when drug dealers and gang violence goes down. You can tell John Fox and his one-man-band The Seattle Displacement Coalition are really looking out for the little guy.

Carpools and vanpools for suburbanites - and lousy bus service for the urban poor - instead of a quality, reliable mass transit system? Give me a break. This is crusty, car-centric old Seattle in its last throes. Living in the past, rather than looking to the future, is a sure way to sink all boats. "

Rossi acknowledges WA State budget deficit would defer his transportation plan

2008-10-25T13:53:00.000-07:00

Dems blast Rossi for admitting policies will take time to implement

By Bryan Bissell, PolitickerWA.com Reporter

State Democrats are pouncing on an article by the Everett Herald's Jerry Cornfield published Wednesday revealed that, in light of the state's projected budget deficit, Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi admitted that two of his top priorities, his massive transportation plan and repealing the estate tax, would be placed on the back burner.

Cornfield writes that although Rossi still touts these plans on the campaign trail, he has come to acknowledge their delay in interviews because of the priority of the state budget. Still, Rossi is far from abandoning them entirely.

"I have to right this ship first," Rossi said in the article. "We are going to get all the projects started within the first four years. The whole goal is to get all of them finished in 12 years."

Meanwhile both Gov. Gregoire's campaign and the state Democratic Party are calling Rossi's admission deceitful, and implying that the budget is the reason that Gregoire has refrained from making similar plans.

Gregoire has pointed out the additional financial burden Rossi's transportation plan would have on the state's projected budget deficit numerous times, including during some of the debates.

"Why does Rossi continue to tout his broken promises on the stump and in his ads? Breaking campaign promises even before the campaign is even over must be pretty embarrassing," said Aaron Toso, spokesman for Gregoire for Governor, said in a statement. "Voters shouldn't believe anything he has to say."

Rossi has made similar claims about Gregoire's campaign promises dating back to the 2004 campaign and stem cell research facilities.

The state party, as usual, released a more harshly worded statement condemning Rossi's acknowledgement.

"Republican Dino Rossi has demonstrated he will do or say anything to get elected, offering such ridiculous promises and outrageous claims that he's been forced to abandon them before the election even occurs," said Washington State Democratic Party spokesman Kelly Steele. "While Gov. Gregoire has maintained a budget surplus and has already taken fiscally-responsible action to cut any projected deficit in half, Republican Dino Rossi continues his used car salesman-like pitch to voters - saying whatever he thinks they want to hear - even after admitting he can't deliver on his promises. Quite simply, there's no reason to believe a single word Rossi says."

The so-called myths of light rail...which may actually be true

2008-10-23T11:21:00.000-07:00

Seattle never 'misses a chance to miss a chance' on light rail

The only thing keeping it from succeeding here are the myths propagated by foes, says this economics journalist. Here's a line-by-line debunking.
By Jon Talton
October 23, 2008.

At least two big rail transit measures are on the ballot around the country this November, maybe more. In Seattle, voters will be asked to approve light-rail expansion. And in California, there's a truly transformative measure to build a high-speed rail network.

Both will probably fail, both due to the financial crisis but, sadly, also to the pervasive myths and muddled thinking that keep America frozen with an increasingly unworkable 1965 transportation network. This post will attempt to take a few of these on:
Myth #1: The problem can be solved by adding more buses.

Many people who claim to support transit advocate expanding bus service, saying buses are cheaper and more flexible. Unfortunately this is also the bait-and-switch position of anti-rail, anti-transit forces — they will initially support bus transit but then oppose actually funding it. In any event, while buses have their place, they are not enough for a balanced, multi-modal 21st century transportation system.
Reality

Buses get stuck in the same traffic congestion that snarls cars — and politicians will never create enough bus-only lanes to alleviate this. In downtown Seattle, a bus-rider's heaven, buses are routinely clotted up, even with bus lanes. Your bus is not only late, but it can be the fourth or fifth one back in a line stopped to take on passengers. Good luck getting there if you walk slowly. Buses with stairs are hard for many people to enter. And buses have a stigma in many communities. As I say, buses have a valuable place. But they can't replace rail for reliability, ease of entry, ease of riding, rider appeal, and passenger-miles-per-unit of energy.
Myth #2: Pave, baby, pave.

We've been adding more roads for years, and traffic congestion just keeps getting worse. Metro Phoenix is a laboratory example of this. But the phenomenon was first noted with the parkway construction and other car-based projects of Robert Moses in New York in the 1930s: These roadways actually become "congestion generators." Nevertheless, this is the American mindset. In supposedly "green" Washington state, the Republican candidate for governor promises to build and widen roads, and he's neck-in-neck in the race.
Reality

But the case against more roads goes deeper than the fact that wider freeways, etc., often just don't work. The automobile is a key factor behind metropolitan air pollution and global warming. Now it is going to be a victim of peak oil. Any replacement vehicles will be much more expensive than the internal combustion engine running on light sweet crude that was abundant in 1965, but will grow less so every year ahead. So we're going to need transportation alternatives.
Myth #3: Public transit is too costly.

The news media and the conservative "think tanks" obsess about the price tag of transit projects (an exception is this LA Times endorsement). They never talk about the real costs of freeways and roads — not just the nominal price of paving, etc., but the huge, embedded expenses associated with increased pollution, increased warming, loss of farmland and natural habitat to sprawl and the destabilization of neighborhoods and urban cores.
Reality

Highways actually don't pay for themselves. And there's not a transportation system in the world that isn't subsidized (look at our serial airline crises, and this with a host of hidden subsidies already). It just matters how a society sets its priorities. Thus, Europe has advanced bullet trains, intercity trains, light rail networks, subways — and China is building them. Several European city-pair routes have seen high-speed rail kill off the (more polluting) airline competition. Cost? These projects only get more expensive every time America refuses to build a system.

The more troubling aspect of this argument brings us back to the poisonous and decadent myth that has been foisted on the American people since 1981 that tax cuts are free, and they can get something for nothing. If previous generations had followed this bread-and-circuses illogic, we wouldn't even have a nation. Public works are the foundation of an advanced civilization, and "the free market" alone won't provide for the public good. Government intervention, starting with Abraham Lincoln, created the transcontinental railroad. It built the airline system, even as passenger railroads were taxed to death. It built the Interstate highway system. All this without a second peep about that extra dime or quarter from the average taxpayer. Now we face entirely new competitive and indeed civilizational survival realities, but "it costs too much."

Another aspect of cost that gets no attention is how well-funded (and well concealed) the opposition is. The sprawl, road-building, oil, and auto industries have been successfully defeating transit initiatives for decades. Conservative "think tanks" (i.e., advocacy groups grinding out fake research that always supports their position), also very lavishly funded, have a fetish against transit — something about the fear of maybe riding in the same rail car as a brown person. On the other hand, there is no big money, pro-transit lobby in this country.
(Seattle-specific) Myth #4: It's not perfect enough.

Seattle never misses a chance to miss a chance to build a great mass transit network — all the while bemoaning how far behind Portland it is. And no measure put before voters reaches the desired perfection — as if that happens anywhere.
Reality

Large public works usually have to make political and other compromises. That happens in democracies. The Tennessee Valley Authority could have been "better" — but it turned out pretty damned good. Now, the Sound Transit measure takes a long time to build out. Well, that's because backers are terrified of asking voters to approve more money to build it faster. At least it's a start.
Myth #5: People won't ride it.

Huh?
Reality

Amtrak ridership is at records, and this with a vastly underfunded system. It was amazing watching the every-other-day train stop at 3 a.m. in Cincinnati — once a major passenger rail hub — and a crowd of people waiting to get on.

Imagine how it would work with a convenient and frequent set of trains on high-speed roadbed. Amtrak corridor service in such places as California, the Northeast, the Northwest, even Michigan, is doing especially well. Light-rail systems routinely break ridership projections. This is not 1965. America is denser, more urban, and many people are sick of driving. They long for alternatives.

So here we go again? Can we still build a 21st century civilization in the United States? Maybe a President Obama will start to turn things around. A President McCain promises to defund Amtrak, and that's just the start.

Jon Talton is a freelance writer and business columnist for The Seattle Times. A journalist for nearly 30 years, he blogs regularly at Rogue Columnist, where this post first appeared.
View this story online at: http://crosscut.com/2008/10/23/transportation/18584/

Rossi will defer his transportation plan due to WA state economic crisis

2008-10-22T13:56:00.000-07:00

Two of his big plans -- money for roads and eliminating the estate tax -- would take back seat to a balanced budget, the candidate says.

By Jerry Cornfield
Herald Writer
OLYMPIA -- Voters counting on Dino Rossi for a quicker fix to transportation problems and demise of the death tax may be waiting longer than they expect.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Rossi is delaying pursuit of those two key promises separating him from Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, blaming a worsening state budget outlook as the cause.

"First off we have to right the ship, financially," Rossi said.

If elected, Rossi said he won't try to divert hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax into road projects in the next two years because the money may be needed to help overcome a projected $3.2 billion shortfall.

Likewise, he will wait at least two years before proposing to eliminate the estate tax -- a source of roughly $105 million a year since 2005.

"We are going to be facing a tough biennium. He realizes the first thing he'll have to do in office is to balance the budget," said Jill Strait, Rossi's campaign spokeswoman.

Changing how the state funds transportation and erasing the estate tax are two of the most established planks in Rossi's platform.

He acknowledges his shift in position on them in interviews. In front of crowds, he's still touting his transportation plan and his commitment to repeal the estate tax, without mentioning any delays.

It's a significant new shift, said Gregoire's campaign spokesman Aaron Toso. Those have been two of Rossi's few specific proposals in this campaign, he said.

"Rossi is breaking his campaign promises before the campaign is even over," Toso said. "There isn't a reason for voters to believe anything Rossi has to say."

Toso added, "At least Rossi finally agrees that his campaign promises would create an additional $1.3 billion 'Rossi deficit' on top of any projected shortfall."

Rossi's adjusted stance won't matter for voters because at this stage, emotion, more than any issue, is influencing them, said Republican political strategist Dave Mortenson.

"At this point in the campaign voters are tired of the rhetoric. It boils down to what their gut feeling is," he said.

Terry Thompson, a campaign consultant for Democratic candidates, said he didn't think it will sway many voters either and shows Rossi is "exercising caution" in his positions at this stage.

Rossi made a big splash in April when he laid out a $15 billion transportation plan. The majority of the cost is for major road projects to be finished in the next 12 years. The list includes $600 million worth of improvements on U.S. 2.

Roughly half the money for Rossi's plan comes from using 40 percent of the sales tax collected on the sale of new and used cars. That money, estimated at about $400 million a year, now goes into the general fund for programs such as education and health care, rather than roads.

Since April, the deficit projection grew from $2.5 billion to its current $3.2 billion, prompting him to rethink his strategy, Rossi said.

"I have to right this ship first," Rossi said. "We are going to get all the projects started within the first four years. The whole goal is to get all of them finished in 12 years."

Rossi did not say how he will generate money for those projects like U.S. 2 that are not now funded in the state transportation budget. Strait said it is his goal to be tapping into the sales tax by the end of his first term.

The inheritance tax is a defining issue for the candidates.

In 2005, after a state Supreme Court decision invalidated an old estate tax law, Gregoire had it rewritten and pushed for its reinstatement. Voters later affirmed it.

According to the governor's budget office, 99.5 percent of estates do not pay the tax.

Since it came back on the books May 17, 2005, 808 estates have paid $314.5 million, said Glenn Kuper, spokesman for the Office of Financial Management. The money is earmarked for education.

Rossi wants to get rid of the tax and to scale back taxes paid by businesses. While campaigning, he says taking those steps will help small companies and create jobs.

Yet in an interview, he said he will put off reducing any taxes until the state starts taking in more money than it is spending.

"Once we get that on the right plane, there will be monies available above the line of spending that could be available for potential tax reductions," he said.

Strait said that will not likely occur until at least 2011.

Eyman's I-985 attacked for reducing incentive for cities to introduce red light cameras

2008-10-22T13:24:00.000-07:00

Eyman's I-985 invites road tragedies

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

DURING THE past decade, our state's less savvy citizens have seen voting for Tim Eyman's tax initiatives as a pain-free way of giving local government a poke in the eye.

The officials so often abused by the initiative kingpin -- Eyman talks endlessly of an unnamed "they" and "them" -- bend over backward to ease the impact and maintain pared-down essential services.

Initiative 985 carries more pain -- physical pain.

Vote in favor of the initiative and your kid may get smashed in the legs by fenders of a car running a red light, or your grandmother killed as she uses a crosswalk after getting off a bus.

Why? Initiative 985 erects a financial barrier that will prevent cities from installing or maintaining cameras at busy and dangerous intersections.

"Traffic cameras are an attempt to begin to level the playing field between powerful cars and human bodies out there. Eyman could give a rat's rear about that," said Andrea Okomski, whose son, Joe, suffered permanent injuries when hit by a car on North 85th Street.

Lori Koidal has become an activist for pedestrian rights since her mother was killed last year by a driver who ran a red light at a busy Kenmore intersection. The driver was not found criminally liable.

"It makes me mad to see something gain traction, and then not happen," Koidal added. "Something CAN work, and this takes it away.

"We're talking about holding people accountable for their actions. If you know there is a camera, you're going to be less likely to run a red light. You will be more likely to slow down."

Eyman, not surprisingly, takes a different view. Displaying the insight that marks him as a leader of bitter men, he used a Friday e-mail to blast traffic cameras as "a lucrative cash cow profit center."

The initiative would take away from cities all of the fines and penalties raised by traffic cameras. The money would instead be sent to a state decongestion fund. It would be used to time traffic lights rather than installing cameras to monitor traffic at sensitive intersections and around schools.

"I hate those cameras, but I believe in them. They make me be careful," King County Executive Ron Sims said in a Seattle CityClub debate with Eyman.

Sims draws on personal experience. He was hit by a car after school as a third-grader in Spokane.

We've seen a common pattern on previous Eyman initiatives. The Elway Poll, about two weeks out, shows a sharp decline in voter support. But time runs out on opponents.

Eyman squeaks through with about 51.12 percent of the vote. He loses in King County but carries rural areas by heavy margins. A guy who could strut sitting down, he then descends on Olympia and claims to be a tribune of the regular guy.

The traffic camera issue is making him squirm.

He tried the Big Brother gambit before CityClub, claiming there is "a little bit of ACLU in all of us." He has tried to demonize camera makers for contributing to the campaign against I-985.

How much is the anti-985 war chest? It totaled $186,000 as of Friday, compared with the $6.2 million raised by supporters and opponents of Initiative 1000, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.

Above all, argues Eyman, "I-985 removes the profit motive for photo red light cameras and photo speeding cameras."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the consequences. The cameras become unaffordable to install or maintain.

Eyman has recently heard that message from both the Renton and Burien city councils. He was told in Renton that cameras have cut speeding around schools and freed up police officers to pursue criminals.

Will cities continue to install cameras if money from fines gets sent to Olympia? "We would not be able to afford them," Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said on a recent podcast.

The national growth of intersection accidents underscores a need to do exactly what Eyman's initiative would render fiscally impossible.

Drivers running red lights cause more than 100,000 crashes a year, killing nearly 1,000 people and injuring 90,000 others. According to the Federal Highway Administration, this has become a leading cause of fatal collisions in metropolitan areas.

"This should be viewed as an outrageous epidemic," Richard Retting, chief traffic engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the Ladies Home Journal. "We're not talking about a rare illness that requires decades of billion-dollar research to prevent or cure. This is a situation where people are dying from something that's 100 percent preventable."

Okomski makes another telling point. We simply don't have enough police to make people be civil on the road, or to cover intersections prone to side-impact "T-bone" crashes.

Yet, I-985 is aimed at preventing the prevention. Eyman doesn't stand for tax relief. He is promoting road kill.

How to pay for the Nation's roads - a case for public private partnerships

2008-10-21T11:26:00.000-07:00

How to pay for the roads still traveled

Notwithstanding increasing mass transit ridership and more prudent use of cars, automobiles will dominate U.S. transportation for decades to come. So how do we pay for roads? Variable tolling is one answer, and in the age of GPS the logical next step should also be explored: a fee on miles traveled everywhere by individual vehicles.
By Matt Rosenberg
October 21, 2008.

I had a telling conversation with an old friend several months ago, a devoted environmentalist who's a community college biology teacher living south of San Francisco in a pleasant small town abutting the Pacific. I don't recall how it came up, but she declared, "We've just got to get more people out of their cars." Then came a pregnant pause, followed by her admission that of course, because of where they lived and worked and their packed daily schedules, she and her husband drove themselves and their children everywhere.

I've been thinking about this lately because, well, the roads are still chock full of cars and trucks, and despite an uptick in transit and bicycle use, traffic is still congested here in metro Seattle, and metro regions nationwide. Meanwhile, U.S. surface transportation needs will require some $12.5 trillion (yes, with a "t") over the next 50 years, according to a landmark federal report issued this year. But the way we fund such projects is broken, relying too much on dwindling by-the-gallon gas taxes due to improved fuel efficiency, and ever more difficult local and regional sales tax hikes.

The historical trends show whopping increases in U.S. miles driven and gasoline supplied. We've gone from 2 million barrels of gas a day in the 1950s to more than 9 million per day by 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports that U.S. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) multiplied more than fourfold from 1960 to three trillion in 2006. Though the term "highway" is sometimes attached to VMT, they are estimated monthly for all U.S. roads and streets, drawing from data gathered at 4,000 continuous traffic counting locations.

What of the future?

BTS projects that VMT will grow by more than half the current level to 4.7 trillion in 2030, while U.S. population grows about 23 percent from 2005 to 2030. In Washington state, annual VMT nearly doubled between 1980 and 2007, and is projected to rise another 54 percent by 2030.

In the four core counties of metro Puget Sound, daily VMT has more than doubled between 1980 and 2007.

During the oil and gas price run-up earlier this year, drawing considerable media attention were marginal decreases, of a few percentage points only, in monthly and calendar year-to-date U.S. VMT compared to a year ago. Even a slight dip in VMT draws notice in a time when some celebrate the end of suburbia and advocate "carectomies."

One can hope. These days, it seems that every seminar addressing surface transportation and every green "visioning" session includes earnest discussion of how to "reduce vehicle miles traveled." To the skeptic, the imperative sounds like one of those wishful commands sported on the seven-bumper-stickered Subaru Outbacks endemic to Seattle, like "World Peace Now," or "End Poverty." It's an appealing idea, sure. But the devil is in the details.
The infrastructure crumbles

In the meantime, there's still a pressing need to deal with roadway and bridge wear and tear, and increased congestion resulting from exponential VMT growth during a post-Interstate-building era when transportation investment chronically lagged. One reminder comes via veteran Chicago Tribune transportation reporter Jon Hilkevitch, who this month wrote that despite a five percent regional drop in VMT, traffic congestion there has remained high. One big reason:

Roadways were already so badly saturated with traffic before the recent spikes in fuel prices that the decline in miles traveled hasn't significantly loosened the gridlock.

Most daily trips in metro regions actually aren't to and from work, a point often overlooked. But many of those trips by their nature are less likely to involve transit. If you're going to Costco or Lowe's or Target, to your in-laws in Olympia or friends in Lynnwood, to curriculum night at your kid's school across town, or your cottage on Whidbey Island, you're most likely to be driving. Of total daily trips in the four-county core of the Puget Sound region, only 4 percent were via scheduled public transit, according to a 2006 Puget Sound Regional Council survey (second paragraph of p. E-6, here).

Work-related travel is somewhat more predictable, and there's more room, potentially, to change behavior and actually get some people out of their cars, some of the time. But progress there had been scant. The BTS also reports that — based on federal surveys and Census data — between 1989 and 2006 the percentage of U.S. workers for whom the principal means of transport to work was solo driving remained at 76. Those workers usually carpooling declined very slightly, to 10 percent of the workforce over the same 17-year stretch, and those usually taking public transportation decreased from 4.6 percent to 4.3 percent. Walking, biking, taxi, and "other" principal means of conveyance to work grew from a combined 4.7 percent of the workforce in 1989 to 5 percent in 2006, while telecommuting increased from 2.6 percent to 3.9 percent.

Numbers for 2007 and 2008 will likely show some decrease in solo driving to work, and a shade more transit use nationally, but without drawing up a whole new landscape, prospects remain iffy for reducing VMT or merely curtailing its growth.

As politically unpalatable as it seems now — and that would be "very" — some experts believe within a few decades we'll be tolling not just managed highway lanes with time- or congestion-related variable fees but tolling every mile traveled, via GPS devices planted on most if not all vehicles. "VMT tolling" or "mileage fees" have already been studied in Puget Sound and Oregon, and imposed on heavy trucks in Germany. This month, the Atlanta Regional Commission mused publicly about the unsustainability of the federal gas tax and the attractiveness of mileage fees. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported:

The board of the Atlanta Regional Commission is studying the idea of eventually dropping the federal gas tax, the main source of transportation funding, as it looks for "sustainable" transportation funding. The gas tax doesn't rise with inflation and gets weaker every year. The ARC, metro Atlanta's planning agency, hasn't approved a final statement on the issue and has no authority to implement it. The agency is giving its recommendations to Congress, as it begins to look toward renewing the multiyear federal transportation funding law.

The gas tax is charged as cents-per-gallon instead of cents-per-dollar, so the same size tank always reaps the same amount of money in taxes, no matter how much the price of gas goes up. In addition, as people get more fuel-efficient cars, they use less gas, and so pay less gas tax. The ARC suggests more research on one of the more talked-about ideas, an odometer charge, or vehicle miles traveled. Such a charge would tax drivers by the amount of miles they drive. The idea is for drivers to pay for the wear they put on the roads. Depending on how sophisticated the tracking is, it could send the tax paid directly to the jurisdictions whose roads the driver uses. To avoid getting weaker every year, as the gas tax does, it would have to be designed to rise with inflation.

For now, to untie Atlanta's grimly congested traffic, the state transportation department is pushing a $400 million-plus plan to convert the region's 44 miles of carpool lanes to electronically-tolled high-occupancy and toll (HOT) lanes, which are open to carpoolers and transit for free, and to solo drivers for a variable fee depending on time of day or congestion levels. Nearly half of the spending would be for added bus service and park-and-ride lots along the HOT lane corridors.

Closer to home, the rationale for considering mileage fees was also well-stated by Oregon officials. A report from ODOT to the Legislature makes the case for advance planning even if political acceptance isn't an immediate prospect.

The first question people ask about the pilot program for mileage fees is, "Why are you doing this?" The answer is simple. Oregon is preparing for the day when a substantial number of motorists are driving highly fuel efficient vehicles and no longer paying enough gasoline taxes to support their road system. ... that day may come about ten years from now. No one in Oregon proposes immediate implementation of an electronically collected mileage fee. Investigation and preparation for a new revenue system, however, is warranted because of the long lead time necessary for any change.

The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial last month titled "America's Broken Infrastructure," provocatively argued:

The vehicle mileage tax is probably the answer. Rather than taxing people based on the amount of gas they buy, it would tax them based on the number of miles they drive. Most likely, this would be done by installing tamper-proof devices in vehicles that would transmit mileage information to a tax office, though the data also could simply be confirmed by a certified mechanic. Some states are performing pilot studies on mileage taxes, but they're a long way from having all the bugs worked out — there are serious technical and logistics questions, not to mention privacy concerns (many people are uncomfortable beaming information about their driving habits to the government). Nonetheless, a mileage tax makes sense because it rightly puts the burden for building and maintaining roads on the shoulders of those who use them, even if they happen to drive high-mileage cars.

I'll admit to deep ambivalence about tolling every mile traveled. It's not about the privacy concerns, which to me seem exaggerated. But mileage fees feel like pervasive fiscal over-reach, no matter how reasonable the peak-hour charges and how meaty the off-peak discounts which would need to be part of any such package. I always eschew a car rental agreement that includes any kind of mileage fee. So I'm not supporting mileage fees here, and Cascadia Center has made no such endorsement, either. But we have hosted public conversations on the topic, and the national dialog on mileage fees will continue to gain impetus because tax funding for surface transportation will need to be leavened more and more with a variety of updated pay-as-you-go strategies.

Whatever one's feelings — and they are likely to be intense — mileage fees with off-peak discounts, and a robust but revenue-neutral national carbon tax could drive increased off-peak travel, greater transit usage, and tele-work.

How soon any of this will happen, if ever, is unclear. What's more clear now is that we like living in the suburbs and that driving is often a necessity. In the suburbs, housing costs are less, though bargains have crept toward the edges, which in turn increases VMT. Suburban public schools aren't always ideal but are much less problematic than urban public schools. More and more jobs are dispersed across metro regions, in varied suburban locales. Meanwhile, the vision of "living close to work" is reality only for a lucky, small slice of the populace.
The shortcomings of present gas taxation

Puget Sound voters will get a chance to weigh in on a $17.9 billion second-phase Sound Transit proposal next month that would extend the starter north-south light rail line in both directions and east, and add to existing ST express bus and commuter rail service. Other regional needs include replacing the shaky Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Highway 520 bridge across Lake Washington; fixing dangerous Highway 2 in Snohomish County; revising tangled interchanges and repairing cracked pavement on Interstate 5 in Seattle (a crucial but unfunded $2 billion job that's rarely discussed); and building key missing links in Pierce County, such as the Cross-Base Highway and the Highway 167 connector to the Port of Tacoma.

Funding the roads piece, and any major additions to the regional transit infrastructure beyond the pending "Sound Transit 2" plan, will be daunting. Regional taxpayers here aren't a bottomless well. And the federal role in surface transportation funding has been heading into permanent decline, as Atlanta's planners and the Los Angeles Times both pointedly note. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and no amount of Beltway jabber and finagling will produce any substantive hike in it soon, or quite possibly ever again. The federal gas tax trust fund was poised to land about $4.3 billion in the red by last month's end, but as Logistics Management reports, Congress threw the troubled account a one-year life preserver of $8 billion from the U.S. Treasury General Fund.

State gas taxes, which often support state bonding for transportation projects, are losing buying power, too. Oklahoma's road and bridge bonds are getting pricier because of tighter credit. Connecticut couldn't find a refinancing deal for highly-rated transportation project bonds worth nearly half a billion dollars, a never-before challenge for a state with serious surface transportation needs. Syndicated columnist Neil Peirce writes in The Seattle Times, "The Wall Street fiscal crisis effectively shut the state-local government sector out of borrowing." Well before that storm hit, state transportation project budgets had already been smacked by sharply rising costs for construction materials and equipment fuel, plus a tightening global labor market. India, China, and other fast-developing nations are on a global road building binge.

It's true that a proposed U.S. infrastructure bank could raise some $60 billion over 10 years for deserving projects. That'd be a start, but as Congressional Quarterly reports, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a major report issued earlier this year, said $225 billion per annum is needed for the next 50 years for repairs and upgrades to meet future needs. That's $12.5 trillion. The commission noted that current expenditures are less than 40 percent of their recommended yearly nut and that future funding will need to be closely tied to cost-benefit analyses and performance-based outcomes. Expect some major wrangling next year when the new Congress takes up reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, which is rather hopefully named the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users — or SAFETEA-LU to you. The commission's scarifying estimate dovetails, roughly, with one by the American Society of Civil Engineers: Just to get moving on vital projects, the nation's infrastructure needs an infusion of $1.6 trillion over the next five years.

A promising development, as much or more for its cost-saving peak-hour rationing incentives as for its revenue-raising potential — is variable-fee highway tolling, now spreading across the U.S., often in so-called HOT lanes. A HOT lane pilot project is under way on Highway 167 in metro Puget Sound, and a federal grant to help fund the Highway 520 bridge replacement requires state legislative approval of pricing on 520.
Even Democrats embrace public-private partnerships

Whether Puget Sound decides to move toward regional variable-fee highway tolling, there's another important tool we're going to be hearing more about: public-private partnerships, or P3s, which help share taxpayer risk and dramatically speed up project delivery. They're not a solution for every occasion, but they deserve leeway to support more of our region's and nation's staggering surface infrastructure needs. P3s are widespread in Europe, Canada, and Australia and now are beginning to gather steam stateside.

High-profile Democrats such as Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley are all supporters. The new, Democratic Governor of New York, David Paterson, is interested in transportation P3s, too.

P3s need not involve the sale of public assets such as highways and bridges or transit systems but, rather, the leasing of such facilities, which then yield toll or fare revenue for the private operators. These operators are not reviled foreign sovereign concerns. They are either transit service firms or special "private" infrastructure investment groups which may be headquartered in Europe or Australia but are increasingly bankrolled by U.S. public employee union pension funds or those of building trades unions. Those funds have lost some value in their stock portfolios lately, but they're still flush and see infrastructure as good risk diversification for their long-term obligations to pensioners.

The Washington State Investment Board, representing a slew of state employee retirement funds, plans to invest 5 percent of its sizeable portfolio in infrastructure. The board explains here (p. 2) that it has come to view "tangible asset types" (other than real estate and) including infrastructure as capable of producing "long-term" and "high-quality" revenue streams. A number of others public employee union pension funds in North America have invested in infrastructure, and more have announced similar plans.

They tend to go with the private infrastructure investment groups because directly buying state highway bonds doesn't meet their fiduciary duties to pensioners. Interest earnings on state bonds are tax-exempt, so interest rates are correspondingly a bit lower. Yet public pension funds are already granted a tax exemption on interest earned, so unlike individual investors they have no financial incentive to go for the state bonds. In fact, they have a disincentive, as Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation explains.

For the WSIB and most other public-employee pension fund managers, investing in privately held companies is simply a part of smart portfolio diversification and risk management. As of last year, WSIB had already earned $9.7 billion in private equity profits since 1981 and had one-seventh of its portfolio in private equity.
The proliferation of P3

Can P3 investments that are paid off in toll revenue still prove viable as worries persist about gas prices and road travel volume? In a word, yes. Travelers value their time most of all; private vehicles are usually more direct, flexible and faster than transit; and tolls for managed lanes guaranteed to maintain traffic flow of 45 mph or higher yield a valued benefit, like housing, utilities, and groceries. This perspective cuts across income levels. UCLA and USC researchers in a case study released this year found a sizable percentage of lower-income drivers used HOT lanes and that it was less regressive in terms of tax policy for them to pay related tolls versus sales taxes for transportation projects.

Fears tend to be overblown about runaway toll rates to cover P3 finance costs and profit margins. Governments retain control over P3 toll rates and transit fares. The contracts between private partners and governments are long-term, usually 35 years or more. That's plenty of time to make the margins. In the meantime, P3s deliver transportation projects sooner rather than later or not at all, thus providing quantifiable economic benefits that are rarely counted by critics.

A slew of P3s and traditional-procurement projects studied by The University of Melbourne showed the P3s were up to 30.8 percent more cost-efficient from inception; that cost overruns were nearly non-existent for P3s; that they were completed faster, even when large; were far more transparent; and their benefits tended to be underestimated because the hefty value to the public of quicker project completion and integrated professional management aren't part of the present calculus.

Cal Marsella, the Executive Director of Denver's Regional Transportation District, which is now pursuing a P3 bid process (and, yes, perhaps a small sales tax hike) to complete an over-budget regional light rail program within the original timeline, states in this presentation that P3s can save 10 percent to 25 percent in the design-build phase and 10 percent to 30 percent in the course of operations and maintenance.

This approach to P3s emphasizes bundling of design, construction, operations, and maintenance services provided by private consortiums of industry-leading transportation firms. The payments occur over time and can be pegged to strict contractual performance standards. Exemplified in British Columbia, it's a strategy well-suited to controlling cost overruns during construction, meeting construction deadlines, limiting operations and maintenance costs after project delivery, and ensuring good service. Partnerships BC has employed design-build-operate P3 contracts, or some variation thereof, to construct a new rapid rail line to the airport and the suburban center of Richmond, to rebuild the treacherous road north to Whistler before the 2010 Winter Olympics, and to develop an electronically-tolled bridge across the Fraser River in Vancouver's east suburbs.

The American Public Transit Association in a white paper on public transit P3s says they're no silver bullet but need to be encouraged as part of the financing mix and as a good management tool. Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America are far ahead of the U.S. in implementing public transit P3s, APTA says, although Houston, the Bay Area, and Denver are highlighting the approach. Private investment in transit-oriented development is a related tack and should be encouraged, according to APTA, by working with developers to learn their needs and by encouraging value-capture strategies pegged to new development around transit stations. To facilitate broader consideration of highway and transit P3s, APTA's P3 task force has drafted model legislation for state governments to consider.

Another organization, the National Council For Public-Private Partnerships, holds a special conference this week on transit P3s, including officials from the regions of Boston, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, and Charlotte, as well as federal figures and private firms.
Zero miles, shared miles, efficient miles

While the U.S. struggles to fund the surface transportation infrastructure backlog and shift the balance from fossil-fueled vehicles to greener alternatives, the world is undergoing a vehicle population boom. A New York University study projects total vehicle stock will more than double globally between 2002 and 2030, with the highest annual percentage growth rates in vehicles per 1,000 population in Asia and South America.

BTS data show that since 1960, the number of passenger vehicles in use globally has about quadrupled, while the U.S. share of that total has decreased more than five-fold. Global commercial truck population is five times greater over the same period, with the U.S. share holding steady at less than a third.

However, in the U.S. we tend to drive longer distances and use a disproportionate share of available fossil fuels. The holy grail in the auto industry is substitution of renewable-source electricity for fossil fuels, in "flex-fuel" plug-in hybrid cars. The vision is that they'll be able to run not only on clean electricity (itself a major undertaking) but also net-green second generation bio-fuels, which don't require acres of food-producing farmland to grow.

GM, Toyota, Ford, and Chrysler are among the automakers focused on bringing plug-in electric flex-fuel hybrids to market in the next few years, with lithium ion battery packs. Those haven't been fully debugged, but engineering teams are working hard to do so. Congress has passed a tax exemption of up to $7,500 per vehicle for plug-in buyers, and large government and corporate fleet purchases would allow manufacturers to scale up production for the masses.

There are still environmental and financial reasons to try to engineer boundaries on growth of vehicle miles traveled. A good framework was provided last month in Redmond by Microsoft Chief Environmental Strategist Rob Bernard at Cascadia Center's "Beyond Oil: Transforming Transportation" conference. (TVW video of Bernard and a full transcript of his remarks.)

Bernard set out a hierarchy of descending transportation preferences that he calls "zero miles, shared miles, and efficient miles":

*

The first priority entails schedule-juggling and trip avoidance through tele-work from home, with small meetings as needed in locales near workers' home bases. More than a few Microsoft employees have discovered they can meet near home at a coffee shop rather than drive to Redmond, Bernard said. An astounding 40 percent of the workforce at British Telecom (a Microsoft client) work from home regularly, Bernard said.

With current virtual conferencing tools, and an emphasis on "deliverables" from tele-workers, many other employers — albeit not those in fields such as manufacturing, construction, or retail — could raise their percentage of tele-workers.
*

"Shared miles" would cover public transit, but at present transit routes here just aren't convenient for that many people, said Bernard. He evangelized for an alternative of matching ride-sharers on the fly through smart carpooling, using networked real-time data on the shifting locations and schedules of riders. The same basic principles could help better consolidate freight shipments, said Bernard.
*

"Efficient miles" entail alternative fuel breakthroughs and more of the real-time traffic data purveyed by companies such as the Microsoft spin-off Inrix, of Kirkland, to help drivers optimize routes and departure times.

As far as behavior change around driving, there's a long way to go. If we were constantly reminded of the cost to the infrastructure every time we used it, would that change our actions enough to make a difference, a "zero miles more often" difference? It's not unimaginable.

For surface transportation funding, the federal teat is running dry. States and especially regions will shoulder the brunt in coming decades as we try to catch up before the rising tide of population threatens to overwhelms us. So we're going to have to do a few things differently. We can start sooner, or we can start later. But the longer we wait, the higher the price.

Matt Rosenberg is a senior fellow at the Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a transportation think tank that is part of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. E-mail him at mattr@discovery.org.
View this story online at: http://crosscut.com/2008/10/21/transportation/18586/

Seattle Times rejects Prop 1

2008-10-21T11:19:00.000-07:00

Reject Proposition 1's tax for light-rail expansion

Sound Transit's Proposition 1 to expand the light-rail system would raise the sales tax but provide little immediate relief to existing transit demand.

ELLEN M. BANNER / THE SEATTLE TIMES

One of Sound Transit's light-rail trains heads southbound over Highway 599 in recent testing.

The Times recommends ...

The Sound Transit tax increase, Proposition 1, is a bad proposal. We opposed the same tax a year ago and do so again.

First, it is too much. Half a cent on the sales tax adds up to a 9.5-percent tax in Seattle and about that much systemwide. That would be one of the highest sales taxes in the United States. It says: "Don't spend your money here." It retards our economy. It hurts the poor.

Proposition 1 is being marketed as the solution to an immediate need. Salesmen have made up phrases like "immediately increase buses," "immediate solutions to relieve gridlock" and their favorite, "Transit Now."

But with Proposition 1, what you get is a Tax Now — a tax that goes to 9.5 percent Jan. 1. A few buses and commuter trains come soon, but most of your money would go to light rail not fully open to you until the 2020s. It is not "Transit Now."

This bias against helping people now is why King County Executive Ron Sims argued to keep Proposition 1 off the ballot. As head of the government that owns Metro, the transit agency struggling to meet existing need, he didn't want to wait until the 2020s.

Then the sales pitch shifts. The salesmen admit light rail is not about now. It's about the future. It's about getting people out of their cars.

This is an improbable view of the future. Most people don't want to get out of their cars. As the world changes, they may buy cars that burn fuel from tar sands, canola, algae or wood chips. They may have electric batteries charged by power from the sun, the wind, nuclear reaction or the heat of the Earth.

But most will have their own wheels because they have their own places to go.

No doubt, more people will take transit. But they will demand service over a wide area — and a price they can afford. Wide and cheap. A spider web of service.

In King County, that's Metro: It costs 0.9 cents of tax on every dollar and has buses that go to more than 9,000 stops.

If Proposition 1 passes, on every dollar you will be paying another 0.9 cents (the new 0.5 cents plus the existing 0.4 cents) to Sound Transit. The map of light rail in the mid-2020s will not be a spider web, but a simple "T." It will have a few stops at hugely expensive stations.

Eyeball the station on Highway 99 at SeaTac. It is a monument — to something. But it is still one transit stop.

Buses have their drawbacks: They can get stuck in traffic. But they can be unstuck with bus lanes. More bus lanes are coming — on Aurora Avenue, Northwest 15th Avenue in Seattle and on the proposed Highway 520 bridge.

Buses are cheaper than rail and more flexible. Proposition 1 slights them: The two center lanes on the Interstate 90 bridge, which now serve buses and Mercer Islanders, become rail-only. Buses are kicked out. Buses will also be kicked out of Seattle's downtown transit tunnel.

Finally, it is said that Proposition 1 is not about us, but our grandchildren. So it is. It is a proposal to extend two costly rail lines and to oblige our grandchildren to pay for them. The sales tax is raised to 9.5 percent. It is a lot, and it goes on for a very long time.

Prop 1 Redux: Costs too much; does too little

2008-10-21T10:55:00.001-07:00

Last year was supposedly the last chance. Approve the Roads & Transit ballot measure, supporters said, or forever be stuck in gridlock.

Voters said no, but already, light rail is back. On the ballot Nov. 4 is a smaller, $17.9 billion, transit-only plan to build a light-rail system that would carry commuters north to Lynnwood, south to Federal Way and east to the Overlake Transit Center, near Microsoft. Commuter trains south of Seattle would nearly double in capacity and express-bus service would increase.

"We're getting a clean shot to take our case to the voters," said Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit's planning and policy director.

With road building out of the picture, the transportation debate has a new focus. The questions now: Is it right to invest mainly in light rail — more than $12 billion — instead of buses? And does the rough economy make this the wrong time to raise the sales tax?

Proposition 1, on the ballot in urban areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, calls for raising the sales tax 0.5 percent, or a nickel per $10 purchase.

A sales-tax boost is worth it, backers say, because a rail system would carry hundreds of thousands of riders, and trains don't get stuck in traffic.

Sound Transit Chairman Greg Nickels, Seattle's mayor, says the lines would reach 70 percent of the urban areas' residents and 85 percent of the jobs.

But such numbers assume commuters in outlying areas will travel up to two miles to a park-and-ride lot. Planners haven't yet figured out how to get people to the stations, whether that involves bikes, carpool lanes, shuttle buses or something else.

The train stops won't be convenient enough to serve most commuters, argues Belltown resident Mark Baerwaldt, treasurer of Notoprop1.org. "That's only if you've got a jet pack," he says.

Other critics, such as former Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, of West Seattle, and King County Executive Ron Sims, say buses could be deployed sooner and go more places. Because light rail would cost around $300 million per mile to construct (including inflation), places such as Everett, Issaquah, downtown Redmond, Renton, Kirkland, Ballard and West Seattle would have to wait for future light-rail extensions.

On the other hand, the train routes include places where cities are trying to cram in more people, such as Seattle's Northgate neighborhood and the Bel-Red Road area east of downtown Bellevue. Redevelopment is already happening fast in the Rainier Valley, where the first light-rail line opens next year.

The measure is backed by the Sierra Club, several environmental groups and many well-known elected officials.

Yet voters' attention this year is largely consumed by national and state races. The pro- and anti-Proposition 1 campaigns expect to spend only one-fourth of what they did last year.

So far, the "yes" side reports $755,035 in contributions, led by companies that profit from rail projects, including engineering firms CH2M Hill and Parsons Brinckerhoff at $40,000 each. Opponents report $152,525 in donations, led by $100,000 from Bellevue mall developer Kemper Freeman, a longtime roads advocate.

A new twist this time is the fear of a long recession, as illustrated by the panic on Wall Street and rising unemployment.

"This is absolutely the wrong time to raise taxes on working families," said Baerwaldt, an investor who also led last year's opposition campaign.

A few ads with that theme, now airing on radio stations, are all the "no" campaign needs to win, he said. They include "ka-ching" cash-register sound effects to emphasize money leaving taxpayers' wallets.

"We're not going to waste a bunch of money defeating something that's going to go down in flames," Baerwaldt said.

Alex Fryer, spokesman for Mass Transit Now, the main pro-Proposition 1 campaign, replies that at an average yearly cost of $69 per adult, in the range of a tank of gas, the measure is a good investment in new transit options.

And lately, supporters have started positioning the rail plan as a kind of New Deal, to create thousands of construction jobs.

"Starting now will probably mean this is the cheapest time in the near future that we can build," because of lower land prices and a looser market for labor and contractors, argues Ben Schiendelman, a writer for Seattle Transit Blog.

If the economy does drag down Proposition 1, the logical time to try again would be 2010, after people can see and ride Sound Transit's initial line from downtown to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

But Schiendelman insists that this year, "We're not going to lose."

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com

Parsons Brinkerhoff and other Sound Transit vendor provide funds for Prop 1

2008-10-07T11:06:00.000-07:00

Proposition 1 | Backers hope big turnout can propel $17.9B plan; foes say timing is awful

The fortunes of Sound Transit's Proposition 1, a multibillion-dollar plan to stretch light rail into the Seattle suburbs, may ride on a politician who doesn't live here: Barack Obama. Supporters are counting on a wave of young, energized Democratic voters in the liberal Puget Sound area to put the measure over the top, in a high-turnout presidential year.

By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times transportation reporter

Proposition 1'smain projects

The measure would raise sales taxes by a nickel per $10 purchase, or $125 next year for an average household making $65,000. It appears on the fall ballot in urban Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. The tax increase would last about three decades, if work stays on budget. Here are the main projects in the $17.9 billion package:

Light rail: A total 34 miles of track to reach Lynnwood and north Federal Way by 2023, and Overlake (Microsoft) by 2021, with some stations opened sooner. Possible extension of existing downtown Tacoma line.

Commuter train: More trains and longer stations to nearly double capacity on the south Sounder line, by 2015.

Express bus: About 100,000 annual hours of service would be added, starting next year.

Streetcar: A two-mile line linking Seattle's Chinatown/ International District, First Hill and Capitol Hill in 2016.

Source: Sound Transit

The fortunes of Sound Transit's Proposition 1, a multibillion-dollar plan to stretch light rail into the Seattle suburbs, may ride on a politician who doesn't live here:

Barack Obama.

Supporters are counting on a wave of young, energized Democratic voters in the liberal Puget Sound area to put the measure over the top, in a high-turnout presidential year.

That theory largely explains why project backers, led by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, rushed back to the ballot after a bigger Roads & Transit measure crashed in the off-year 2007 election.

"We're going to get the people who don't need convincing, the people who are young, who vote for Obama. We don't want them to stop there," said Proposition 1 advocate Ben Schiendelman, 26-year-old contributor to Seattle Transit Blog. With the roads stripped away, global warming in the news, and gas prices around $4, the new transit-only version could appeal to new voters.

"Our opponents don't have a solution," says spokesman Alex Fryer of the Mass Transit Now campaign.

The rival Notoprop1.org camp argues the timing is terrible to increase sales taxes for more rail. The economy is convulsing, and the Seattle area's first light-rail lines, approved in 1996, aren't done yet.

Phil Talmadge, an opponent and former state Supreme Court justice, suspects that Sound Transit came back "for a very good reason" — that voters would be too distracted to scrutinize the plan, so "a lot of the issues would be prop wash to the presidential and gubernatorial races."

The $17.9 billion measure offers 34 miles of light-rail tracks reaching Lynnwood, Overlake and Federal Way by 2023, along with a near-doubling of Sounder commuter-train capacity between Pierce County and Seattle's King Street Station by 2015. A modest boost in express-bus service would begin next year.

To pay for this, the sales tax in urban Snohomish, King and Pierce counties would increase a nickel per $10 purchase. That translates to $125 next year for a typical household (making around $65,000 a year). Businesses also would pay the sales tax.

Grasping Obama's coattails

Look at the "pro" campaign's logo: a train and a bus in the foreground, with Mount Rainier behind, in an "O" shape like the Democratic candidate's logo.

"It's not an accident to have a circular pattern here," said Fryer, a former Nickels aide.

Polling by "yes" forces suggests only 8 percent of voters are undecided. So persuasion is not the goal.

Fryer said his main task is urging less-experienced voters to persevere past the judges they don't know and reach Proposition 1 near the bottom of the long ballot.

One sign of heightened interest is that the number of registered voters in King County has increased by nearly 48,000 so far this year, or 4.8 percent, to a total of 1.04 million people.

"We worry that people will check the Obama box and skip transit," Fryer said.

So-called "rolloff," where voters abandon the ballot partway, can be in the 10 to 15 percent range, said Matt Barreto, political-science professor at the University of Washington.

"Of course, it depends on the level of awareness," he said.

Lower-budget fight

Last year's Roads & Transit measure captured only a 44 percent yes vote, even though proponents collected $4.2 million to bombard the airwaves. A pair of "no" groups spent a combined $745,000.

Only about one-fourth as much spending is expected this year, both sides say.

Nickels, who is Sound Transit chairman, said that when he's "dialing for dollars," donors hold back because of frustration at weak state leadership and repeated requests to bankroll ballot issues.

Even if campaign leaders did spend big, they might not be heard over a cacophony of candidates and social-issue advertising this season.

For that reason, Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman plans to give less than last year's $210,000 to the "anti" forces.

"There's a lot more noise out there," said Kathy Neukirchen, president of Media Plus, which made ad buys for foes last year.

Backers report $123,000 in contributions so far, led by $40,000 from Parsons Brinckerhoff, a major transit-engineering consultant; $25,000 from engineering/design firm David Evans and Associates; and $10,000 each from law firm K&L Gates and the Seattle Mariners.

Microsoft plans to give $10,000 this time. Spokesman Lou Gellos said that while the plan stops short of downtown Redmond, it represents progress. "We believe this plan is better than no plan at all," he said.

The firm gave $200,000 last year, but Gellos says the company is spreading its political money among more causes this season.

Lacking funds, supporters will reach out to voters through door-to-door visits, events at the University of Washington, and online social-networking sites.

The masstransitnow.org Web site includes a Facebook group of 597 members as of Friday; a fan's YouTube video there juxtaposes Obama with footage of Sound Transit trains, set to urban contemporary music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlGN9zOHDck.)

Allies at the Transportation Choices Coalition (Sound Transit is a paying member) and the Cascade Bicycle Club will amplify the message. The Sierra Club — which sent members in polar-bear suits to protest road expansions in the 2007 ballot measure — has endorsed the transit-only sequel. The Sierra Club can supply 200 volunteers, said regional chairman Mike O'Brien.

"It's nice to have the polar bears on our side this time," Fryer said.

"Worst thing you can do"

Opposition themes will be nearly identical to 2007.

"We're right back to the general theme from last year: Costs too much, does too little," said Mark Baerwaldt, a private investor who is treasurer of notoprop1.org. "Doubling Sound Transit's portion of the local sales tax in these hard economic times — the worst thing you can do is raise taxes."

Radio ads will return, with "ka-ching" sounds to emphasize decades of higher sales taxes if the measure passes, he said.

Baerwaldt's job is simpler this year, he said. With the 182 miles of proposed new road lanes gone, he can aim directly at Sound Transit.

"Before they finish what they promised, why would you give them more money?" he said.

The agency promised voters in 1996 that it would build rail to the University District by 2006, but the lines won't get to Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium until 2016, he emphasized.

Chris Van Dyk, a strategist for the "no" side, ridiculed the notion of Obama coattails. "When someone's drafting in Washington state politics, they generally find themselves at the end of the pack," he said.

Local voters approach ballot issues independently, as shown by the occasional success of Tim Eyman's tax-cutting measures, he said.

Rail backers like to cast opponents such as Freeman, a longtime highway booster, as globe-warming dinosaurs. But the plan also has been blasted by green-thinking King County Executive Ron Sims, who says money should be poured into express buses, to give the public relief sooner from traffic and gasoline costs.

Former state transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald, who travels mainly by bus, has argued in essays at crosscut.com that light rail would reach only a few of the many places commuters need to go.

Light rail offers less bang for the buck than buses and ride-sharing, said Talmadge. Costs for construction, land and trains would total around $300 million a mile.

He calls the "pro" campaign's name — Mass Transit Now — misleading, as the program wouldn't be done until at least 2023.

"It doesn't sound as good to say 'Mass Transit in 15 Years.' "

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com

ST 2 does not relieve congestion; could make it worse

2008-09-14T11:42:00.000-07:00

2008 Citizens' Guide to Sound Transit, Phase 2

by Michael Ennis
Director, Center for Transportation
September 2008

Introduction

This November, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties will again decide on whether to expand Sound Transit’s regional mass transportation system. The new Sound Transit proposal (ST2) would add 36 miles of light rail,
expand the Sounder commuter rail by four daily round trips between Tacoma and Seattle and expand the Express bus system by 17 percent. Sound Transit officials say that, if passed, ST2 would cost about $17.8 billion through 2023
and $22.8 billion through 2037. The proposal would impose a 0.5 percent sales tax increase within the Sound Transit district, which incorporates most of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The total sales tax rate would vary among jurisdictions, but Seattle would rise from 9 percent to 9.5 percent.

Key Findings

• ST2 would spend about $22.8 billion, yet serve only 0.4 percent of all trips in 2030.

• ST2 would shift only 0.84 percent of passenger vehicles from the road to transit by 2030.

• ST2 would spend $22.8 billion to reduce VMT by only 0.867 percent.

• The cost for ST2 to serve one additional trip would be about $368,000. Under Transit Now, the cost for King County to serve one additional trip is about $10,000.

• The ST2 proposal would be 37 times less efficient than a traditional bus system like the one in King County.

• ST2 would increase traffic congestion for passenger cars and freight trucks by about 25 percent across the I-90 bridge.

• ST2 would reduce lane capacity on I-90 by 20 percent during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

• ST2 would eliminate subarea equity protections.

• Not counting CO2 emitted during construction, ST2 would reduce regional CO2 emissions by up to only 1.11 percent. The
same reduction could be achieved through purchasing carbon offsets for only $2.3 million.

2008 Citizens’ Guide to Sound Transit, Phase 2

Page | 1

by Michael Ennis
Director, Center for Transportation
September 2008

Introduction
This November, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties will again decide on whether to expand Sound Transit’s regional mass transportation system. The new Sound Transit proposal (ST2) would add 36 miles of light rail, expand the Sounder commuter rail by four daily round trips between Tacoma and Seattle and expand the Express bus system by 17 percent.1 Sound Transit officials say that, if passed, ST2 would cost about $17.8 billion through 2023 and $22.8 billion through 2037.2 The proposal would impose a 0.5 percent sales tax increase within the Sound Transit district, which incorporates most of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The total sales tax rate would vary among jurisdictions, but Seattle would rise from 9 percent to 9.5 percent.3

The new proposal is Sound Transit’s second attempt to expand on the agency’s first phase, Sound Move (ST1), which voters approved in 1996.

Sound Move imposed a ten-year 0.4 percent sales and use tax and a 0.3 percent Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET). In 1996, Sound Transit promised voters it would build 25 miles of light rail for a cost of about $5 billion in year-of-
expenditure (YOE) dollars, to be completed by 2006.4 Today, Sound Transit officials say they can only build 17 miles of light rail for about $15 billion and will not be finished until around 2020.5

In other words, Phase 1 is smaller, $10 billion over budget and 14 years late
from what was originally promised to voters. In addition and regardless of
telling voters it was a “ten-year plan,” Sound Transit officials will collect the 0.4
percent sales tax in perpetuity, even after the first phase is complete in 2020.

Sound Transit officials first asked voters to expand its system in 2007 through a combined $47 billion roads and transit ballot proposal, also known as
Proposition 1. But voters rejected the measure and Sound Transit officials went back to the drawing board.

1 Resolution No. R2008-10, Exhibit A, Sound Transit, Adopted July 24, 2008. Available online
at: http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/Reso2008-10%20Exhibit%20A%20Plan%20Docu-
ment.pdf
2 Multibillion-dollar rail, bus plan is up to voters, Seattle Post Intelligencer, July 24, 2008. Avail-
able online at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/372210_soundtransit25.html.
3 Based on current local and state sales tax rates calculated by the Department of Revenue.
4 Sound Move, The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan, May 1996.
5 Sound Transit, University Link Financial Plan, June 2006.

Now, Sound Transit officials have trimmed the number of projects, shortened the estimated completion schedule and shed the road building portion of the package for a second attempt at the ballot. The following discussion builds on Washington Policy Center’s original six-part series of analysis on Proposition 1 and describes Sound Transit’s latest ballot proposal.

Another ST2 proposal violates Sound Move policy

With a new proposal, the Sound Transit board is violating its own promise
to roll back Sound Move taxes. As part of ST1, which passed in 1996, Sound Transit promised voters a certain level of accountability because its taxing authority did not include an expiration date. In other words, Sound Transit officials wanted to ensure taxpayers that there was a process by which the new taxes would eventually end. So Sound Transit officials included this critical taxpayer protection clause, which voters ultimately accepted:
“Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend
the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the
outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of
Sound Move.6”
Since voters indeed rejected a “second phase capital program” with the failure of ST2 last November, and according to Sound Transit’s own policy, the agency should roll back ST1 taxes to operating and maintenance (O&M) levels. By moving forward with another ST2 tax proposal, Sound Transit is violating its own taxpayer protection clause that voters accepted in 1996.

ST2 eliminates subarea equity protections

Approved with the passage of ST1, the Sound Transit district is separated into
five subareas (Snohomish County, North King County, South King County, East King County and Pierce County) and employs the principle of subarea equity. Subarea equity is arguably the strongest accountability limitation placed upon Sound Transit. It requires taxes collected within a subarea to be spent in that subarea to ensure a proportional distribution of spending. In other words, taxes collected in Bellevue can only be used for projects in Bellevue and cannot be
used on projects in other subareas, like Federal Way.
Buried in the ST2 ballot proposal however, Sound Transit officials have reserved certain exceptions that render many accountability measures, including subarea equity, meaningless. The new ST2 measure says this:7
“In the event that a subarea’s revenues are insufficient to cover its costs, the agency’s currently approved policies provide the Sound Transit
Board with these options:
• Modify the scope of the projects;
6 Sound Move, The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan, May 1996.
7 Resolution No. R2008-10, Exhibit A, Sound Transit, Adopted July 24, 2008. Available online
at: http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/Reso2008-10%20Exhibit%20A%20Plan%20Docu-
Page | 2 ment.pdf

• Use excess subarea financial capacity and/or inter-subarea loans;
• Extend the time to complete the system;
• Seek legislative authorization and voter approval for additional resources.”

The principle of subarea equity greatly restricts how Sound Transit spends tax
collections. The agency’s policies already create an incentive to underestimate
costs as a way for Sound Transit officials to avoid the limitations of subarea

Page | 3

equity.

Because the Sound Transit board is unelected, ST2 would further untie the agency from the promises it makes, and would allow the board to shift money among subareas without additional voter input.

As the agency’s statement above suggests, these policies have already been
approved by the Sound Transit board and are in place. Sidestepping the subarea
equity limitation is highly controversial so Sound Transit officials appear to
be looking for insulation. By placing them as part of the ST2 proposal, Sound
Transit hopes to have them publicly ratified in effect, if the measure passes.

Compared to Traditional Bus Service, Passenger Demand Does Not Justify Costs
Sound Transit officials estimate that the new ST2 package would carry an
additional 163,000 daily trips by 2030.8 But Sound Transit also estimates that
about two thirds of those trips would come from the existing transit system.
Sound Transit officials estimate that only 62,000 daily trips would be new.9

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) estimates that drivers and transit users will make about 15 million total trips per day in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties by 2030.10 This means if ST2 passes, the expanded system would serve only 0.4 percent of all trips in 2030.

Comparing new daily trips (62,000) to how much taxpayers must pay ($22.8 billion) shows that the cost for Sound Transit to create one additional trip is about $368,000.

To put this new spending in perspective, King County recently passed
Transit Now, which will expand its bus system by 20 percent. King County officials estimate that Transit Now will serve up to an additional 60,000 trips per day, by 2016.11 King County also estimates the cost of Transit Now will be about $50 to $75 million per year, or about $600 million by 2016. This means the cost for King County to serve one additional trip is about $10,000.

Accounting for costs (operating and capital) and benefits (number of new trips), shows the ST2 proposal is about 37 times less efficient than a traditional bus

8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Destination 2030 Update, Technical Appendices, Puget Sound Regional Council, April, 2007. Available online at: http://www.psrc.org/projects/mtp/pubs/D2030techappendicesFinal.pdf 11 About Transit Now, King County Metro. Available online at: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/ transitnow/about.stm

system like the one in King County.

ST2 Will Not Reduce Traffic Congestion

Trips do not equal riders. For example, a rider who makes a round trip commute to and from work counts as two trips. If that same rider took a bus to lunch and back, he counts as making four total trips during the day.
Because daily trips can double, triple and sometimes quadruple count the same individual, trips should be adjusted to estimate unique riders. The standard assumption is that single riders will equal 45 percent of trips.12 To look at it another way, 45 percent assumes less than half of total trips in a day will be the same person making a round trip. This does not capture all of the double counting of a single rider, but it is closer to accurately estimating how many different individuals will ride a transit system.
This estimation shows that ST2 will likely only serve the equivalent of about 27,900 new individual riders per day by 2030.

For Sound Transit to appreciably reduce traffic congestion, it must shift large
numbers of drivers from the roadways to its transit system. By 2030 there will
be about 3.33 million cars in Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties. 13 The

Page | 4

equivalent of 27,900 riders is not insignificant. But assuming that each new rider
would equal one car, ST2 would only shift 0.84 percent of all vehicles from the road to its system by 2030.

In another measure, Sound Transit estimates that ST2 will reduce daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from 99.4 million miles in 2030 to 98.5 million miles in 2030.14 This means Sound Transit officials want to spend $22.8 billion to reduce the daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by only 0.867 percent.

The PSRC estimates that traffic congestion will more than double by 2030.15 Based on Sound Transit’s own estimates, the ST2 measure would have no effect at reducing traffic congestion.

Less is More?
Sound Transit officials say the new ST2 package is smaller than the first version defeated by voters last November.

While the scope of projects is smaller, 36 miles of light rail instead of 50, and the project schedule is shorter, the proposed sales tax increase is the same (0.5 percent) as what Sound Transit proposed in 2007.

12 The American Public Transportation Association has used this conversion factor in the past to translate trips into individual riders.
13 2030 household projections calculated by the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Destination 2030 update. Available online at: http://www.psrc.org/projects/mtp/pubs/D2030techappendicesFinal. pdf. Assumed the regional vehicle ownership rate equals 1.81 cars per household.
14 Sound Transit 2 Planning, Sustainability Assessment of Sound Transit 2 Plan, Sound Transit, August, 2008.
15 Puget Sound Regional Council’s Destination 2030 update. Available online at: http://www.psrc. org/projects/mtp/pubs/D2030techappendicesFinal.pdf.

This means voters would get much less in public services for the same tax increase Sound Transit proposed in last year’s failed Proposition 1.

New ST2 Proposal Still Increases Congestion on Interstate 90

One of the more controversial projects in Sound Transit’s proposed second
phase (ST2) is reconfiguring the center lanes of Interstate 90 (I-90) to
accommodate up to 19 miles of light rail between Seattle and Bellevue. Known as East Link, the proposal includes replacing the two center High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes that cross the bridge with light rail, a form of high capacity transit (HCT).
Sound Transit says the East Link Project would not reduce the number of lanes on I-90.16

This is not true.

During the morning peak commute drivers today have a total of five
westbound lanes (three general purpose and two HOV lanes). With Sound
Transit’s proposed reconfiguration, capacity would fall to only four westbound lanes. The same reduction would occur during the eastbound commute in the afternoon. This would be a 20 percent reduction in lane capacity during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

By reconfiguring the center lanes, the WSDOT estimates Sound Transit’s plan to place light rail on Interstate 90 would reduce overall vehicle capacity on the bridge by 15 percent during the morning peak commute and 8 percent during the afternoon.17

This means light rail would increase vehicle delay on the bridge by 27 percent during the morning peak drive, and 24 percent during the afternoon peak. ST2 would cause average westbound vehicle speeds to fall 21 percent during the
morning peak commute, and eastbound drivers in the afternoon would see a 17 percent decrease in speed.18

Freight vehicles would experience a much worse result. During the morning
peak drive, the number of freight trucks able to cross into Seattle would drop 24 percent. Leaving Seattle during the afternoon peak drive, trucks would see a 19 percent reduction in capacity.19

Conclusion

There is no doubt that mass public transportation is part of the solution to
reduce traffic congestion, especially in dense population centers. But allocating

16 Assertion that light rail will reduce the number of lanes on the I-90 bridge, Sound Transit, Au-
gust, 2008. Available online at: http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/080408_I-90_Lanes.
pdf.
17 Part IV: Light Rail and Interstate 90, Michael Ennis, Washington Policy Center, 2007. Available
online at: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/transportation/policynote/07_ennis_partiv.
html.
18 Ibid.
Page | 5 19 Ibid.

large amounts of public money to expand a transit program that will serve less than one percent of all trips taken is not efficient.
Public sector spending decisions are typically based on perceived value and
whether taxpayers believe they are receiving a proportional benefit from the service purchased. In other words, the social value of $22.8 billion should be equal to its economic costs. The difficulty is defining the social value. Is a transit system that carries less than one percent of all daily trips worth more or less than doing something else or even doing nothing at all?
If the public value of traffic congestion relief is high, then the economic costs of
ST2 do not justify the increase in spending. Sound Transit officials understand
this predicament and instead try to point to other public benefits of ST2.
One of the most convincing arguments to support ST2 is the environmental aspect of shifting drivers to public transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the region’s reliance on oil.
Sound Transit officials say that by 2030, ST2 would reduce annual CO2
emissions between 99,552 and 178,333 metric tons.20 That is an annual
reduction of between 0.71 percent and 1.11 percent of total regional CO2 emissions.21

To look at it another way, consider that CO2 emissions have monetary value
and thus can be measured to show whether spending $22.8 billion is justified for such a small reduction.

Terrapass, a nationally known firm that sells carbon offsets, charges $5.95 per 1,000 lbs of carbon reductions.22 Converting metric tons to pounds, shows the same CO2 reduction claimed by ST2 could be achieved by purchasing carbon offsets for between $1.3 million and $2.3 million.23 Far less, than the $22.8 billion Sound Transit officials are proposing.
This means Sound Transit’s relationship with any environmental rewards is so
slight that its ability to justify spending $22.8 billion is greatly diminished.

It should also be noted that the same environmental concerns and the rise in fuel prices is also driving technology.
The shift to zero emissions and super fuel-efficient vehicles is under way. Any
environmental benefits from ST2 over ordinary passenger vehicles will simply
disappear, by some estimates, within ten years, once alternative energy/fuel

.

Page | 6

sources are deployed. In fact, both presidential candidates, in different ways,
have plans to fast track this shift in technology.

In the end, voters will have to decide for themselves what is important and
whether the new ST2 proposal is worth the costs and increased long-term tax
burden.

20 Sound Transit 2 Planning, Sustainability Assessment of Sound Transit 2 Plan, Sound Transit, August, 2008.
21 Ibid.
22 Based on pricing information found on its website: www.terrapass.com.
23 Using a conversion calculator, convert metric tons to lbs, divide by 1000, and then multiply by
5.95.

No Prop 1 group has not yet filed with PDC

2008-09-09T11:34:00.001-07:00

Anti-Sound Transit Group Has Not Filed With PDC

posted by Erica C. Barnett on August 20 at 17:38 PM

No to Proposition 1, the group that’s opposed to this year’s light rail expansion measure, has not yet filed as a political campaign with the Public Disclosure Commission despite the fact that they’ve begun campaigning against this year’s ballot measure.

Mark Baerwaldt, spokesman for the No to Prop. 1 campaign, says the campaign hasn’t filed any public-disclosure forms yet because it doesn’t have to. “The minute there’s a penny raised, the minute there’s a penny spent, it’ll be reported,” Baerwaldt says. “Are we going to be out there in full force with a massive campaign? Absolutely. … [But] we are still in the process of planning” what that campaign will look like.

Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the PDC, says whether the campaign has spent money isn’t the issue; the law says that what matters is whether they intend to do so. “They don’t have to actually do it; they just have to have the expectation,” Anderson says.

“They’ve been told that they need to file.”

Although Baerwaldt responds the campaign has no expectation yet of raising or spending money, Anderson says their web site suggests otherwise. The site—originally put up in opposition to last year’s Prop. 1, the roads and transit ballot measure that was defeated in November—refers repeatedly to the 2008 ballot measure, includes the text of a radio ad clearly aimed at this year’s measure, not last year’s, and includes news stories from as recently as late July 2008—eight months after the 2007 ballot measure was defeated. The site also includes a form, left over from last year but still apparently active, for visitors to contribute to the campaign. “That says to me that they have the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures,” Anderson says.

Nonetheless, Baerwaldt insists that “everything we’re doing is completely in compliance with the law.” He says that the campaign has been in contact with the PDC about filing as a political committee, which they plan to do in the next couple of weeks.
“Here we go again with all the piddly little nonsense,” says Baerwaldt, who calls Sound Transit a “rogue agency.”

“This is trivia. It’s not really important,” he adds.

The PDC, naturally, does not agree.

The Stranger

Too many eggs in the rail basket

2008-09-02T10:52:00.000-07:00

A dramatic vote in favor of a rail transit plan

The weight of 40 years of paralysis about transit planning played a role in the Sound Transit decision to try one more time to convince the voters of the need for more light rail.

By David Brewster

Source Crosscut

"We've dug ourselves a 40-year hole," said King County Council member Larry Phillips at the meeting of Sound Transit Thursday, July 24. Not long after, the board passed, 16-2, the latest effort to get out of this hole by putting a 34-mile extension of light rail on the ballot next November. The hole was created in 1968-70, when the region twice turned down a rail transit proposal and fell far behind the rest of the nation's big cities. There followed, Phillips said, four decades of analysis paralysis, during which "the perfect has been the enemy of the good."

No one was saying the plan passed on Thursday was anywhere close to perfect. Putting rail across the Interstate 90 floating bridge is full of technical problems. Even though commuters are clamoring for more buses, this plan puts 67 percent of its $17.9 billion into light rail and only 2 percent into buying new express buses. It won't be completed until 2023. The bond measure might be cutting it close on margins of debt coverage, and the board narrowed those margins a bit more yesterday by front-loading the bus relief in the next few years. Spooked by the way voters rejected the bigger Proposition 1 package last year, this Sound Transit 2 (ST2) package does not really finish the job, since it does not get to Everett or Tacoma or Redmond.

But as a political compromise that got a strong vote from the board (only King County Executive Ron Sims and King County Council member Pete von Reichbauer of Federal Way voted against it), it's an artful package that might work. The packed chamber at Union Station applauded when the vote was finally taken. Now the measure goes to the public, and we shall see if the region can finally overcome the legacy of those 40 years. The opponents, who mostly favor buses or some of the newer devices of managing congestion through tolls, are ready to attack ST2 and may even outspend the dispirited forces for rail. And all the time spent getting to yesterday's decision means the pro-rail campaign is very late in getting started.

The dramatic vote not only looked back at all those years from the Forward Thrust defeats to the final passage of the starter rail system (opening next year), passed in 1996. It also provided some glimpses of future political leadership. One sad moment came when a partly researched measure introduced by Sims, with backing from state Department of Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond (and therefore, presumably, her boss, Gov. Chris Gregoire), drew lots of criticism and was rejected, 3-15. The Sims amendment would have given $120 million to Metro Transit to provide immediate relief for overcrowding. It had all kinds of problems: Sound Transit can't legally fund local bus service, and the Sims amendment threatened to take money away from expanded express service to Snohomish County, the key concession that made ST2 gain a majority. A face-saving compromise amendment, increasing Sound Transit express bus service, was passed, which seemed to be enough to bring Hammond, a bit surprisingly, over to the yes side. (Gregoire had been firmly advised that opposing ST2 was going to cost Seattle area support in her governor's race.)

If it was poignant to see Sims, himself a former chair of Sound Transit, so isolated and unpopular, it was also interesting to see the rise of the Snohomish County forces, especially the smooth young county executive, Aaron Reardon. Reardon played a strong game of poker with Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the Sound Transit board chair, gaining lots of bus service, some of it at Seattle's expense, before swinging to support ST2. He tried to help Sims with his clumsy amendment, and paused dramatically before voting against it in the end.

ST2 [1.1 MB PDF] definitely responds to many of the political criticisms that sank Proposition 1 (combining roads and transit into a whopping package). It adds performance audits. It says the taxes should be rolled back in 2038, when the phase has been built, not extended in an open-ended fashion. It has money (and a time limit for spending it) for building a short rail line on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe route on the Eastside. It envisions substituting a more modern tax, such as a carbon tax, for the sales tax component of ST2 sometime in the future. It has more tools to leverage partnerships with the private sector and local bus systems, as well as several mixed-mode transit nodes. It has more flexibility to adapt to changed market conditions.

In the end, though, ST2 will draw a lot of fire for putting so many eggs in the rail basket when so many people are demanding more bus service — right now. Phillips' "40-year hole" is one reason for having to spend so much on so few miles of rail — the costs of retrofitting rail into a built-up environment are huge. The Sound Transit people argue, with reason, that unless the system has a high-capacity spine, off which feeder services can play, it will never get ahead of the congestion woes, nor be able to shape much growth around station nodes. (Not much shaping, however, again a result of having waited so long.)

Perhaps the most plaintive point was made by Julia Patterson, a King County Council member from South King County. Only Sound Transit has any money to do anything about our transportation mess, she argued. The state is broke. Metro's taxing authority is used up. "Nobody is planning anything," she lamented. Underlying her argument is the political reality that with only Sound Transit having some real sources of money (unless tolling is found feasible), all the other strapped agencies wanting to repair bridges and add modern bus service will likely pick the pockets of Sound Transit in a coming session of the Legislature — unless ST2 is enacted by voters this fall.

Arguing emotionally that with 1.8 million people expected to move into the area and some of our key roadways already failing, Patterson said "we have a moral obligation to the voters and our grandchildren" to do something. It's an odd way to make the case for ST2 (spending $18 billion to make politicians feel better about all that dereliction), but nearly everyone in the room sensed the despair and guilt created by 40 years of not doing the job. We'll see if the voters concur.

A case for more light rail

2008-07-14T11:46:00.000-07:00

The case for more rail transit

The region has tried a largely bus solution for 40 years, and by now the capacity flaws are apparent. If we are really serious about building density, we need to lay more rails.
By Ben Schiendelman
July 14, 2008.

On a February day 40 years ago, just over 50 percent of metro-Seattle voters approved of Proposition 1. That was a plan to build 47 miles of electric rapid transit, with fast trains as often as every four minutes connecting every major hub in our region. Thanks to U.S. Sen. Warren Magnuson, D-Wash., a two-thirds federal contribution was secured and the region would only have paid $385 million, about $2.4 billion in 2008 dollars. The system would have opened in 1985 and been paid off last year.

At the time, though, a bond issue required 60 percent of the vote, so even with a majority, nothing could be built. The money earmarked for Seattle went instead to Atlanta. The long wait for rail began, and the case against it continues to be urged, more strongly than ever.

The anti-rail camp has all along used fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Detractors in 1968 called rail "inflexible" and labeled San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) plan "controversial." State Sen. Sam Guess, R-Spokane, promised a transit study committee for a bus alternative, but since a bus alternative would have meant giving up already full highway lanes, the bus plan floundered. With federal incentives spurring explosive suburban growth, the new American dream was in full swing, and those lanes were for Fords and Chevys.

The flexibility argument — that buses could follow shifting concentrations of passengers, unlike fixed rail — was always a straw man. (In practice, flexibility turns out to mean politically alterable, resulting mostly in slow, winding bus routes.) But nobody really thought our urban centers would pack up and move, requiring bus routes to follow them. Seattle's 1989 CAP initiative, limiting the height of Seattle office towers, did push some new construction to Bellevue. But even the iconic Smith Tower, completed in 1914 and long dwarfed by its Seattle neighbors, still has more stories than any of Bellevue's office towers. As highway money has dried up and oil prices have skyrocketed, development has shifted back to the city core.

Cities follow transportation. The ability to trade, in goods and ideas, is the primary driver of human development. Paris and London sit on rivers, Chicago on a lakeshore, Seattle alongside a storm-protected harbor. Fundamentally, cities develop to take in raw materials of every kind, then to add value by combining them into more specialized goods. Originally this meant iron ore, coal, and wood shaped into products and buildings. Now it also means software, genetic sequences, and circuitry.

These businesses and ideas don't occur in a vacuum. These ideas are brewed by discussions with the friend you run into at the coffee stand down the street. Every urban area's success is reliant upon its ability to foment face-to-face crossings between inventors and implementers, and these crossings happen proportionally to how dense and walkable our urban centers are.

Federal highway investment and other factors have long worked to shift these businesses from accessible but expensive downtown office buildings to widely spaced office parks. The diversity of experience in life and work was put in jeopardy and with it the United States' dominant role in innovation. Our urban vitality has been choked out by a lack of concentration.

We need to reverse this trend.

One key answer is rail transit. Forty years later, BART isn't so "controversial" after all, nor is Portland's MAX. Even here at home, our fledgling Sounder commuter rail will pull in well over 2 million passenger boardings in 2008. Rail isn't subject to the unreliability of highway congestion. People use it and people who want it demand new space to live and work near stations. Sound Transit's Link light rail is spurring thousands of new condos atop retail for the Rainier Valley, replacing vacant lots with dense development that offers a sure commute. The Sounder, with only commuter service during rush hours, is spurring development in Kent, where local government embraced it. Bellevue is already gearing up to develop near light rail a decade from now.

Buses have a key role as feeder services and in linking many smaller nodes. But they don't have the same concentrating effects, and so they alone cannot help us out of the pit we've dug with years of dispersed growth. We've proven that right here. While bus advocates won their battle in 1968, Seattle has created a system that may have saved some money but suffers from the unreliability of sharing lanes with traffic. We've had 40 years of trying to build a reliable bus-only transit system, only to bump into the political realities that prevent transit-only lanes or downtown roadways reserved for buses. Our transit system has fallen far behind our peers.

Crosscut recently ran three closely argued articles (1, 2, 3) by Doug MacDonald, the state's former transportation chief, making the case for only a modest component of rail, instead shifting much of the proposed money to bus rapid transit. Let me counter by pointing to two fundamental problems with his analysis.

MacDonald claims bus service can create density the same way rails can. This is technologically possible, but it doesn't seem to work out that way in the real world. Density comes from reliability that businesses and builders can take into account, but when all it takes is a bit of paint to turn a bus lane into a car lane, the permanence needed to build them into a business model is absent. We build rail in its own right-of-way — this is apparent with Link — so there's no pressure to turn it into highway. The cost to build buses at that service level (on dedicated right of way) is exactly the same, so bus advocates get their cost savings by dispensing with that exclusive right of way.

Take away the dedicated lanes and buses are at the mercy of traffic congestion. They bunch up and fall behind schedule. It's difficult to add buses to the routes, even when the demand grows. Some run overloaded, while others are empty. Passengers get frustrated, and some stop using the bus.

The other problem with a bus-heavy system is capacity. Buses can't scale up to meet the high service levels that core density demands. The costs to operate a single bus and a single light rail vehicle are similar, but the cost to add another car to that train is much lower than paying another driver to operate another bus. A single four-car Link train can carry more than 800 passengers, which is the equivalent of eight articulated buses. With doors along the entire length of such a train, it also takes the same amount of time to board and unload as a single bus, allowing much higher throughput. Running light rail trains a few minutes apart gives you capacities upwards of 20,000 people per hour per direction, far more than buses can provide.

Making our transportation reliable again is paramount to our success as a region. We've given the bus advocates 40 years to make their case, and the result has been increasingly congested roads and ever-slowing commutes. It's long past time to take the reins back and do things right.

Ben Schiendelman is a software engineer who has a strong interest in urban design and transportation systems in cities around the world and is a 20-year user of Metro Transit. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.

Source http://crosscut.com/2008/07/14/sound-transit/15783/print/

Former WA Sec of State, "Transit train wreck: The case against more light rail"

2008-06-22T13:17:00.000-07:00

All 3 parts first published at Crosscut.com

The recent former state secretary of transportation has been riding buses a lot lately and crunching numbers, and he's convinced light rail to the Eastside and more Sounder service has no place in a big new transit plan. He thinks an advanced bus rapid transit system is the best way to serve millions of people and smartly manage urban growth. Part 1 of 3
By Douglas MacDonald
June 22, 2008.

First of three parts
Part 1 Ridership today and the suggested Sound Transit sales tax increase.
Part 2: Real riders speak, and Sound Transit's model isn't what they want to buy.
Part 3: The must-do agenda for transit and smart growth.

As memories fade of last November's failed and little-lamented Proposition 1, Sound Transit's board of directors now struggles with when to bring a big new transportation funding package - mostly rail, no roads, all Sound Transit — back to a regional ballot.

Which is the better time to let voters slam-dunk a big new sales tax boost for Sound Transit's vision?

Should it be in 2008, when a young and progressive presidential election turnout would vote green for rail transit?

Or in 2010, when taxpayer wallets will be looser with the economy back to full throttle? By then, light rail cars shuttling between downtown Seattle and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport could even warm the doubters to the main attraction of Sound Transit's plan: light rail to Bellevue, taking two existing vehicle lanes off the Interstate 90 floating bridge.

Or is there a third choice - the best - now not even being considered at Sound Transit? A different, stronger, broader transit plan, to be acted on as quickly as possible, costing less and doing more, and much sooner, to meet our region's pressing needs?

Sound Transit's staff and board profess great faith in "public outreach" to gauge sentiment and aid a decision. Never mind skeptical reviews of past survey methods and universally cautionary advice from regional writers (plus #, #, #, and #). Now, according to King County Council member and Sound Transit board member Julia Patterson, the agency should hear from people "who don't come to meetings."

I don't go to meetings now, but I used to. As the state's secretary of transportation and a member of the Sound Transit board of directors for six years, I voted with enthusiasm for the light rail segments soon to provide welcome benefits from the airport in and out of Seattle and to Husky Stadium and, perhaps someday, along Interstate 5 to Northgate.

Now I live in Seattle. I can't drive because of poor eyesight. So almost every day I ride the Metro Transit and Sound Transit buses with the rest of the regulars, learning and thinking at first-hand about our transit systems. I've gained new insights about the connected questions of energy scarcity, population growth, fairness to taxpayers, strengthening of neighborhoods, and protection in the Puget Sound area of water quality, the regional landscape, and natural habitat against sprawl and climate change.

I believe that big choices perhaps soon headed for the ballot about the next steps for transit must be examined with a vigorous, evidence-based progressive critique of where we should be going, and why. How does our regional transit system actually work? How can it work better and offer more in the future? With so much at stake, we had better get it right. There will be no cheap do-overs.
The overwhelming case for transit expansion

The public should certainly care. The case for transit system improvements could hardly be stronger. Family budgets are hemorrhaging from relentless gas-price increases. Deep anxiety feeds on the worldwide drumbeat that oil production has about peaked so that, unlike the last oil crisis, new supply won't ease the pressure on prices. Time now for a Prius? The trade-in value of the gas hog in the driveway has sunk like a rock. Federal statistics show that miles driven by vehicles in Washington have dropped 5 percent or more from a year ago, a huge shift over so short a period.

A sea change is at hand for transit and the public it serves. Over the past year, it's become standing-room-only on key buses for ordinary riders. Every transit system is reporting unprecedented ridership increases.

Regular people in big numbers suddenly are realizing they actually need transit - a very powerful idea when it takes root outside the hothouse environment of transit's familiar supporters.

Catching the news hook of the first annual National Train Day, Sound Transit's own surging ridership was touted in a breathless press release.

The new statistics — Sound Transit's and others' — are trustworthy tallies of who transit's new riders will be, where they will be going, and what they will need in services.

They speak on behalf of regular busy people almost never heard at Sound Transit's meetings.

They make the case for a dramatic change in the pace, direction, and goals of transit's program for our region. They certainly should unsettle Sound Transit.

But before turning to these real-world polling results, let's set the context. That involves the entire picture of transit in the region, not just Sound Transit, the newest kid on the block.
The size and growth of transit ridership in the region

The Seattle metropolitan area is a pretty strong transit market, as these things go late in the golden age of the gasoline-powered private car. People here take transit for a higher proportion of journey-to-work trips than in any but just a handful of other metropolitan areas in the country — New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh:

* King County Metro serves more than 150 transit routes in Seattle and the suburbs, including many high-density arterial commuter routes. Metro now logs about 380,000 daily boardings.
* Pierce Transit, with about 45 local, inter-city, commuter, and express routes, now stands at about 50,000 daily boardings.
* Community Transit in Snohomish County has 64 routes, including commuter routes to Seattle's University District, Bellevue, and downtown Seattle, as well as Everett and the Boeing plant there. Community Transit now stands at about 38,000 daily boardings.
* Sound Transit, the multi-municipality entity serving all three counties, has express bus routes on regional freeways and the HOV network and two rail lines operated on BNSF Railway tracks. In the first quarter of 2008, Sound Transit averaged 50,000 daily boardings.
* Then there's Everett Transit, with perhaps 9,000 daily boardings, and Washington State Ferries, with about 13,000 daily boardings of foot commuters across Colman Dock in downtown Seattle.

In round numbers, that puts transit boardings across the region at roughly 540,000 every day. Sound Transit accounts for just nine percent of the total. Altogether, the systems have gained about 37,000 new daily boardings compared to a year ago. Sound Transit has produced a little less than a fifth of the overall growth, combining a nice bump on the express buses with another noteworthy chunk from expanding the number of trains on the Sounder south commuter rail runs.

None of this is to mention 20,000 or so daily vanpool passengers, a potent market for transit growth, up 8 percent over the previous year, and thousands of trips on paratransit for disabled or elderly riders. Sound Transit operates no vanpools and no paratransit.
Paying for regional transit and supporting explosive growth

How is all this growing transit use paid for? Partly from fares, although no part of the overall system covers costs from fares. The rest largely comes from discrete, voter-approved slices of the 8-plus percent sales tax everybody pays every day:

* For King County Metro, 0.9 percent in the sales tax rate, most recently increased by 0.1 percent by voters in 2006. That was to support the "Transit Now" initiative for 15 percent to 20 percent expansion in service spread over 10 years.
* For Community Transit in Snohomish County, 0.9 percent in the sales tax rate, most recently increased in 2001.
* For Pierce Transit, 0.6 percent in the sales tax rate, most recently increased in 2003.
* For Sound Transit, from a taxing district that covers the most populous parts of all three counties, a further slice of sales tax at the rate of 0.4 percent, over and above the slice already going to each county's transit system. This now raises for Sound Transit about $280 million a year. Plus a tax on rental car fees (raising about $2.5 million a year), and a 0.3 percent motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) that hits the average household about $70 a year and raises about $72 million a year for Sound Transit.

The suggested Sound Transit sales tax increase

The debate at Sound Transit is about asking voters to approve another 0.4 percent in the sales tax, doubling the 0.4 percent it already receives. (We will ignore here an even more bullish plan to ask for a 0.5 percent increase!)

If approved, this would amount to a 30 percent increase in funding from the sales tax for the combined purposes of Sound Transit, Metro, and Community Transit in King and Snohomish counties, and a 40 percent increase over the combined level for Sound Transit and Pierce Transit in Pierce County. In areas within King County and Snohomish County that are also in the Sound Transit taxing district, the new sales tax rate for everyone would be 9.3 percent, and for those areas overlapped with the Sound Transit taxing district in Pierce County, it would be 9.2 percent.

Sound Transit's expensive tax increase would be spent almost entirely on the limited routes and services it sponsors, so here's the big question: When could we ever expect more funding for the 90 percent of the system virtually exploding with double-digit ridership increases today that is not part of Sound Transit?

Struggling to digest the big Sound Transit swallow, would public appetite in the era of unaffordable gas prices recover in time to take up the much larger needs of the system as a whole?

The single-vision Sound Transit directors and staff haven't raised this question in their own discussions or in their ongoing "public outreach" publicity blitz.

Riders, potential riders, all elected officials, and taxpayers should care about the big picture, even if Sound Transit apparently doesn't.
Sound Transit's plans for all the new money

What exactly does Sound Transit propose to do with a river of new money from the sales tax — flowing to the board of directors for decades, generating cash and funding years of debt repayment and interest expenses on big new issues of long-term bonds?

The answer is: spend billions of dollars for capital projects for a limited piece of the transit system, save but a few hundred million over the years to support some of future operating costs.

Sound Transit knows exactly what new projects it would build. And when it would hope to complete them.

Don't hold your breath to see new transportation services from these projects anytime soon. Most of the new projects would not go into service until 2020, when today's four-county regional population is expected to have grown by an additional half million people, from today's 3.6 million.

Nevertheless, some of those eventual projects certainly will be big - in dollar cost, anyway!

Sound Transit chooses to guess at the project expenditures as if they were to be made at 2007 construction prices. They won't be, of course. Nobody knows how much inflation will drive up the costs from last year's prices until the projects are built years from now. But if they could be built at 2007 prices, Sound Transit estimates they would cost more than $6 billion.

At the same time, they will - in terms of contributing to regional transit needs — also be very small.

Here's the nutshell summary:

Two-thirds of the $6 billion that will really be much more by the time the serious spending comes would be spent on adding a few new miles of light rail.

Sound Transit has already funded and is now building — or is about to start building — initial light rail sections from the airport to downtown Seattle (in service next year, it hopes) and Husky Stadium (year 2016, it hopes). It wants to extend those sections. South 2.0 miles to South 200th Street (year 2020) and north 4.3 miles to Northgate (also year 2020). Cost of these 6.3 miles of extension at 2007 prices would be about $2 billion, eating up a third of the $6 billion for new capital projects.

What would be the gain in ridership if these extensions were built compared to if they were not? If they were not built, ridership on light rail, according to Sound Transit, would be 42,000 daily boardings by 2020, growing to 120,000 by 2030. Sound Transit does not give a precise breakdown if the extensions were built, but it looks as if the overall gain would be in the area of 50,000 to 60,000, with the first of the extension passengers served not until 2020 and the full gain not achieved until 2030, 22 years from now.

Another huge slug for light rail — about $2.1 billion worth at 2007 prices — would be spent extending light rail about 12 miles from Seattle across the I-90 floating bridge to Mercer Island, downtown Bellevue, and Overlake [PDF]. The cost estimate for this is probably especially shaky, because it rests on the assumption that Bellevue residents and businesses will be content on not insisting that expensive tunnels get the line through town. Anyway, perhaps at some uncertain later date, if even more taxes could be raised, a further extension could be made all the way to downtown Redmond.

If the piece just to Overlake were in place, Sound Transit appears to think that line's ridership might grow from the first new rider in 2020 eventually to daily boardings of 45,000 or so by 2030, 22 years from now.

However, the environmental impact statement for light rail to the Eastside suburbs won't be ready until fall of this year, and details of ridership, costs, and impacts still are being studied. That hasn't slowed down the Sound Transit board's ability to ask the public about the project. And it looks like it might not slow down the Sound Transit board in deciding it's the right way to go. That's an unconventional and questionable course. The principle is that agencies are supposed to put the environmental impact statement in the hands of citizens and decision makers before big decisions are made! That's why we prepare environmental impact statements, not just to justify what government officials have already decided.

Altogether, for spending about $4.1 billion in today's dollars (more because of inflation to the time the projects are actually built), bright ribbons of light rail would serve two corridors in King County only and would eventually accommodate by 2030 a total of perhaps 100,000 daily boardings more than would be the case if none of the proposed light rail extensions in the new plan were made at all.

Reaching that gain in ridership 22 years from now represents the equivalent of growing today's regional transit boardings of almost 540,000 by less than a fifth. That's the equal of growing today's ridership at an annual compound rate of growth of just under 0.8 percent. Of course, if you think about it, even that is a big overstatement, because lots of those so-called new riders are already on the buses to be replaced by the light rail lines, so they really aren't new riders to transit at all!

So much for two-thirds of the $6 billion in project spending.

That leaves about a third for other projects.

Foremost would be for the Sounder commuter rail program. Sound Transit loves its Sounder trains from Tacoma through Puyallup and the Kent Valley to Seattle. Last year it started with eight trains a day and grew the service by 50 percent to 12 trains a day. Buoyed by free parking at the stations and a heavily subsidized fare, ridership responded with a slightly-less-than-commensurate 29 percent year-over-year increase, adding about 1,900 daily boardings.

In the new plan, if it can overcome a pesky caveat ("subject to negotiation with BNSF Railway," which owns the tracks), Sound Transit would add more new trains and make expensive station, parking, and track improvements for a total cost of about $1 billion. (A bit would go for station improvements at Edmonds and Broad Street for the under-performing Sounder north service from Everett.)

The two Sounder lines last quarter registered about 9,300 daily boardings, a 1.7 percent share of overall regional transit ridership.

Without the new investment, Sound Transit says its current Sounder ridership would grow anyway by 2030 to 19,000 daily boardings. If the billion-dollar additional investment were made, the incremental ridership expected by 2030 would be an additional 8,000 daily boardings. That billion-dollar increment would be equal, 22 years from now, to adding about 1.5 percent of today's overall regional transit ridership.

Lastly, the express bus system. The rest of the $6 billion, nearly a billion dollars worth of projects at 2007 prices, would be spent on Sound Transit's regional bus system. Or what would be left of it. Sound Transit bills this as an ST Express System Expansion with the outcome of "boosting service on key corridors by 10-15 percent."

The key word here is "key." Sound Transit doesn't say exactly what should be expected. Don't assume or expect too much!

Some access and park-and-ride improvements would be made in Snohomish County, and $150 million would be earmarked for a new transit center when the Highway 520 replacement bridge across Lake Washington is built. Several other modest projects around the region are suggested, including some improvements for a few miles of arterials on which a couple of routes would operate, and, figuratively speaking, a few dollars are actually designated for buying some new buses.

Without this investment of nearly a billion dollars, Sound Transit tells us that by 2030 its regional express bus routes will board 52,000 passengers a day. That's about what just Pierce Transit alone boards today. With the billion-dollar investment, Sound Transit estimates express bus boardings by 2030 would grow by an additional 6,000.

That's a little more than what just Pierce Transit alone added in new ridership since last year. King County Metro, already reaping new riders from service improvements it began within months of its 0.1 percent sales tax increase through "Transit Now," has added 21,500 daily boardings since last year, more than three times the ridership dividend Sound Transit expects to achieve 22 years from now on its express bus services.

"Time to decide on expanding mass transit," says Sound Transit's "Sound Off on System Expansion" Web page and its ubiquitous advertising campaign.

Maybe there's something else to decide first.

Are Sound Transit's proposals to spend billions of dollars more for a drop in the bucket of new ridership years from now for the region's transit network fairly called a " mass transit" plan at all?

Transit train wreck: Revealing bus-route ridership

We've got buses going everywhere, and guess which routes are logging the biggest increases in ridership? Not the route that would become light rail to the Eastside suburbs. Part 2 of 3
By Douglas MacDonald
June 23, 2008.

Second of three parts
Part 1: Ridership today and the suggested Sound Transit sales tax increase.
Part 2: Real riders speak, and Sound Transit's model isn't what they want to buy.
Part 3: The must-do agenda for transit and smart growth.

Sound Transit wants to hear from people about a plan for a 30 percent to 40 percent (depending on where you live) increase in the sales tax slice devoted to transit. The plan would put billions of dollars into the lap of the board of directors to spend on capital projects for Sound Transit's 10 percent share of the region's transit service. The big investments would be 18 miles of light rail extensions, serving just a few communities, and station improvements and beefed up frequency on the Sounder commuter rail train through Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila, from Tacoma to Seattle.

Riders could first use the big projects in 2020. Ten years later, by 2030, 22 years from now, the new projects would have produced a gain in daily ridership, according to Sound Transit, equal to about 20 percent of today's daily regional transit ridership, although many of those riders would just be shifting their transit trip to a rail car from a bus.

Meanwhile, the rest of the regional transit system — 90 percent of today's current ridership — operated by King County Metro, Community Transit in Snohomish County, Pierce Transit, Everett Transit, and Washington State Ferries, already with hundreds of thousands of daily boardings, is bursting at the seams with near double-digit annual ridership gains pressed on existing services by gas-price woes to which no end is in sight and, at least for now, traffic congestion.
What's right with this Sound Transit plan?

Not much. Because it would fail to leverage much of Sound Transit's huge proposed tax-funded spending in the markets where transit growth is happening today and where the most important opportunities and needs for transit improvements and growth are presented tomorrow.
The best proof of the plan's failings lies in little-noticed but critically important details of Sound Transit's reports on its own growth spurt in transit ridership. And looking at the evidence from the other parts of the regional system and other places around the country just underscores the flaws in Sound Transit's approach.
The big route connecting Bellevue and Seattle isn't where the riders are

You can start right at the top by laying Sound Transit's own ridership reports against the plan's main event: $2.1 billion in spending to serve Bellevue-Seattle customers (with Mercer Island riders to boot) with a light rail extension between downtown Seattle and Bellevue and Overlake.

This light rail line would replace the Queen Elizabeth II of Sound Transit's regional express bus system, the Route 550 express bus. Today, the 550 makes more than 60 trips each way every day, every few minutes during rush hour. It has been Sound Transit's biggest express bus route, and with travel times just about the same as light rail, it defines the case for Sound Transit's approach of building out an east-west light rail main line. It would connect up with Central Link light rail, which runs north-south, basically paralleling Interstate 5 through downtown Seattle on which construction is moving ahead to a hoped-for mid-2009 opening.

But there's a stark message drowned out in Sound Transit's crowing over an overall 2007 to 2008 jump of 16 percent in overall ridership.

Which Sound Transit express bus route in that period produced growth less than half the rate [PDF] of the Sound Transit system average? Hint: it's the same route that shows lower daily boardings today than in 2001.

Yes, it's Route 550 between Bellevue and Seattle on the I-90 bridge, drifting for years between 5,000 and 6,000 daily boardings and, even with infusion of a few new riders this year, not yet recovering the peak ridership level of 2001.
The riders are flocking instead to stronger transit routes all over the region

It's not hard to contrast that performance with the routes — Sound Transit's own and others — where ridership is surging. They're different.

Take, for example, Route 535, Lynnwood to Bellevue, Sound Transit's top growth performer of any route, rail or bus, with a 31 percent one-year jump in passenger boardings for the first quarter of 2008.

Or Route 554, Issaquah to Seattle via Eastgate: only 35 or so round trips a day, but a 17 percent one year jump in ridership.

Another big winner was Route 545, Redmond-Seattle, operating over the Highway 520 bridge. Last quarter it added twice as many new riders compared to a year ago than Bellevue-Seattle Route 550, at twice the percentage gain (14), and it has now all but overtaken the Bellevue-Seattle Route 550 in total ridership.

Also in contrast to the lackluster Sound Transit Route 550 on the I-90 corridor, where the big light rail line would be, are King County Metro's routes in the Eastside suburbs and connecting them to Seattle. They, too, showed dramatic increases:

* Route 245, Kirkland to Factoria via Overlake. was up 24 percent (December 2007 over December 2006).
* Route 253, Redmond to Seattle via Crossroads, Bellevue, and the 520 transit stops was up 22 percent.
* Route 255, Juanita to Seattle via Kirkland and the 520 transit stops, was up 10 percent.
* Route 271, Issaquah to the University District, was up 12 percent.

Each of these routes gained more riders over the course of a year than did Sound Transit Route 550 back and forth between Bellevue and Seattle across Mercer Island.

It wasn't just nearby routes serving the transit markets on the Eastside that smoked Sound Transit Route 550. Consider Sound Transit Route 522, Woodinville to Seattle, 33 round trips a day along the Lake City Way/Bothell Way corridor. An 11 percent year-to-year increase in daily boardings since 2007.

Or Sound Transit's own express bus service on the I-5 corridor, between Seattle and Tacoma and Lakewood (reported collectively by Sound Transit as Route 590/592/594/595) . That route showed an 18 percent gain in first-quarter ridership. It actually pushed aside Bellevue-Seattle Route 550 at the top of the Sound Transit ranking table, with almost 5,200 boardings a day.

Blue-ribbon honors, though, go to Pierce Transit's Route 1 into and through downtown Tacoma, joining it to Tacoma Community College on one end and Spanaway on the other. More than 60 trips each way daily and over 8,000 daily boardings. Last year, Pierce Transit increased service on this route by four percent and harvested a 12 percent ridership increase, amounting to almost 1,000 additional daily boardings.

Another blue ribbon winner, Metro Route 358 on Aurora Avenue North, most recently reporting more than 9,600 daily boardings. Even that pales before Metro workhorses like Route 48, connecting areas of the city west and south via the University District, and Metro Route 7 connecting Rainier Beach, Rainier Avenue South, and the International District with each other and with downtown Seattle. Both are recording well more than 10,000 daily boardings. These are just a few highlights from many good examples.
Invest in transit where transit works best

What's going on here?

Sound Transit argues for putting most of its transit investment chips on a bet that just a couple of light rail corridors connecting just a few big destinations will be transit's wave of the future. But riders are turning out in droves to use a much richer network of routes with the capacity to crisscross the region in response to today's real-world travel patterns and markets.

Some of those strong routes join centers with each other. Some connect a string of destinations along suburban corridors. Some are urban cross-town routes, like Seattle's busiest ones. Some perform a mixture of these functions, like Pierce Transit's Route 1. Riders are seizing and exploiting the capacity of that rich network of routes. They're not voting for the worn-out flagship Sound Transit Route 550, which the Sound Transit Eastside light rail program would upgrade.

The patterns of the routes that work best are no fluke. They stem from the way the region has grown in recent decades.

The pattern of commuting from the main suburbs to the big city must have seemed immutable more than two decades ago, when Sound Transit's model first gained favor among a faction of transportation planners.

But our region didn't turn out quite they way they expected, either as to where all the people would live or where all the new job locations and other transportation destinations would expand. Bellevue wasn't just going to funnel into Seattle. And Redmond wasn't just going to funnel into Bellevue to get to Seattle.

King County Metro keeps statistics on the growth of boardings in the various communities. Bellevue's boardings last year were up a not-insignificant 10 percent. But the important fact is the shape of that growth as Bellevue's transit needs develop and mature.

Tomorrow's patterns of travel will show how differently the story is developing from what was envisioned years ago when the kinds of plans now engraved in Sound Transit's vision were first made. Puget Sound Regional Council projections now show that by 2030, only 5 percent of journey-to-work trips to Bellevue will come from the west across the I-90 corridor from Seattle and Mercer Island. Bellevue is now its own regional job and employment center, not a satellite of Seattle. Issaquah, Redmond, Sammamish, Factoria, and Renton will be the transit markets to emphasize in and out of Bellevue — not the trip to Seattle, let alone Mercer Island. Interstate 405 will be much bigger in Bellevue's main game than I-90.

Seattle, for its part, last year added about 12,000 daily boardings. Transit grows more important every day, as citizens are demonstrating by getting on the bus to take themselves to every corner of the city. It's Seattle's own neighborhoods and near-in heavily residential suburbs that will most need and can best exploit transit improvements. A segment of riders going back and forth on what once seemed like an all-important transportation spine between the Bellevue Transit Center and downtown Seattle is now the all-important route for hardly anyone.

Meanwhile, the locales in King County that showed the largest percentage jumps in transit daily boardings last year were Issaquah, Bothell, Woodinville, Auburn, Burien, and Kenmore. Issaquah's gain in boardings was 85 percent. Bothell's was 60 percent. Redmond had an 18 percent gain, adding a thousand daily boardings. Transit service across the Highway 520 Bridge is a huge regional transportation need.

The same patterns of developing needs and markets can be seen, for example, in Snohomish County. Community Transit Routes 201/202 [PDF], between the Lynnwood Transit Center and Smokey Point in Arlington through Everett and Marysville, connect communities that are critical to Everett-area everyday travel markets. And Community Transit Route 101 [PDF] in South Snohomish County, connecting Aurora Village in Shoreline along Highway 99 through Edmonds and Lynnwood to the Mariner Park-and-Ride lot in Everett. In Pierce County, we've already seen the importance of Pierce Transit Route 1. Pierce Transit Route 2 connects downtown Tacoma and Tacoma Community College with the Lakewood Transit Center via Bridgeport Way. Ridership is up 11 percent from a year ago. Pierce Transit Route 53 connects Tacoma Mall with Tacoma Community College through University Place. It's a smaller route, but daily boardings jumped in a year by more than 30 percent.

That's a rich spread and variety of routes. Even if every mile of light rail now proposed by Sound Transit were built, the overwhelming majority of transit use in the region will still be provided by buses and the bus network.

This is absolutely clear from the existing data and from the modest scale of Sound Transit's own predictions of future light rail ridership.
Other regions: it's the same story

Other cities' recent experience underscores that the kinds of services bus networks best provide outperform the limitations of light rail corridors, if the goal is to serve as many people as possible.

Denver has built a lot of light rail. Like metropolitan Seattle, it has witnessed a big recent surge in transit ridership. In March 2008, Denver had daily boardings of about 65,000 on the light rail system. Up by a little over 7 percent from a year earlier. Its bus system, on the other hand, had daily boardings of about 215,000. It grew not by 7 percent, like light rail, but by more than 9 percent from a year earlier on a much larger base. The total number of people joining the daily bus boardings was greater than for light rail, and the percentage growth rate was higher, too.

In Portland, in March 2008, the MAX light rail system had daily boardings of 104,000. In Portland, as in Denver, the bus system nevertheless carries a much larger market share than light rail. Daily boardings on the buses in March were 211,000. Transit has not surged quite as much in the Portland area as in Seattle, an interesting fact in its own right. In any case, light rail boardings in March grew by 2.1 percent from a year ago. Bus boardings, on twice as large a base, grew by nearly twice as large a percentage, at 3.75 percent. However attractive Portland's light rail system, a much bigger gain of actual ridership went to the kind of transit network a good bus system provides.

The mismatch of huge investment on cross-lake light rail with the makings of a transformational leap in transit ridership is evident from every angle. Money is scarce and needs are high. We shouldn't be putting up big tax increases and project spending for the most expensive menu items that provide the least nourishment to the ridership.
Sounder south: transportation's ultimate irony

What about spending a billion dollars on Sounder? That, it turns out, is downright bizarre.

It's time to call Sounder south by its right name: Sprawl Rail.

The biggest challenge to the region's Vision 2040 growth management goals is to favor more growth in more compact communities at the more central areas of the region's population and job locations. The idea is not to favor the continued fever pitch of development at the fringes of the designated Urban Growth Area with the long and inefficient transportation requirements that always accompany that pattern of development.

Why, considering our land use and growth strategies, would we spend our money on a transit investment to make trips halfway across the region and to support its market appeal, expand sales tax-funded free parking at Puyallup (already 546 spaces; more in the plan), Sumner (already 327 spaces, more in the plan), Auburn (already 676 spaces; more in the plan), and Kent (already 1,100 spaces, more in the plan)? Today, those spaces are being filled by commuters driving to the stations from east of the Kent Valley all the way to Covington, Maple Valley, and Black Diamond, as well as unincorporated areas on South King County that are not even within the designated Urban Growth Area. And south and east of Puyallup to South Hill and beyond in Pierce County. At the station, they can hop the long train ride for the rest of their marathon commutes!

This is a transit vision promoting long-distance separation of housing and jobs, fueling the wrong kind of development in the wrong places. It works at cross-purposes with the growth strategies to which the leaders of the region are committed.

Would well-informed voters vote for this? Only if they live where they can drive to one of the new parking lots and use a transportation route to their far away destinations.

But even many of Sounder's riders won't vote for it. They won't have to. That's because they actually live outside the boundaries of the Sound Transit taxing district in places like Covington, Maple Valley, and Black Diamond! Get it? The city mice raise their own sales taxes to get transportation funding for the future sprawl of the country mice. Now there's a smart growth plan if ever there was!

When we are presented with the moment to make transit investments on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars, we should focus the money where it will support, not undercut, good regional growth strategies. And help many tens of thousands of citizens, not just a few.
Climate change action for greenhouse gas reduction?

Greenhouse gas reduction from the transportation system matters. It's time for real action to make daily travel less of a threat to the planet.

Sound Transit offers this climate-action advertisement for its plan: "One of the most important things people can do to reduce their carbon footprint is use public transit. By expanding regional transit, this [Sound Transit] proposal would bring about 110,000 new daily riders to Sound Transit's services — an increase of 55 percent or more — by 2030." (Repeating an earlier side note, many of these riders are already transit riders Sound Transit wants to switch from express buses to light rail! But we'll leave that detail aside.)

To buttress the fragile enthusiasm of the Sierra Club for the plan, Sound Transit has promised sometime soon to produce an "industry-leading GHG emission analysis."

Here's the creative challenge the authors of that analysis will face if they want Sound Transit to be pleased with their report:

The plan makes no real impact on ridership until 2020, and the growth number of 110,000 new transit riders is not to be achieved until 2030.

That is not the urgency the case requires!

The plan in truth grows today's regional transit ridership by 2030 by only 20 percent — and probably not even that — compared to today's total regional ridership. Not 55 percent, as Sound Transit suggests by using only its own small fraction of regional transit ridership as the denominator. Indeed, in the overall picture of needed greenhouse gas emission reductions from the transportation sector, the mark of this plan will be so miniscule and so long in coming as probably to be below detection.

This is not enough! Not for billions of dollars in projects and a big new sales tax slice for transit — but only for Sound Transit.

The epigraph for the greenhouse gas analysis on the Sound Transit plan should probably be the sound bite from the bad news scouting report on the basketball recruiting prospect: "He's slow, but he's short."

Indeed, a greenhouse gas proposition offered in Sound Transit's promotional material is so weak that it must yield one or the other of only two conclusions:

* One merited but unfortunate conclusion would be: Why bother?
* The alternative and much more appropriate conclusion is: For that much money, we must not rest until we find a way to do much better!

Benefits, costs, and chutzpah — you've got to be kidding

Recently, Sound Transit issued a press release promoting the supposedly happy conclusion by its consultant that 15 years after the projects in this plan were completed — that would be in about 2035, a date the release manages not to mention — the value of the benefits resulting from the plan would finally catch up with the costs of building the projects. Without the tweaking of every assumption in its favor, the magic year — if ever — would have been even farther away.

The devil was really in the details of the consultant's report, however. The most startling was this: According to the consultant, the plan would cut the otherwise projected daily total of vehicle miles driven in the region in the year 2030 by a whopping 180 million miles a year. Sound like a big number? Well, the forecast for 2030, to which the reduction would be applied, is about 95 million miles a day. So the good news for $6 billion of spending and a big tax increase is that, according to its own consultant and Sound Transit, not its critics, the region would see about two days' worth of reduction in miles driven, or about one half of one percent.

The real stunner here, however, is actually a bit of inside baseball. Even this tiny shred of good news ginned up by the Sound Transit consultant depends on the assumption that when the cars come off the highway because riders shift to transit, nobody else decides to drive in the now freer flowing lanes. There is, in other words, no recongestion effect from latent demand.

Every environmentalist in America, and a lot of other people, too, believe that the best case against building more highways is that latent demand will recongest the new capacity. That's the basis for the expression everyone's heard a thousand times: "You can't build your way out of congestion." Are you prepared to believe that the largest single slice of benefits the consultant identified in its report for Sound Transit is the benefit to car drivers who will be able to get places faster, because there will be a little more space on the road, and that no recongestion effect will apply? That's got to be a head scratcher of mind-melt proportion for any environmentalist. But it's actually in the report — as Casey Stengal would have said (and if you have a good eye for the fine print): "You can look it up." [PDF]
Equity and common sense

Why are there so many disconnects and perplexities in this assembly of projects that prompts Sound Transit to raise and spend billions of tax dollars?

Ask insiders that question, and apologists mutter, "sub area equity." That's not the whole answer, but it's part of it.

No one seems comfortable trying to explain the baroque complexities of sub area equity. Generally, it has to do with the notion that the benefits of taxes should turn up in Sound Transit project spending in the areas within the parts of the Sound Transit taxing district from which the taxes were generated.

As a rule of the project selection game, sub area equity seemingly trumps ordinary considerations of political equity, as in who gets to pay for this and are the benefits being sensibly distributed to people and communities who need them? It trumps common sense, as in why can't we achieve a better fit of projects that would actually promote serious and prompt greenhouse gas reductions?

Nobody seems very happy about it.

The fundamental reason it leads to such bad results is that Sound Transit's rules so limit the kinds of transit projects it can consider. Therefore, to raise taxes enough to generate the money for good but expensive projects in one area, it has to find a whole lot of equally expensive things to do from its limited project menu in other areas. How different it would be, for example, if in areas like Pierce County or Snohomish County new sales tax revenues in a Sound Transit package could be spent on extending regular bus routes to places that need them, in true collaboration with Community Transit or Pierce Transit, rather than pouring money down the Sounder drain.

Flawed rules always lead to bad outcomes. Sub area equity ought to be changed so that a plan sent to voters can truly achieve regional benefits from region-wide taxation.
Get a better plan

A better plan would build a transit system that would be used by many more people, make transportation more efficient, and help everyone adjust to an end-of-cheap-oil world. And cut greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically increasing shared vehicle ridership. And support the growth strategies that will build more compact communities, reducing unwelcome auto dependency and contributing to the protection of our region's environment, especially the ecosystems of Puget Sound.

By the way, a part of that plan — just a part — might well include extending light rail to Northgate, if more federal money can be found to help do it.

The public should be beating down the doors at Sound Transit. Not for Sound Transit's plan, but for a better plan.

Transit train wreck: Here's how to do buses right

They aren't the only solution, but they are the most flexible and potentially most attractive solution if they are used well. Bus lines are flexible, scalable, and can touch more people than rail, and they don't have to be a pain to use. Part 3 of 3
By Douglas MacDonald
June 25, 2008.

Last of three parts
Part 1: Ridership today and the suggested Sound Transit sales tax increase.
Part 2: Real riders speak, and Sound Transit's model isn't what they want to buy.
Part 3: The must-do agenda for transit and smart growth.

Public transportation in metropolitan Puget Sound today achieves something like 540,000 boardings a day. That's with a narrow definition that doesn't include vanpools or special handicapped or elderly transportation, or getting kids to and from school on school buses, or ride-sharing, or private shuttle vans to the airport, all of which it should. It also leaves aside walking and the bicycle, the healthy, low-fat transportation alternatives.

All these things can contribute more to the transportation task. But to keep it very simple, we'll concentrate here just on so-called "fixed route" transit systems.

Even though the daily boardings seem like a big number, transit's role in the overall daily job of personal transportation is pretty modest. It has a long way to go to play the role it should in an end-of-cheap-oil world. Yet our regional transit network is strong compared to most other places. We have dedicated funding from the slice of the sales tax that goes to transit. Voters will approve more if they see a sensible plan.

Transportation is on the threshold of dramatic changes as we lament the lost luxury of cheap oil and worry about the future. Things need to be different. That includes cars that run on renewable energy and more efficient roads to continue to carry freight as well as a lot of daily personal trips for many people. Changes at the margins of accustomed ways of doing things, however, won't be enough. There needs to be a big shift of trips to shared-vehicle transit.

Transit also must play a key role in shaping and serving communities' growth in housing and jobs. We need compact, transportation-efficient communities that are both desirable — people's first choice — and affordable to people who today are all too literally driven to live in distant and sprawling residential areas. Social engineering is a bad idea for pushing change. Good transit is a good idea. We need to put our energies into the good idea.
Set a goal, take names, and kick butt

Progress must be made with urgency, and it can be if we set a goal and fix accountability for performance. Today, the overall system of transit in the region has no such goal and no effective accountability for an overall program of change.

It's not even clear that King County Metro, Pierce Transit, Community Transit, and Sound Transit are seen by one another, let alone by anybody else, as custodians, together, of a single system working toward a single goal and vision for transportation in the region.

Let's first take the entrepreneurial step of setting a goal. The winds of change will be pushing in the right direction, so let's make the most of our opportunity.

Here a goal: A million total daily transit boardings in the region within five years — 2013.

That's a far more ambitious and useful call to action than embracing the hope of seeing 120,000 new daily riders on Sound Transit's sub-system midway through our children's lifetimes in 2030! It's more in line with Community Transit's announced intention of growing ridership by 50 percent by 2012. That's the spirit we need.

We should judge our plans and results against our ambitious goal and speak plain English to the public about how it will be done and what progress we achieve month by month and year by year.
Look to the future, not the past

It's an open secret that in transit circles and among transportation progressives there's not much enthusiasm outside Sound Transit itself for its current plan. Ask, "Why should we go with the Sound Transit plan?" The most common answer is this: "We've been trying to get this done for a long time and if we don't get it done, we'll never get anything done."

Against that answer comes that verity of transportation planning for as long as people could walk: If you're on the wrong path, it's never too late to turn back.

That does not mean back to the old roads-versus-transit wars. Roads have their own issues — one of the most important is to make sure they can handle transit. But our topic is all about transit. What kind of transit, and where, and how, to deliver transit's promise? There is no weaker retort from Sound Transit to transit-oriented critics than the lame: "If you criticize our plan, you're just for roads." Forget that one. That's not what we're talking about.

Does Sound Transit have a role to play? Yes, but it has to change if it wants to be helpful. A Sound Transit internal budget document contains an interesting mission objective for Sound Transit's combined Public Relations and Planning Department (an unusual and probably un-wise organizational co-habitation):

Establish Sound Transit as the regional think tank for research, analysis and development of strategic policy initiatives that advance the way the industry approaches the provision of public transportation services.

We could use that. But it isn't happening.

Now, Sound Transit recognizes only one brand in the region: Sound Transit. Its corporate strategy and its big advertising budget — who has ever seen its tax-funded equal? — focus overwhelmingly on a single product: rail transit. That won't do for a truly regional-minded transit agency.

Successful organizations build their strategies around meeting customer-driven needs. The customer-driven mission here is to help move ordinary people where they need to go. It's not to lay a few ribbons of expensive rail lines where it seems suitable and convenient to engineering firms, public relations consultants, contractors, and rail buffs.

Sound Transit has to back off the merchandising of this expensive and one-dimensional plan that most people don't need and won't use and enter a collaboration to see how all transit can best work for all the people of the region. The ridership numbers for all the systems are the best place to start the planning.
Regional leaders have to step up

Last year, King County Executive Ron Sims got it right when he broke ranks with the wisdom of the establishment and called out the bankruptcy of Proposition 1, the big tri-county roads-and-transit ballot measure that failed in November. He was met with tongue clucking and even a short-lived shunning. But his focus was clear and correct, and he put the first cracks in the Kool-Aid pitcher.

Other voices around the region are now starting to ask the right questions about the son-of-Proposition 1 transit plan from Sound Transit. This plan will not deliver what needs to be done to help our voters and our communities.

As those rumblings build, the county councils and the other county executives and municipal leaders have to come together with a voice that insists: "Let's do this right!"
Better transit service — especially on the buses

Buses are the workhorses of transit. Even if the most ambitious Sound Transit light rail vision were ever achieved, buses would carry the vast majority of transit riders every day for the entire foreseeable future. The regional statistics put this point beyond debate.

Unfortunately, that fact is discomforting for an elitist ideology deeply entwined in today's transportation gestalt. A car at best is a necessary evil. A bus is always better than a car but not actually good. A rail car is good and better in every way than a bus.

That bias isn't helping. And it isn't even valid. The real question is what works best where. Carpools, vans, and ride share can be very important and should get more attention. Walking is a major transportation mode. There are places where rail will be cost-effective. And buses are crucial.

Buses can be energy-efficient and cost-effective ways of getting people conveniently from place to place. Bus systems offer great capacity, easily scaled up by increments, and great flexibility in deploying and routing equipment to meet needs that change not just from day to day but even as communities' growth changes their transportation needs across years and decades.

But we need a modern bus ride — the best. We should be prepared to pay taxes to help get it. The transit agencies and local governments need better cooperation to overcome challenges and speed up changes.

Here is what modern bus systems offer. Check what we already have and what we need to improve:

* Most important of all, frequent, frequent, reliable schedules. Where we've offered good schedules, ridership has soared. It's the single attribute of a transit system that always returns the biggest ridership dividend. We need to do still more.
* Safe, clean, comfortable buses. All around the world the industry standard is improving. We need to show people the best in passenger comfort and convenience from this country and abroad. Our region is already one of the very best in using electric trolleys and hybrid buses for energy efficiency, and more can be done there, too.
* Covered bus stops with benches and suitable security systems. And information displays that announce when the next bus will arrive. And modern electronic systems so everyone settles up their fare before boarding so that trip times are shorter than today — with, please, the inexplicably delayed regional fare card.
* Roadways designed and managed to work for transit. Priority at traffic lights to give bus riders the fastest possible trip. Unclogged travel lanes for buses; some curb lane parking will have to make way! HOT lanes on freeways with variable tolls to clear congestion out of lanes that buses share with cars. These are all tried and true practices around the country and the world. Some we are already doing them here, but, especially in Seattle's neighborhoods, clogged streets are slowing buses and trying riders' patience, and we need to do more.
* Information on the Internet for bus riders as good as what car drivers now get on traffic cam sites, flow maps, and message displays. Look at Busview to see rudiments of the promise, but that is a long way from what it could be! Check out Next Bus on a cell phone the next time you are in Vancouver.
* Helpful drivers. Courteous fellow passengers. These things exist now, and they can become the norm if we set and enforce the expectation.

Bus rapid transit

Put together the best of buses and bus technology for fast, reliable travel times with faster boarding and less waiting on free-flowing corridors that support frequent service. That's called bus rapid transit [PDF].

With bus rapid transit, you can match and sometimes surpass all the service attractions of light rail. And at a fraction of light rail's cost, because buses can use a lot of right of way we already have, including the existing HOV lanes. They cover a much broader geography than light rail. And at a fraction of light rail's start-up time, because you can implement these kinds of bus solutions with much less capital spending, and you can do it in quick, affordable steps.

To see the action today, you go to cities already seizing bus rapid transit to solve problems like metropolitan Seattle's. Bogota, Colombia, moving more than a million people a day. Nine cities in China. London. Vancouver, B.C., Brisbane [PDF] in Australia. Las Vegas, Cleveland, Eugene [PDF], and Boston [PDF]. This is just a brief selection. This month's news: Bus rapid transit is the preferred choice for a big Metro extension in Los Angeles. International engineering firms [PDF] tout bus rapid transit's ability to attract new riders by combining the high performance characteristics of rail with the flexibility and economy of buses.

To envision how basic bus rapid transit will work here, there's not long to wait until Community Transit in 2009 christens its SWIFT service over a 16-mile, 15-station route from Aurora Village through Shoreline, Edmonds, and Lynnwood to Everett Station. Every 10 minutes, another bus! New, easy-to-board buses. Large and comfortable bus shelters, and more. For a start-up cost not of billions, or even hundreds of millions, but $25 million to $30 million.

King County Metro's first bus rapid transit RapidRide services are planned for five routes: Aurora Avenue North between Shoreline and downtown; downtown and West Seattle across the West Seattle Bridge; Redmond to Bellevue through Crossroads and Overlake; Federal Way to South 154th along Pacific Highway South; and Ballard/Uptown to downtown. But RapidRide on Metro won't be seen on even the first route (Pacific Avenue South) until 2010, with years of implementation for the other routes. That's too slow for a RapidRide.

Even Sound Transit knows about bus rapid transit. It's never been willing to put on the table a first-class bus rapid transit option with HOT lanes for future Interstate 90 service between Seattle and Eastside communities (including Bellevue), for fear the comparison would blow away the expensive light rail plan to Bellevue.

But on Highway 520, Sound Transit agrees bus rapid transit is clearly the wave of at least the foreseeable future, and it offers at least someday (after the new bridge is built) to spend for a new transit center somewhere in the corridor.

As already noted by community members, that's too little, too late in improving transit in the corridor. Advocates for plug-in hybrids have shown how a transit center could be built in South Kirkland that would gather riders from a host of adjacent areas and send them on their way to all the key destinations — while their cars would spent the day at the park-and-ride connected up to the regional power grid. Wouldn't that help shorten one-driver-per-car commutes and seize just one of the opportunities environmentalists have spotted for big greenhouse gas reduction from bus rapid transit?

Eavesdrop on the buses and at the bus stops and you might be surprised that regular people have heard about bus rapid transit and want to see how it can improve their trips. We need to hear the riders themselves and deliver bus rapid transit service that will vastly help those riders and attract many more.
Data and vision should direct transit service expansion

Good examples for service expansions are easy to find. They are too numerous to list in their entirety. If the transit and transportation agencies were working together, both on planning and implementation, and money came available to support a coordinated vision, all kinds of things could be done in short order.

Examples abound.

* Issaquah is an oddly neglected stepsister in Sound Transit's plan. It's a prime market for expanded service right now (together with Sammamish), but all it gets in the current plan is a promised "light rail feasibility study." It needs new service to Bellevue and Redmond on the Eastside and to downtown Seattle, the University District, and North Seattle across the lake.
* Pierce Transit Route 53 from University Place to Tacoma Community College isn't as big a route, but it just delivered a 20 percent one-year ridership jump. Look there.
* Bellevue needs new service — focused on where demand is growing in its own daily travel profile, not on the throw-back vision that the highest need is for suburban suits to commute to their Seattle bank high-rise offices. Bellevue needs service to and from the locations where people live who are working in the new jobs in Bellevue. Last year, Sound Transit's Everett-Bellevue route showed a ridership jump of 24 percent. Lynnwood-Bellevue jumped 31 percent. Auburn-Bellevue jumped 18 percent. There are more riders where those riders came from.
* In Snohomish County, Everett needs better service to areas east of Interstate 5, south on the Highway 99 corridor, and north to Marysville, Arlington, and Smokey Point, in addition to more service to Seattle locations downtown and to the University District, as well as to the area served by the north portions of the Interstate 405 corridor.
* In Seattle itself, bus overcrowding on many routes is already holding back ridership growth. Metro rules may have to be stretched (there will be some political heat) and buses shifted from a few underutilized routes elsewhere in the system to meet demand where it's highest.

The list goes on and on. It's important to say that the transit agencies themselves know these opportunities and needs. They may require more money for faster implementation and to keep pace with their own rising fuel costs. They need to be cheered on by the public and supported and encouraged by elected officials so they can meet the market's demonstrated need for service improvements — to say nothing of supporting greenhouse gas reductions much larger and much sooner than hoped for in the Sound Transit go-it-alone plan.
Line up transit with the growth strategies that will really make a difference

Our region faces huge population and job growth right now and in coming decades. Probably even larger than we had thought if a previously unforeseen wave of climate refugees sifts population into the northwest and away from water shortages and the energy-wasting futility of air-conditioning the hot southern deserts.

The challenge: to grow and to prosper and all the while to preserve the values of our environment and, specifically, the irreplaceable ecosystems of the Puget Sound basin. That's what makes ours a unique place where people want to bring their businesses and families to live and work, or stay here if they are already so lucky — if we can preserve what's different and special about this place! There's no other place anywhere in the country like here.

The strategy: change the way we grow so that our rural and natural areas will always be there to enjoy and share, because more people want to and can live more closely together in and near the cities with homes, shopping, schools, and daily recreation at hand. Trips necessarily made today by car, serving people in sprawled exurbia, are placing excessive demands on time, space, the ecosystem and, now with the gas crisis, on money. We should not tolerate growing into a future where we will live in barren bunkers witlessly carved from our beautiful setting, as eternal hostages to the mistakes of our own bad planning.

Regional officials have mostly embraced the right direction in the Puget Sound Regional Council's new Vision 2040. But we are not yet successful in making the strategy happen, especially in bringing the appeal of compact communities into reality in and close to Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Bellevue.

Transit has a huge role to play. Transit oriented development is planner jargon, but everybody gets the idea. Build a transit station and people will want to come to live nearby for the convenience of their commute, and soon enough there will be a QFC, a Walgreens, a locally owned video store, and even that most recently listed endangered species, a neighborhood hardware store! Housing for a mix of incomes. Where you could even conveniently walk to shop or even enjoy a meal out with friends — assuming someone had given forethought to good sidewalks and a pleasant environment to travel around on foot, and even local streets with room for bicycles, not just cars.

Imagine further. This place we need is not just a light rail station, or even a half dozen of them, strung like widely separated big beads on the necklace of a couple of light rail lines. A light rail station isn't either the necessary or sufficient transit condition for forward-looking transit oriented development. A lot of money spent on a new light rail station won't turn downtown high-rise Bellevue or already condo-ized Mercer Island into a new mixed-housing urban village.

You also can bet that a new light rail station in south Bellevue won't be surrounded with a lot of transit-oriented development. The light rail station for Tukwila, now almost fully shaped abreast Highway 518 near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, will be no catalyst for an urban village. More promising results, happily, seem to be emerging near the new light rail stations in the Rainier Valley.

But light rail stations with a small pocket of surrounding development will always be too meager in number and too long in coming to bring about a transformation in regional land use. It's also clear that vibrant and compact growth can as easily spring up where there is no light rail now or in the foreseeable future, as in booming Ballard or in Renton.

The key to vastly more positive results is to envision the desired kind of development laid out along an entire transit corridor. Instead of small clusters of development around isolated stations, imagine an extended boulevard of housing and shops and sidewalks with high-quality bus transit carrying people to it, within it, and through it. And to bring the concept to a regional scale, imagine not just one or two such corridors, but a multitude of them.

You can see what such a corridor might look like today in a few neighborhoods on Capitol Hill in Seattle. You can see it coming into being right before your eyes on the revitalized Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. On Phinney Ridge and Greenwood Avenue in Seattle, the vision is half-realized. On Aurora Avenue North — now there's an opportunity, just waiting to be spurred by vision served by, yes, bus rapid transit, and seized upon by developers.

To see a real diamond in the rough, look at Bothell Way, Highway 522, north of Lake Washington. It hardly gleams like a jewel today. Mile after mile of roadway clogged with cranky, impatient drivers and bordered by used car lots, muffler shops, auto parts stores, and little strip malls, all surrounded by acres of asphalt as far as the eye can see. It's the broken and forlorn landscape of late-20th century Car World. Who would want to live there? But Lake Washington sparkles just blocks away! And the existing bus route — Sound Transit Route 522, in this case — already demonstrates a logical route linking all the way from downtown Seattle to Woodinville, with a host of intermediate destinations.

What if Sound Transit or King County Metro or both together were talking with citizens and local officials about the potential of bus rapid transit on that route? If we look ahead five, 10, or 20 years — who knows then what the price of gas will be or whether regular people will be able to afford it at all — could that mess of asphalt be encouraged to take new form with a forward-looking upgrade of Sound Transit Route 522 to bus rapid transit? Could new families want to live between Woodinville and Seattle on a magnificent avenue where every change you make from today would only improve our use of the impervious acres of asphalt already there?

Or is it easier to punt? Leave the current transportation/land use picture in its current dispirited Car World condition. Then watch with indifference as unsustainable low-density development continues to sprawl into the distance between Woodinville and Sultan, where every new house, driveway, parking lot, and strip mall scours forest, pasture, and field, inexorably destroying piecemeal the sustaining ecosystems of Puget Sound?

Of course, if Vision 2040 is to be achieved, we need the totally transformed Highway 522 corridor of which today we can only dream. And a lot of other paces like it.

How many times do we utter or hear the platitude that we must link transportation and land use? Really good bus service is a transportation investment that unlocks the opportunities of transit-oriented development in dozens of locations in and near all the cities of Puget Sound where growth should be happening.

Even if we started today, we wouldn't be the first to get it. For example, Ontario's York Region suburb, Canada's fastest-growingmunicipality, is proceeding with Viva, an elegant four-corridor, 60-station, 54-mile bus rapid transit system. It serves the region's own suburban canters and, as could be done here to Sound Transit's now a-building Central Link light rail, connects to the rail system to downtown Toronto. Early phase operations began in 2005, expeditiously and cost-effectively delivered by a fast-moving, design-build, public-private partnership. The next phase is proceeding to 2012 with the expectation of serving 155,000 riders by that date.

Viva is the talk of the industry [PDF] for showcasing the ability of phased-in bus rapid transit to stimulate smart growth development. The region brought its transportation investments together with good zoning solutions and tax-increment financing around a "centers-and-corridors" smart growth strategy. Private real estate investment in the brand new York Region Markham Center is expected to produce 4,000 residences and more than 4 million square feet of office space. In Cleveland and in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, you can see other versions of the same exciting opportunity tied to bus rapid transit.

Recently, a new coalition has come together in the Puget Sound region calling itself the Quality Growth Alliance. The idea is for the region's most creative and forward-looking architects, developers, and planners to spur local officials and citizens into action that will lead to attractive new compact communities for good lifestyles for the 21st century.

Here's how those quality growth experts should bring high theory down to real world action: They should get on the good bus routes and use their eyes and imaginations to look out the bus windows, prospecting for the locations where transit is already working and surely can be the catalyst for the urban boulevards of the compact communities in our future.

What they discover will lead them in directions that will make our cities better places to live, our transportation investments more people-friendly and more planet-friendly, and our land uses truly supportive of the protection, not the destruction, of the ecosystems of a healthy Puget Sound basin.

One immediate question they might answer is this: If you were Sound Transit, and all the rest of the regional transit system together, what would you do with a sales tax increase and $6 billion to spend on projects? Sound Transit and local officials need to hear their answers. Regular citizens should chime in, too.

Doug MacDonald served as secretary of transportation for Washington from 2001-2007 and during that time was an ex-officio member of the Sound Transit board of directors. From 1992-2001, he was executive director of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in Boston. Since moving to the Greenwood neighborhood of Seattle in 2007, MacDonald's interest in the relationship between transportation, land use, and the environment has been informed by almost daily use of the Metro Transit bus system, since visual disability precludes him from driving. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.
View this story online at: http://crosscut.com/2008/06/25/sound-transit/15327/

Jitneys becoming more popular in Miama

2008-06-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

Minibus jitneys becoming popular option
Posted on Sun, May. 18, 2008

BY ADAM H. BEASLEY
abeasley@MiamiHerald.com

With gas prices topping $4 in parts of Miami, some are ditching their cars and jumping on the jitney.

The minibus transportation system, which first popped up in South Florida in the 1920s, has long been a cheap and dependable way to get around the city.

The jitney, the common name for a shared taxi, is appealing to some for several reasons. Unlike the bus, which has a fixed schedule, jitneys zoom by seemingly every five minutes. They have routes throughout the county, will make stops anytime you ask, and only cost $1 -- a third cheaper than Metrobus.

And thanks to their size -- slightly bigger than a van but smaller and quicker than the bus -- jitneys can slip in and out of traffic, slicing the commute.

''I don't like taking it, but it's faster,'' said Marie Rodriguez, who uses the jitney to get downtown from Little Haiti at least three times a week. ``I have a bus pass, but there's just so many stops. I'd rather take this.''

The jitney does have its drawbacks, Rodriguez said. They're often cramped, sometimes stiflingly hot, and on some days, boisterous discussions -- often in Creole -- break out.

As much as anything, a jitney is a rolling reflection of the community it serves.

''Like anything in Miami-Dade, it can be a cultural experience,'' said Sonya Perez, spokeswoman for the county's Department of Consumer Services.

There is also a question about the service's long-term viability.

The companies are experiencing the same economic hurdles as most everyone else. For as many new riders jitney owner Daniel Fils-Aime has gained, he believes he's lost at least as many regular passengers who have been laid off.

''The economy has affected everybody,'' said Fils-Aime, who runs Miami Mini Bus, which runs through Little Haiti. ``The gas prices are sky high. A lot of people are not working. It doesn't balance out at all.''

According to the county regulators, the jitney system is viewed as a ''dying'' business, Perez said. With Metrobuses and trains reaching places now they haven't in the past, fewer take the jitney now than before, she added. Jitneys are not allowed in Broward County, according to its transit department.

However, Fils-Aime's fleet of white and blue mini-buses, which hold up to 15 passengers, were packed Tuesday morning.

Miami Metro Bus is one of 13 carriers certified to run jitney service in the county. Routes stretch deep into South Miami-Dade (covered by Metro Jitney) and west through Hialeah (Conchita Transportation). They also run through Overtown, North Miami and Liberty City.

Although they are in competition with the county's public transportation system -- Miami Mini Bus passes several bus stops en route to downtown -- Miami-Dade has an agreement with some of the jitney companies. Metro Jitney and Conchita Transportation both issue and accept Metrorail transfer passes.

The term ''jitney'' came into the vernacular in the early part of the 20th century. The word was commonly used as the name for a five-cent piece -- the cost to catch a ride on the vehicle that was bigger than a taxi but smaller than a full-sized bus, said Miami historian Paul George.

Miami has long had a deep Caribbean influence, and the jitney service is a reflection of it. Shared taxis are the method of transportation in places like Haiti (called Tap-Taps, because you tap on metal to indicate you want off) and some Latin American countries (where they're named públicos).

They caught on in Miami first during the real estate boom of the 1920s, faded then reemerged post-World War II, and then returned again in the 1980s. Since then, they've been a major source of transportation for service workers from outlying areas into downtown Miami.

The system has been regulated by the county since the 1980s. Jitneys are only allowed on certain streets, the vehicles are regularly inspected and drivers must obtain a chauffeur registration and pass background checks to get behind the wheel.

For now, Fils-Aime doesn't plan to raise the fare. Doing so would risk losing customers to the bus.

Plus, it would change the essence of what jitneys have always been -- cheap and accessible by the working class -- and the reason they have the name they do.

''I'm not thinking about making changes yet,'' he said. ``If I did, who's going to service the public?''

The Case for Jitneys

2008-06-03T11:55:00.001-07:00

This is the html version of the file http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/NS12.pdf.

NewSolutions
Community, a solution for saving the environment and conserving resources with equity for all.
Number 12, April 2007
TheSmartJitney:Rapid,
RealisticTransport
Plan C, Community Solutions’ response to Peak Oil and climate change, recommends energy
conservation alternatives in three categories: buildings, agriculture and transportation. Of the
three, transportation is the easiest category to address, but the solution involves changing our
value systems and the way we view the world, rather than relying on high risk technology.
For many decades, the problems of transportation have revolved around the issue of private
versus public. AfterWorldWar II the country made transportation via the private car the top
priority at the expense of public transportation.This choice is not sustainable.The private
car, regardless of its convenience, can no longer serve as the principle mode of people
transport. Its high cost, the depleting of fossil fuels, and climate deterioration – along
with high rates of deaths and injuries – make it unacceptable. Our choice today
is to determine what kind of strategy should be adopted to move the basis of
transportation away from the private automobile.
Since Peak Oil could arrive sooner than expected and the depletion rate
could be faster than predicted, prudence requires a backup plan other than
merely changing car technology. A “Smart Jitney” system could be developed
rapidly, and provide for a very sizable (50-75%) reduction of gasoline con-
sumed and greenhouse gases generated by transportation. It could also be the
model for a new and more efficient approach to personal mobility. Ultimately, it
could be vital in keeping our economy going by giving people a way to get to and
from work if there suddenly was not have enough fuel for private cars.
U.S.TransportationToday
–DefiningaWayofLife
The U.S. transportation system is extremely
complex.The car dominates our economy
and our way of life. Before we can change
to a more sustainable system, it is important
to understand the effects of the automobile
as well as the major trends – a growing car
population, increasing use of fossil
fuels, decreasing vehicle occupancy, as well
as great numbers of deaths and massive
property damage.
In 2006 there were 210 million personal
vehicles in the U.S. including SUVs, cars,
pickups, and other “car equivalent units” or
CEUs, not including motorcycles or motor
scooters.This represents about 30% of the
approximately 750 million cars in use in the
world today.
Worldwide, there are 75 million new
CEUs built each year, 20 million as replace-
ments and 55 million as new additions
to the world passenger vehicle fleet.The
world’s growth in automobile fuel con-
sumption for CEUs is about 8% annually.
Figure 1: U.S. Transportation Fleet
Fleet
Number
Median Life
Cost to replace half the
(years)
fleet (in 2003 $)
Automobiles
130million
17
$1.3trillion
LighttrucksSUVs,etc.
80million
16
$1trillion
HeavyTrucks,Buses
7million
28
$1.5trillion
Aircraft
8,500
22
$0.25trillion
America’s cars and CEUs generate
45% of the world’s total generation of
auto-mobile CO
2
.
On average, every American buys 13 cars
in his/her lifetime.
1
Figure 1 shows the total
U.S. transportation fleet except for trains.
2
The long life of these vehicles illustrates
the difficulty of replacing them with more
efficient ones, assuming highly efficient
vehicles are available.
Heavy trucks are extremely important
when considering the transportation of
food and other materials. In addition, the
8,500 aircraft flying at 30,000 feet do more
climate damage than their numbers suggest
Page 2
PAGE 2 : NEW SOLUTIONS
APRIL 2007, NUMBER 12
VehicleOccupancy
U.S. drivers tend to be solitary (see
Figure 3).Typically, American drivers
average about 1.5 persons per car for a trip.
Vans have only slightly more than two pas-
sengers.
5
Averaging all the different kinds
of vehicles gives an occupancy of about 1.3
persons per vehicle; a great quantity of fuel
distances traveled far outweigh the mileage
improvement from any new kind of engines.
And, even supposing there were sufficient
oil to fuel this growth, the amount of CO
2
it would generate would increase, rather
than reduce, global warming. Rapidly
increasing use while performance improves
only slowly is neither sustainable nor
survivable.
because the emissions from burning fuel are
deposited at higher altitudes.
PerformanceImprovementsand
GrowthTrends
Automobile engine technology improves
at approximately 1.5% annually.
3
However,
even this improvement does not necessarily
result in better mileage because at the same
time that fuel efficiency improves, the size
of both vehicles and engines increases,
cancelling out the potential miles-per-
gallon improvement.
For instance, if the current car fleet were
still at 1981 engine size and vehicle weight,
the passenger car would now get 38 mpg
instead of the current 28 mpg.The reason
it hasn’t is because technology improvements
have gone into other attributes demanded
by the marketplace, such as speed, accelera-
tion and size rather than fuel economy.
...if the current car fleet were still at
1981 engine size and vehicle weight, the
passenger car would now get 38 mpg
instead of the current 28 mpg.
Another reason our petroleum consump-
tion (and with it our CO
2
emissions) are
steadily increasing is that the number of cars
and trucks is rapidly growing, not just in the
U.S. but on a worldwide basis (see Figure 2).
4
This chart, which projects growth based on
current trends, shows the numbers extend-
ing to completely unsustainable levels. And
it does not take into consideration Peak Oil.
When oil production peaks, there will be
a steady yearly decrease in the availability of
diesel fuel and gasoline.Those who argue
that basic changes to the transportation
system are not needed because of improved
car efficiency are not addressing the implica-
tions of going from 750 million cars that
get 35 miles per gallon with an average
yearly mileage of 10,000 miles to something
like 1.3 billion cars (in just 23 years) that
might get 50-70 miles per gallon and drive
an average yearly mileage of 15,000 miles.
The increase in the number of cars and the
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Car
Van
SUV
Pickup
Other
Truck
All
Number of Passengers per Trip for Different Vehicles
Figure 3: Number of Passengers per Trip for Different Vehicle Types
Figure 2: Increase in Global Fleet Size and Petroleum Use
Source: World business council for Sustainable Development, International Energy Agency, Sustainability Mobility Project
These projections assume present trends continue, no new policies are implemented, consumer
behaviors do not change significantly, and alternative fuels and radical technological innovations
do not significantly penetrate the market. Limits in oil availability are also not considered.
Page 3
NUMBER 12, APRIL 2007
NEW SOLUTIONS : PAGE 3
is wasted when driving vehicles that could
contain more passengers.
Unfortunately, this tendency to drive
alone is increasing, as shown in Figure 4.,
6
and is coupled with the increase in auto-
mobile size and weight and longer driving
distances. Our own society and the societ-
ies of other countries are risking climate
degradation by rapidly expanding our more
car-intensive way of living.
CarDeathsandInjuries
The current car paradigm encourages
people to take as many car trips as possible.
Such heavy use of cars requires building and
maintaining an enormous number of roads,
garages and parking areas. Advertising
that supports the cultural ideal of rugged
individualism encourages driving the largest
possible cars while we allow our buses and
trains to be unpleasant. Walking and cycling
are inconvenient and dangerous, and the
priority is always “don’t delay the car.”
The cost of the private automobile goes
beyond financial and environmental con-
siderations.
7
Figure 5 illustrates annual auto
deaths and injuries.The world total is about
1.2 million deaths and about 40 million in-
juries yearly. In the U.S. about 40,000 people
die each year in auto-related accidents.
There are hundreds of thousands of
people injured in auto accidents who never
fully recover, many condemned to a wheel-
chair for the rest of their lives. Deaths and
injuries are even higher in theThird World
where the infrastructure to support the car
paradigm is not as well developed as in the
U.S. As the car begins to penetrate societ-
ies such as China and India, we can only
expect that pollution, injuries and deaths
will increase.
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1977
2001
Home to work
Shopping
F
amily/personal business
Social and recreational
All purposes
Home to work
Shopping
F
amily/personal business
Social and recreational
All purposes
1.3
2.1
2.0
2.4
1.9
1.1
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.6
Vehicle Occupancy 1977 and 2001 (personspervehicle)
Figure 4: Change in Occupancy 1977 to 2001 (personspervehicle)
Worldwide there are close to 1.2 million deaths and 40 million injuries each year from traffic accidents and there is a strong correlation between
the wealth of a country and its relative automotive safety.
Figure 5: Worldwide Traffic Fatalities and Injuries in 1998
Instead of improving, the occupancy level of our vehicles has decreased since 1977. Only
by increasing this level can we accommodate our need to use less oil and produce fewer
Page 4
PAGE 4 : NEW SOLUTIONS
APRIL 2007, NUMBER 12
NewAutomotiveOptions
It is likely that oil supplies will be virtually
exhausted in about 40 years at the cur-
rent rate of consumption. Although the
internal combustion engine, now into its
second century of use, is being constantly
improved, it does not appear to have the
potential to do more than its historical
1.5% per year mileage increase.
Many people hope for some kind of
technological breakthrough.The favorite,
under development for more than 30 years,
is the hydrogen fuel cell car. But after so
many decades of failed promises, its success
is unlikely. Only a few hundred have been
built as experimental models.This may
well be one of the longest technological
proposals in history with the least amount
of progress. Only the futile efforts for fusion
power offer a similarly hopeless effort.
Electric cars are another hoped-for
option but they too have been around
almost as long as the automobile itself, with
only minor improvements. In the 1990s,
under pressure of California law, several
auto manufacturers built about 4,000
electric cars, most of which have now been
scrapped.The electric car has always been
limited by battery technology and hoped for
breakthroughs have not materialized.
A recent development is the successful
hybrid car, based on the combination of a
gasoline engine and an electric drive, both
well-researched technologies.Two problems
face the hybrid. One is the tendency to use
the electric engine for faster acceleration
rather than mileage improvements.The
other is the small numbers being purchased.
After 10 years, only about a million hybrids
had been shipped through 2006, about
one out of every 750 cars in the world.
Possibly in 5-10 years, 1% of the total
fleet might be hybrids.This does not seem
adequate, considering oil may peak in the
next five years.
A hybrid fleet might give a 20-40%
overall improvement in gas mileage. But,
as said before, the increasing growth in the
number of cars cancels out any mileage
improvement.
In recent years, proposals have been
made for what is called a “Pluggable Hybrid
Electric Vehicle (PHEV)” based partially
on the work of Dr. Andrew Frank at the
University of California - Davis. Frank
modified several vehicles by adding batteries
that allowed them to operate in either a
gasoline or electric mode.This is proposed
as a logical and straightforward extension
of the hybrid concept. However, since the
electric component of the typical hybrid is
essentially a form of extra power for the gas
engine under heavy driving loads, it funda-
mentally differs from the classic electric car.
An electric car requires a much larger
battery and one which is subject to a much
heavier load than is the case with a hybrid.
The fact that a hybrid system successfully
uses batteries in a particular way does not
mean that an electric car (with much larger
batteries) combined with a gasoline engine
can be designed and built quickly. A heavily
promoted modifiedToyota Prius could
not be driven at a speed above 34 mph on
electricity.
8
But most important, such a car with
its heavy dependence on pure battery
operation just shifts where the CO
2
is
produced, replacing gasoline burned by the
engine with electricity generated through
the national power system. Since 50% of
electricity is generated from coal, 20% from
natural gas, and 20% from uranium, the
electricity used by a pluggable hybrid is
generating CO
2
at the power plant roughly
in the same amounts as is generated from
the tailpipe of a gasoline engine.
9
As the car’s contribution to global warm-
ing and the threat of dwindling fossil fuels
becomes more obvious, the hyping of new
auto technology, whether it is the fuel cell
or a pluggable hybrid, delays what is really
needed – cultural change. People assume (as
advertising and even our government tell
them) that there is no need to modify their
habits since the new technology is presum-
ably “close at hand.”They are led to believe
that there is no need to change their behav-
ior and, of particular concern to automobile
and oil corporations, there is no need to
reduce consumption by buying smaller cars
and driving less.
Our current CAFE (Corporate Average
Fuel Economy) standards were passed by
Congress in 1975, just a couple of years
after the beginning of the first energy crisis.
We have been in the new energy crisis now
for at least five years and Congress has failed
to address the issues, leaving the responsibil-
ity for intelligent action to individuals.
ResultsofthePrivateAuto
Paradigm
It is difficult to realize how something that
is so ubiquitous and popular can also be so
damaging and harmful. Cars have played
a major role in destroying community, a
loosely used term that represents a feeling of
home, of family and neighborhood. With
the private automobile,
10
people are now
footloose and “free.” We have speed and
mobility but have lost community
relationships. We have chosen the freedom
of the individual over the integrity and
support of the community.
Our culture includes an idea of freedom
known as “the freedom of the open road.”
A rite of passage for teens to become men
and women is getting a license to drive.The
automobile allows a young person to leave
their “community,” to experiment with high
speed, and, removed from their family, with
sex and drugs.The automobile is constantly
being marketed to them. Our culture has
accepted this so-called freedom for our
children, ignoring the damage and danger
to their well-being.
The greatest fear of parents is not drugs
or pregnancy but death or injury in a
car accident. And no wonder parents are
...the electricity used by a pluggable
hybrid is generating CO
2
at the power
plant roughly in the same amounts as
generated from the tailpipe of a
gasoline engine.
Page 5
NUMBER 12, APRIL 2007
NEW SOLUTIONS : PAGE 5
Our urban sprawl has no precedent in
history, so the feasibility of a mass transit
system has yet to be proven – a true mass
transit system for the U.S. today may, in
fact, be impossible. In addition, the energy
savings of mass transit, in the context of
implementing such a system in today’s con-
figuration of cities and urban sprawl, may
be highly overrated. Figure 6 shows that
existing mass transit systems do not provide
significant fuel savings.
11
It depicts the Btus
of energy per passenger mile (assuming
average passenger densities) for each type
of transportation.
As previously noted, it is not obvious
that a mass transit system can be imple-
mented on top of our current sprawl. The
mantra of “We need light rail” provides
no evidence that a light rail system would
work. Modeling of this complex system is
required but has not been done to date.
That leaves us with the private car as
the only option. In spite of its numerous
benefits, the many conveniences and the
sense of freedom associated with the auto-
mobile, it is unlikely that the concept of the
private car, as we know it today, is viable for
the future.Traffic is worsening all over the
world. We can’t continue using a machine
that has been so devastating for the planet.
As energy resources deplete and pollution
worsens even a 100 to 200 mpg automobile
cannot be the main vehicle for billions
of people.
Another option is needed.
concerned – almost every beginning driver
in the U.S. has an accident. Parents don’t
want their children to be among the 40,000
lives lost each year or the 2 million injuries,
many permanent and crippling.
Because we crave what the car provides,
we have accepted the destruction of our
communities, the negative impact on family
life and the deaths and injuries. But now
the private car is threatening to destroy life
on the planet as climate change becomes
a critical problem. Peak Oil and climate
change are challenging our current transport
paradigm – without their threat, it is incon-
ceivable for Americans to consider that life
might be worthwhile without a private car.
TheRoleofMassTransit
At first glance, mass transit appears to be a
possible and obvious alternative. European
cities are often praised for their superior
transit systems.The New York City subway
supposedly offers an alternative to the
private car. But in all the cities with mass
transit systems, there is still a growing car
population. Streets are becoming more
crowded, and far more expenditures are
made on roadways than subways and buses.
Subways and other forms of mass transit
today are only supplemental to the car.
High density is required for mass transit.
In successful past implementations, resi-
dential developments were laid out in dense
corridors, typically along a rail or streetcar
line. Between those corridors were open
spaces and farms.The ideal configuration
was analogous to a wheel, the hub being
where people went to work and shopped,
while the spokes represented where they lived.
When the private car became popular,
the areas between the spokes were more
accessible and were eventually filled in.
Food growing was transferred further and
further away from where people lived.This
led to urban sprawl, making mass transit
more difficult. After some time, there was
no longer any attempt to build along mass
transit lines, so today they have mostly faded
or disappeared.
PeakOilandClimate
Change:ANewTransport
Paradigm
The world is threatened with the combina-
tion of declining fossil fuel resources and
a climate that is already severely damaged
by the products of fossil fuel burning.
The damage is already so bad that severe
restrictions may have to be placed on the
consumption of the remaining fossil fuels,
making the need for alternative transport
systems even more important. A new
transport paradigm would place the highest
priority on minimizing the use of fossil
fuels, a priority higher than convenience,
speed, or personal “freedom.”
At the same time, a new approach could
solve some of the problems of the existing
system. For example, it could be much safer.
A new system could protect people from
irresponsible drivers – something that is
not possible today. It could allow parents
to retain control over the safety of their
children’s lives a little longer. It could also
give people precedence over vehicles. Walk-
ing, cycling, and buses could be made more
convenient and cars less convenient, revers-
ing the trend of the last century.This differs
from most of today’s proposed solutions
that simply involve combinations of mass
transit and the private automobile.
No viable approach can be a one-for-one
replacement of the current car fleet with
more efficient ones. It would take decades
to replace the 210 million vehicles in the
U.S. with some superior version, even if
such a version were already on the drawing
board. However, it might be possible to
convert the existing private car to public use
for a jitney system.
Figure 6: Mass Transit Over-
rated (Btuperpassengermile)
PrivateCar
3,549
LightTruck(SUV)
7,004
BusTransit
4,160
Airplane
3,587
AmtrakTrain
2,935
RailTransit
3,228
Mass transit offers only a small improvement
over private vehicles for personal travel, and
is hardly applicable.
A new transport paradigm would place
the highest priority on minimizing the
use of fossil fuels, a priority higher
than convenience, speed, or personal
“freedom.”
Page 6
PAGE 6 : NEW SOLUTIONS
APRIL 2007, NUMBER 12
TheSmartJitneyOption
The Smart Jitney is an intermediate tech-
nology which increases service and reduces
energy use with existing vehicles. It could
provide – anywhere, any time, any place –
pick up and drop off. It is not limited to
tracks, lines or schedules. It could also pro-
vide a very high level of security and safety.
A jitney is defined as a small bus that
carries passengers over a regular route on a
flexible schedule. Another definition of a
jitney is an unlicensed taxicab. Basically,
a jitney is a form of mass transit using
cars and vans, not passenger buses. Jitneys
typically are not required to travel specific
routes on a specific schedule as are trains,
buses and street cars.They are both ancient
and contemporary.
degradation, combined with reducing avail-
ability of oil, require an option that can be
implemented rapidly. A jitney system would
make it possible for people to continue to
travel fairly long distances to work, school
and for necessities if transportation fuels
were no longer available in the quantities
currently being consumed or if the dete-
riorating climate effects of CO
2
emissions
could no longer be tolerated.
SmartJitneyBenefits
One key benefit of the Smart Jitney would
be faster transit time. Commuters sitting
on any freeway in any large American city
(most of us) are aware of the stop-and-go
traffic at rush hour, averaging only a few
miles per hour for much of the journey. Use
of a Smart Jitney system could eliminate
three-fourths of the cars currently on the
road, and allow much more rapid flow of
traffic. Even the time for stopping to pick
up and drop off riders would be small rela-
tive to the time spent in the current conges-
tion. Scientists have developed many kinds
of ride optimization algorithms for complex
pickup and deliveries for both people
and materials.
A second benefit is that the Smart Jitney
would use the existing car fleet instead of
requiring all new vehicles. It is important
to begin thinking about passenger miles per
gallon, not car miles per gallon.Thus an
SUV getting 10 miles per gallon containing
six passengers is getting the same passenger
mpg as a Honda Insight with one passenger.
The Hirsch report
2
has pointed out that
replacing the current fleet could take 10 to
20 years.The high mileage cars that would
be needed to replace the current fleet are
not yet available and may never be, if one
considers the failed promise of the fuel cell
car and the marginal improvement of the
hybrid automobile.The Smart Jitney could
address the important task of improving
passenger miles per gallon by changing the
current car paradigm rather than waiting
decades to change the car miles per gallon.
The third major benefit is to drastically
reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.This
would help avoid economic disaster, lower
the chances of worldwide wars over fossil
fuel resources and, even more important,
reduce CO
2
emissions. Increasing the
passengers per vehicle substantially would
provide a very large reduction in such emis-
sion, helping to eliminate the specter
of global warming with its potential for
massive disasters and loss of life.
The Smart Jitney could address the
important task of improving passenger
miles per gallon by changing the
current car paradigm rather than
waiting decades to change the car’s
miles per gallon.
The fourth major benefit would be to
eliminate much of the current carnage
which is accepted as part of our ordinary
way of life. Just as we have accepted the
possibility of destruction of planetary life
by nuclear war or climate degradation, we
have accepted the huge number of deaths
and injuries associated with the private
automobile.
By monitoring driving in real time,
keeping records of driver performance,
enforcing speed limits and other laws via
Auto Event Recorders (AERs), lowering
speed limits to save gasoline and by many
other options which would be designed into
the system, the Smart Jitney could save tens
The concept of the Smart Jitney is simple: you
use your car, pass a test, apply a magnetic
sign to your car door and you’re off!
Where parking is an issue, parking spaces
could be reserved for Smart Jitney drivers and
their passengers.
A jitney system could basically increase
passenger occupancy from the current 1.5
persons per trip to 2-4 times that num-
ber. An increase of 2-4 times would allow
using one-half to one-fourth the number
of vehicles to achieve the same number of
passenger trips, removing most of the cars
on the road at any particular time and thus
substantially reducing fuel consumption
and CO
2
emissions.
A jitney’s advantage is that it could be
quickly implemented, using the existing
personal vehicle fleet. More and more evi-
dence says that the CO
2
reduction required
to stabilize the atmosphere may be as
high as 70-80 %. And the reduction must
begin soon. Non-linear increases in climate
Page 7
NUMBER 12, APRIL 2007
NEW SOLUTIONS : PAGE 7
of thousands of lives every year. Additional
lives could be saved because there would be
significantly less traffic and the best drivers
would be at the wheel.
SmartJitneyTechnology
An important advantage of the proposed
Smart Jitney is that the technology needed
for implementation is already available and,
for the most part, in mass production.The
vehicles are already available – existing cars.
Jitneys can be any vehicle, new or old, small
or large but with the minor addition of a
cell phone connected to the car.
Each passenger using the jitney system
would have a personal cell phone although
computer access or regular phone access
would also be available. Eventually, the cell
phone would include GPS capability as well
as an emergency call button for security.
Whenever the rider feels any sense of danger
or threat, punching the emergency call but-
ton would automatically transmit informa-
tion to the nearest law enforcement center
for assistance.
Initially there would be relatively small
adjustments to the existing vehicle fleet
and the ubiquitous cell phones currently
dominating communication. Reservation
tracking systems accessed by the rider’s and
driver’s cell phones (or via the Internet)
would need to be developed and installed
throughout the country.The reservation
system would control both the ride manage-
ment and bookkeeping of this new trans-
portation modality. Rides would be planned
and scheduled in a similar way to an airline
reservation, except in a more timely, local
and responsive manner.
An existing technology that would be
incorporated into the Smart Jitney system is
the Auto Event RecorderThe AER is analo-
gous to the flight recorders on airplanes.
AERs already exist on more recently manu-
factured automobiles.The NationalTrans-
portation Safety Board (NTSB) estimates
that 65 to 90 percent of all vehicles in the
United States contain some type of AER.
12
These systems record driving activity that is
taking place in real time including vehicle
speed.This information would provide the
basis for adding a new level of traffic safety
and could be fully implemented nationally.
SmartJitneyProcess
As previously noted, the Smart Jitney
system could be accessed by the Internet
or telephone. In either case, a request for
service would be initiated by the passenger
dialing a reservation number using their
cell phone (or the Internet) and entering a
pickup location and a destination loca-
tion along with desired times for pick up
and drop off. A fifth number to be entered
would be the level of service desired.
The Smart Jitney computer would
constantly be monitoring all cars that are
part of the system, including the number
of passengers, the destinations and the
vacant seats available. Once the analysis was
completed (a few seconds of calculation) the
rider would be assigned to a participating
vehicle.The driver of the vehicle would be
notified and provided the pickup location
and time, along with directions.
The rider would be picked up and
dropped off as requested. After the trip,
the rider would submit an evaluation by
cell phone or web, similar to the evaluation
used by the Internet based company E-Bay.
E-Bay’s method of evaluating customer
satisfaction and publishing the information
has eliminated many complaints because
people stopped buying from sellers with poor
delivery performance. By having both a
ride evaluation and AERs, driver records of
long-term performance would be available.
LevelsofService
The easiest and most efficient system would
be one where all riders take whatever ride is
available. It might be difficult for Americans
to share in such a completely democratic
jitney system.Therefore, different levels of
service would be required with at least three
levels provided in the initial system. Other
levels could be developed as the system
evolves.
The first level of service is more or less
random. Only the pickup and destination
locations are entered along with the time of
pickup and preferred time of drop off.The
rider would input the data and the system
would inform him or her of the car descrip-
Smart Jitney vehicles and drivers would be
evaluated in much the same way as E-Bay
users evaluate sellers.
When Cuba lost access to Soviet oil in the 1990s virtually every vehicle was put into use as a
jitney in an effort to solve their new transportation problem.
Page 8
PAGE 8 : NEW SOLUTIONS
APRIL 2007, NUMBER 12
tion and time of pickup.The rider would
accept the random assignment to the most
available vehicle.This level would allow for
the most possible rides and the quickest
service.
The second level of service would allow
a person to input preferences, requesting
rides with certain groups of people. Possibly
the most important would be for women to
be able to request rides with other women.
Men could also request non-coed trips.
Other options would be to limit selection
by requesting certain age groups. Still others
might want to put limits on the playing
of radios or wish to ride with people who
will be quiet. Any rider should be allowed
to select the mode that best suits them.
Of course, if a rider’s preferences were too
strict, availability of rides would decline.
The third level of service would be to
allow scheduling of rides in the future with
a specific set of people. For example, a
group of people with mutual interests who
have a predictable schedule on a regular
basis (such as work or school), would be
accommodated.This would mean that
for family outings, all could ride together.
Other levels of service would be added as
experience dictates.
TheSmartJitneyDriver
The Smart Jitney need not be implemented
as a separate business like a taxicab service
or a mass transit business. It is intended to
be a form of ride-sharing using existing pas-
senger vehicles and existing drivers. Anyone
with a good driving record could serve as a
jitney driver.
Overall, the number of people driving
should decrease significantly. Although
people could still drive and maintain an
automobile, it is expected that eventu-
ally most people would accept the role of
passenger. Certain limitations would be
required. For example, teenagers could not
be jitney drivers. Minimum age limits for
drivers would correspond to the age limits
set by insurance and rental car companies,
which reflect the very high accident rate of
young drivers.
More rigorous driving tests would be
administered to be qualified as a Jitney
driver. People with poor driving records, as
measured by accidents and traffic citations,
would also be barred from being Smart
Jitney drivers. People with DWI convic-
tions would not be permitted to be drivers
until some time had elapsed or some type
of re-qualification had been passed. People
with child molestation records could not be
drivers. Existing Smart Jitney drivers could
also lose driving privileges based on poor
driving or the use of intoxicants. Finally, not
everyone would want to be a jitney driver.
Drivers would be compensated for
providing the transportation service, with
the fee regulated just as mass transportation
fees currently are. An additional benefit
for drivers would be greater access to
dwindling fossil fuels and more flexibility
in transportation.
AddressingConcerns–
Security,SafetyandPrivacy
Evaluators of the Smart Jitney proposal
typically are concerned with issues of secu-
rity, safety, and privacy. In general, women
are more concerned than men, particularly
with regard to security. Other issues deal
with a feeling of loss, both of private time
while driving and the loss of the self-esteem
associated with ownership of a vehicle.
Americans have been taught to believe vehi-
cle ownership says something about who
they are.The automobile – for them – has
become far more than transportation – it
represents the good life. However, it might
be that it represents a form of addiction.
Increasingly, the private automobile
has also been responsible for the fears and
concerns many of our Smart Jitney evalu-
ators expressed. Its availability certainly
makes crime much easier – perpetrators can
be miles away from the scene of the crime
in minutes. Date rape becomes easier when
a man and woman are alone in a vehicle.
Moreover, the image of the private auto-
mobile, as presented in advertising, is typi-
cally one of power, speed and force. Cars are
sold on that basis, with strong emphasis on
the individual and implied contempt for the
community.The poor record of young male
drivers is possibly based more on driving
with a certain machismo image in mind
than from a lack of driving skill.
The Smart Jitney could serve as a vehicle
for cultural change as well as a new transporta-
tion modality. But to do so, security, safety
and privacy problems must be addressed.
The Smart Jitney program could also include trucks and other vehicles, for transportation of all
kinds of goods.
The automobile has become far more
than transportation – it represents the
good life. However, it might be that it
represents a form of addiction.
Page 9
NUMBER 12, APRIL 2007
NEW SOLUTIONS : PAGE 9
Country
Population
Murders
Rapes
Assaults
(millions)
per 100 K
per 100 K
per 100 K
US
300
4.3
30
764
Japan
130
0.5
2
34
Germany
82
1.2
9
142
France
63
1.7
14
176
UK
62
1.4
14
748
Italy
60
1.3
4
50
Canada
34
1.5
74
718
US/G6Ratio
3.8
2.5
3.3
US/JapanRatio
8.6
15.0
22.5
Figure 7: U.S. and G7 Violence Rates
Security
Security is a term that covers the risk and
danger from other people who, for whatever
reason, may intend some kind of harm to
our persons or psyches. Concerns about
personal security are not trivial. Figure 7
compares the members of the G-7, the
seven wealthiest countries in the world.
13
It shows that the U.S. has about four times
the murder rate, 2.5 times the rape rate
and 3.3 times the assault rate of the other
six countries. A comparison to Japan alone
shows that the U.S. has 8.6 times as many
murders per capita, 15 times as many rapes
per capita and 22.5 times as many assaults
per capita.
The U.S. is a very dangerous culture
and its citizens are more violent than the
majority of people in the rest of the world.
Women have good reason for concern. But
most American men, although feeling safer
than woman, must also take the necessary
precautions for living in a violent country.
“I wouldn’t ride with a man,” many
female reviewers said, stating openly their
fear of the violence in our culture. Initially,
the ability to choose to ride only with other
women must be a component of the Smart
Jitney system. Additionally, children and
minors must also be protected from bully-
ing or other anti-social behavior. Everyone
– men, women and children – must be
protected from the potential of violent or
bullying passengers.
At the completion of each ride, passengers
would be asked to rate their Smart Jitney
experience, covering such categories as the
condition of the vehicle and the skill and
suitability of the driver. With multiple pas-
sengers daily providing reviews, poor or
unsuitable drivers would quickly be identi-
fied and their jitney license taken away.
Eventually, selection of top-rated drivers
could become an option when scheduling
a ride. Obnoxious passengers would also be
identified by the rating system.
Safety
Safety in relationship to automobiles
refers to the accidents, deaths and injuries
that come from a myriad of causes includ-
ing auto and traffic equipment, roads, unin-
tentional driver errors and reckless drivers.
Initially, to insure vehicle safety, there would
be mandatory inspection of vehicles for
Smart Jitney licensing. Annual inspections
would also be required. Passenger reviews
would include questions on the apparent
suitability of the vehicle.
At first, Smart Jitneys would be existing
cars but eventually replacement vehicles
could be designed with a focus on safety.
Rather than more electronics for watching
TV in the car or automatically parking the
vehicle, collision avoidance electronics could
be implemented.
Automobile companies have always
given priority to speed, styling and image
over safety.The failure to set standard
bumper heights, to provide governors to
With multiple passengers daily provid-
ing reviews, poor or unsuitable drivers
would quickly be identified and their
jitney license taken away.
Security is a primary consideration, particularly for women in the U.S. given the high rates of
violence in this country compared to most other G6 nations.
A reduction in the number of car wrecks,
deaths and injuries could be one of the best
results of the Smart Jitney system.
maintain speed limits, and to limit perfor-
mance and weight to protect slower and
more frugal drivers (including those who
choose smaller cars) calls for some form of
regulation that places the priority on safety
at the expense of marketing features.
If the forty billion dollars a year spent
on automobile R&D were redirected from
styling changes, then major safety improve-
ments could be realized quickly. Further-
more, cars could be designed for longevity
and ease of repair, which would contribute
to reduced CO
2
emissions by minimizing
the amount of embodied energy expended
on the automobile fleet.
Traffic equipment and roads must be
carefully evaluated but are not the main
reason for accidents. Driver errors could
be dramatically reduced by setting a lower
speed limit, 50-55 miles per hour, the opti-
mum speed limit for efficient performance
of the internal combustion engine. Slower
moving vehicles with higher passenger
density would leave more of our streets
Page 10
PAGE 10 : NEW SOLUTIONS
APRIL 2007, NUMBER 12
available for bicycles and also reduce the risk
of riding them. Irresponsible drivers would
quickly be eliminated by the rating system.
Through a shift to ride-sharing, the
nation could set a high priority on reducing
highway carnage. Legislation and market
demand for safe jitney vehicles could force
new safety standards from the automobile
manufacturers.
Privacy
Privacy refers to people’s need to main-
tain the confidentiality of their personal
identification including name, employer or
place of residence. Whereas safety refers to
the damage done by irresponsible drivers
and passengers, a breach in privacy refers to
people intruding in one’s life through inap-
propriate access to their personal data.
In modern times, real privacy is increas-
ingly limited even though we have a sense
of it in our private cars and homes. Internet
access and phone records, along with other
private information, can now be purchased
by businesses, corporations and government
agencies such as the CIA and NSA. Market-
ing of people’s personal information is now
somehow acceptable, and viewed simply as
a business opportunity.The 2006 Hewlett-
Packard scandal on “pretexting” shows how
easy it is for people’s personal information
to be obtained.
With people sharing rides with strangers
on a daily basis, the protection of privacy
will be a challenge.The Smart Jitney system
would utilize the same methods of anonym-
ity and protection as banks or any other
institution promising confidentiality, with
the same caveat – “We cannot absolutely
guarantee that your ride sharing informa-
tion will not one day be inadvertently
revealed or stolen from us.”
Infractions of privacy would be traced
back in the ride-sharing system by reviewing
records and appropriate responses taken.
ImplementationStrategies
Implementing a system of this complexity
would not be difficult. At least one rental
car company, Zipcar.com, has an Internet
system with some of the features proposed
for the Smart Jitney – scheduling with
many options and tracking cars via GPS.
In the United Kingdom, liftshare.com
administers a ride-sharing program which
matches riders and loads to cars and trucks
around the country, utilizing phone and
Internet connections. Liftshare has more
than 150,000 individuals and businesses
as members. And, based in Germany, Mit-
fahrzentrale.de offers ride-sharing through-
out Europe to its 600,000 members.
The technology effort is far less than
that associated with creating a new video
game for teenagers. An 18-month feasibil-
ity model could be done for approximately
$500,000. Prototype systems could be
made available a year after that with expen-
ditures of a few million dollars.This is a
much lower-risk effort than building fuel
cell cars or beefing up the national coal-
intensive power system for battery vehicles.
However, there will be enormous resis-
tance to the concept as it will require a para-
digm shift that will include changing the
legal system, the law enforcement system,
and all aspects of the transportation system.
Because of this resistance, a grassroots effort
to develop the system may be required. A
cooperative public development, similar
to that of the LINUX computer operating
system, may be the best way to achieve early
implementation.
All development to date onThe Smart
Jitney has been put into the public domain,
as an “open source” approach is desirable.
Hardware changes are minor and, should
manufacturers with vested interests be
reluctant to develop the ideal products,
existing technology can be adapted. Once
the system is underway, the market may
find and develop lucrative options outside
the purview and control of major auto
manufacturers. An effort by a few hundred
systems engineers and programmers could
lead to this paradigm shift in an amazingly
short time.
TheSmartJitney–Long
TermImplications
The combination of Peak Oil and Climate
Change challenges both the last century’s
industrial economy and rapid growth. It
is becoming ever more apparent that this
economy is based on a concept of no
physical limits.
The accepted view is that the world
will never run out of fossil fuels, or, if it
does, technology will find replacements.
Yet, as the world peak in oil production
approaches, no clear replacements are visible,
and many of the alternatives presented are
themselves finite, merely delaying the reality
of physical limits.
In terms of climate change, popular
wisdom and practice have been that the
earth and air are adequate depositories for
toxins from fossil fuel use.These so-called
“sinks” have been viewed as essentially
limitless. However, the accelerating increase
in CO
2
emissions worldwide and the rapid
melting of polar ice suggest the “sinks” are
getting full.
The use of fossil fuels changed the world
from one of smaller more local communi-
ties with limited mobility and resources to
one of large urban concentrations with high
mobility. Goods and food are shipped from
thousands of miles away. High mobility is
based on the private car with its continuous
use of significant quantities of gasoline.
The advantages of this way of living are
becoming more and more questionable.
Low energy ways of living will need to
include many changes, such as devolution
from concentrated urban centers to smaller
communities and local food supplies. Even-
tually a pattern of smaller neighborhoods
and towns with a focus on walking and
bicycling will be more the norm.This is not
...the Smart Jitney system would utilize
the same methods of anonymity and
protection as banks or any other institu-
tion promising confidentiality, with the
same caveat...
Page 11
NUMBER 12, APRIL 2007
NEW SOLUTIONS : PAGE 11
References
1. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m3165/is_4_42/ai_n16116806
2. http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_
peaking_of_world_oil_production_study_
hirsch.htm
3. http://energy.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.
Testimony&Hearing_ID=1604&Witness_
ID=4548
4. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2006/
One-Billion-Cars17apr06.htm
5. Transportation Energy Data Book, 25th
Edition, 2006, page 8-11, Center for
Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory; http://cta.ornl.gov/
data/index.shtml
6. Transportation Energy Data Book, 25th
Edition, 2006, page 8-12, Center for
Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory; http://cta.ornl.gov/
data/index.shtml
7. http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/
ipsafety/ipsafety.pdf
8. http://www.calcars.org/conversions-
factsheet.pdf
9. http://www.communitysolution.org/
pdfs/NS9.pdf, page 9
10. Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam,
Simon & Schuster; 2001
11. Transportation Energy Data Book,
25th Edition, 2006, tables 2-11 and 2-12,
Center forTransportation Analysis, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory; http://cta.ornl.
gov/data/index.shtml
12. http://www.detnews.com/2005/
autosinsider/0510/03/A01-335316.htm
13. http://www.communitysolution.org/
pdfs/NS7.pdf, page 3
a return to some previous period in human
history. Medical science and other advances
will not be abandoned even if we drive less
and share vehicles.
The Smart Jitney may start as a short-
term emergency solution within the existing
infrastructure, since it will allow us to keep
the same patterns of living. Any inconve-
nience and discomfort we may experience
will be overshadowed by the possibility
of stopping planetary degradation and its
threat to basic survival. In the long run, the
Smart Jitney could evolve into some mode
of transportation not yet envisioned. It
could help serve the larger physical commu-
nity in the future as an intra-city mecha-
nism for longer travel. It’s possible that the
evolution from an emergency measure to a
key component of a jitney-based mass tran-
sit system, within the context of a decentral-
ized local way of living, will naturally occur.
Summary
Our culture has declined in many ways.
Skills like politeness, good manners,
courtesy and chivalry have atrophied.
Misbehaving in public is “cool.” Conversing
with strangers used to be an art form and
children were taught such social skills. One
of our principle cultural values is competi-
tion which is also the key principle of our
economic system. Cooperation, a key value
in other cultures, is viewed as a sign of
weakness in America. Walking or getting
in a car with a stranger or riding a bus is
just an unexpected inconvenience in other
cultures. For Americans, it is seen as a threat
to who we are.
What will be the effects of Peak Oil
and Climate Change? Will society make
a choice to be more competitive or more
cooperative? Or, as happened in the Great
Depression, will people simply begin coop-
erating and helping each other? Peak Oil
and Climate Change will be the test case of
people’s reactions – they could be the basis
for a new way of living or it could become
a dog-eat-dog world.
We are at the end of the era of the pri-
vate car, the ultimate example of American
consumer values and the most destructive
device ever made.The Smart Jitney can
replace the car and help restore community.
Men will have to start behaving well to
women. Society may have to give up pro-
fane language in public, like smoking was
disallowed in public places. Just as people
cannot drive when drunk, they will not be
able to ride when drunk. Such social criteria
must be imposed even though it is counter
to our so-called freedom, which is often
nothing more than a license to be offensive.
But if implemented properly, the Smart
Jitney ride could be a real pleasure.
Initially the Smart Jitney may be a
traumatic change to the current mode of
private cars. But the threat of energy short-
ages, loss of jobs, and life threatening climate
change can provide the motivation for such
a system.The concept and design are such
that long term benefits for the environment
and society will accrue. Eventually, the per-
sonal advantages in terms of time, safety
and economics will become apparent
and this transport approach will
prove to be superior to the exist-
ing private system as it helps
save us from climate disaster.
– Pat Murphy
This is not a return to some previous
period in human history. Medical science
and other advances will not be aban-
doned even if we drive less and share
Page 12
Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 51
Yellow Springs, Ohio
P.O. Box 243
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
T: 937.767.2161
www.communitysolution.org
Return Service Requested
NewSolutions
ispublishedby
CommunityService,Inc.
underitsprogram,The
Community Solution.
CommunityService,Inc.,
anon-profitorganization,
hasbeenstudyingand
promotingsmalllocal
communityformore
than60years.
To subscribe to New
Solutions, become a
member.Send your tax-
deductible contribution
of $25 (or more) to
Community Service, Inc.,
P.O. Box 243, Yellow
Springs, OH 45387. Your
contributions will help us
continue this work.
To receive regular
email communications,
send us an email at info@
communitysolution.org.
© 2007 Community
Service, Inc.
All rights reserved.
You may also contact us through our websites: www.communitysolution.org and www.smallcommunity.org.
You might also visit our film website: www.powerofcommunity.org..
Resources
The Power of Community: How
Cuba Survived Peak Oil
This fascinating and empowering
film shows how communities pulled
together, created solutions, and ulti-
mately thrived in spite of decreased
oil imports from the USSR. ByThe
Community Solution. Order at www.
powerofcommunity.org.
PeakOilBooks
The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan
to Avert OilWars,Terrorism, and
Economic Collapse by Richard
Heinberg, September 2006
The Post-Petroleum Survival Guide
and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing
Times by Albert Bates, October 2006
Beyond Oil:TheView From
Hubbert’s Peak by Kenneth S.
Deffeyes March, 2005
The Final Energy Crisis. edited by
Andrew McKillop, April 2005
The Long Emergency: Surviving the
End of the Oil Age, Climate Change,
and Other Converging Catastrophes
of theTwenty-first Century by James
Howard Kunstler April, 2005
The Collapsing Bubble: Growth And
Fossil Energy by Lindsey Grant, Seven
Locks Press, May, 2005
Twilight in the Desert:The Com-
ing Saudi Oil Shock and theWorld
Economy by Matthew Simmons,
June, 2005
The EmptyTank: Oil, Gas, Hot Air,
and the Coming Global Financial
Catastrophe by Jeremy Leggett,
November, 2005
OtherRecommended
Resources
Design on the Edge:The Making
of a High-Performance Building
by David W. Orr
Your Money orYour Life:Transform-
ingYour Relationship with Money and
Achieving Financial Independence by
Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin
The Small-Mart Revolution: How
Local Businesses Are Beating the Global
Competition by Michael H. Shuman
and Bill McKibben
The Logic of Sufficiency byThomas
Princen
Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on
a Finite Earth by Jim Merkel
The Conserver Society: Alternatives for
Sustainability byTedTrainer
The Circle of Simplicity: Return to the
Good Life by Cecile Andrews
The Small Community, Arthur
Morgan, 1942 (available from CSI)
The Long Road, Arthur Morgan, 1936
(available from CSI)

Atlantic City Jitney Service Background

2008-06-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

201 Pacific Ave. Atlantic City N.J.
Tel. 609-344-8642

Our Promise is to provide the safest and environmentally responsible fleet with the most reliable and highly trained professional drivers in order to provide the best Atlantic City transportation system to our passengers.

What We Do

The Atlantic City Jitney Association serves the needs of the local community as well as the millions of visitors to Atlantic City. We provide convenient, on time transportation to various points in Atlantic City.

We are the safest and most dependable transportation service in Atlantic City. Our drivers are experienced professionals with extensive training who maintain their vehicles in excellent condition at all times. Our professional drivers have a deep knowledge of providing superior service and are always courteous and eager to provide the service passengers expect.

Remember, you haven't experienced Atlantic City unless you visit our Casinos, strool the Boardwalk, and enjoy a ride on a Jitney.

If you are not familiar with us contact us at 609-344-8642. We will be pleased to hear from you about your experience! Please let us know what your needs and or questions are; we will be more than happy to help.

The Atlantic City Jitney Association serves the needs of the local community as well as the millions of visitors to Atlantic City. They provide convenient, on time transportation to various points in Atlantic City.

The Association also is actively involved within the community, with such programs as the Make-A-Wish Foundation, the Red Cross, and sponsoring various events as the Atlantic City Hall of Fame which honors Atlantic City's finest citizens.

Our History

The Atlantic City Jitney Association was started in 1915. It is the longest running non-subsidized transit company in America.The term jitney is an old English term which means nickel. Around the turn of the century, many Jitney services sprang up throughout the country.When the first Jitney Buses arrived on the streets of Atlantic City in 1947 they were large, black touring cars that used a rope and pulley system to open the back doors. The latest version is a modern luxury thirteen passenger mini-bus.

Our Staff

Currently there are 190 individually owned and operated units which run reliably 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. In addition the Association runs a Bus Shuttle from the Atlantic City Train Station to the various Casinos. The Drivers of the Atlantic City Jitney Association take great pride in providing safe and affordable transportation to everyone in Atlantic City.

Board Of Directors

President - Emmanuel "Manny" Mathioudakis
Vice President - John Lafranchi
Secretary - Bruce Hunt
Treasurer - Frank Becktel

JITNEY ROUTES

Jitney Buses run frequently 24 hours a day. The Jitney stops are located on the corner of every route and originate one block from the Boardwalk on Pacific Avenue. For your convenience, every sign located by each casino stop has color-coded numbers.

ROUTE 1 PINK

New Hampshire Avenue to Jackson Avenue, via Pacific Avenue.

ROUTE 2 BLUE

The Marina Area - Trump Marina and Harrah's via Delaware Avenue to Pacific Avenue.

ROUTE 3 GREEN

The Marina Area - Trump Marina and Harrah's via Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. to the Inlet on Pacific Avenue.

ROUTE 4 ORANGE

From Jackson Avenue to Indiana Avenue, to Atlantic Avenue go to Michigan to the Bus Terminal, new Convention Center & Train Station. The Orange route only runs from 7 am to 7 pm.

ATLANTIC CITY RAIL SERVICE SHUTTLE

The Atlantic City Jitney Association and N.J. Transit joined together to provide a free shuttle service between the Atlantic City Rail Terminal and all the casino locations in Atlantic City.

When you arrive at the rail terminal, use the Kirkman Boulevard exit. In front of the convention center on Kirkman Boulevard there are four bus stops with signage for each of the casinos. The buses depart the train station shortly after each train arrives.

The buses also provide free service for your return trip to the train station. The buses pick up passengers at designated stops at each casino approximately 30 minutes before the departure time for each train. The designated stops are marked "Train Shuttle" and are located at or across the street from where you were dropped off when you arrived.

Estimated travel time between locations is approximately 8 to 15 minutes, depending on your final destinations

If the normal buses are not operating for some reason, we will substitute one of our Jitneys to provide the service but all other information such as free service, stops, and times remains the same.

Seattle Streetcars are empty

2008-05-23T11:24:00.000-07:00

City says streetcar is on track even if trains look empty

By Mike Lindblom

CHRIS JOSEPH TAYLOR / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Problems with the fare machines have plagued the streetcar in its first few months. On Wednesday, Tommy Grimes, of Alabama, left, found his money rejected by the machine. Glenn Myers, of Seattle, had no better luck. Most riders avoid the hassle, using King County Metro Transit passes.

April ridership
31,906

total riders

1,064

daily average

97%

On-time performance

Streetcar facts

Opened: Dec. 12, 2007

Route: 1.3 miles

Construction cost: $52 million

Annual operating cost (estimate): $2.1 million

Share of operating cost from cash fares: 5 percent

Fares: $1.75; age 65 and older, 50 cents; persons with disabilities, 50 cents; youth (ages 6-17), 50 cents; children 5 and younger, free

Tickets are valid for two hours and can be used within that time for another streetcar ride or to transfer to a King County Metro bus. These forms of payment also are accepted: Metro Pass, Puget Pass, Flexpass, GO Pass, U-Pass, Visitor Pass, Regional Reduced Fare Permit (with monthly or annual sticker), and active Metro bus transfer slips

Schedule: Every 15 minutes; 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday-Thursday; 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday; 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sunday and holidays

Heading to lunch, a group of downtown employees chose to ride in style, on a purple South Lake Union streetcar.

Jane Nelson fed a colleague's $10 bill into the ticket machine aboard the moving train, then tried not to topple, as she passed proof-of-payment slips to the others, in a human chain. "Did we look like we knew what we were doing?" she asked. They managed to finish just before the one-mile ride ended.

Seattle could use a few hundred thousand more customers like these.

Streetcar use has lulled since December, when the novelty factor, holiday shoppers and free rides kept the trains full throughout the opening month.

Six months into the city's streetcar revival, a chasm exists between backers such as Mayor Greg Nickels, who says the line is exceeding expectations, and a common public perception that the streetcars look empty.

In fact, ridership is almost exactly where the city predicted it would be the first year — about 1,000 average daily trips, based on logs by streetcar drivers. Sounds high, but it breaks down to eight riders per one-way trip. Since some people get off partway, five or six typically are aboard.

During a recent midday stretch, six to 22 people were aboard the streetcar during a 2 ½-hour period, while a rush-hour sampling found 20 to 30 riders.

And passengers like Nelson, who pay cash for the $1.75 adult ticket, are even fewer. Ticket sales cover 5 percent of the estimated $2.1 million annual operating cost, mainly because the overwhelming majority of riders use King County Metro Transit passes.

Even after crediting the streetcar with a share of pass sales, passengers still cover only about 14 percent of operations, compared with 22 percent for the countywide bus system. (Cash fares on Metro buses cover 6 percent of operating costs.)

"That is not, obviously, a stellar performance from a financial viewpoint, but it's also the first year," said Jim Jacobson, deputy general manager for Metro, which operates the city-owned streetcar line. He said ridership will grow as the neighborhood develops and more trains are added.

Then again, the point of the $52 million line never was to break even, but to promote housing density and business growth.

Other trends look more positive. After a rainy beginning to 2008, daily trips ought to surpass the 1,000 mark soon. Summer tourists, attracted in part by the new Lake Union Park, are likely to pay cash instead of using passes.

Sponsorships and a federal grant do help with operating costs, but taxpayers foot most of the bill.

Summer riders will find the trains are quicker, and less prone to stalls, than last December.

"It's clean. It's air-conditioned. It's roomy," Nelson said.

Ticket machines that didn't work in January are fixed. But how to pay remains confusing.

On the trains, the orange-trimmed ticket machines take only cash, no plastic. On the sidewalk, a set of four machines takes only plastic, no cash.

Trains sometimes wait for visitors as they fumble with the outdoor machines, not knowing they can pay onboard, said Christine Rimorin, a daily commuter who suggests making rides free.

Two people, in a group of five headed to lunch, held cash in their fists, thinking a Metro inspector would collect fares. One person eventually bought a ticket from the machine; another didn't.

One woman didn't because she thought her ride would be free since she boarded in the downtown zone that's sometimes free for buses.

Another repeatedly flattened her dollar bill, but the machine repeatedly spit it back, and she gave up. "Please eat my money," pleaded a business visitor from England, until the machine finally accepted.

Esther Franada of Kent tried the streetcar on her first day of work in South Lake Union. She tried in vain to buy a ticket. She didn't need to — she had a Metro pass.

Only 1 to 2 percent of riders evade paying the fare, Jacobson said. Spot-checks are sporadic, but are supposed to increase this summer.

"I think I've been checked twice," rider Jeff Whiteaker said. "It would be pretty easy to cheat."

Jacobson said officials still are considering what payment methods work best. "Our intent is to continue to experiment with these things," he said.

Catching up

Seattle is far behind Portland, whose first line surpassed 4,000 weekday rides within six months of starting service in 2001, and has since expanded. Sound Transit's free Tacoma Link, which opened in 2003, averages 2,925 trips per weekday.

Kevin Phelps, a former Sound Transit board member from Tacoma, said officials wanted to encourage people to try mass transit as part of a regional system that included buses and trains. Phelps said Seattle should consider free rides.

"What if they could triple or quadruple their ridership?" he said. "I think it does a lot of damage to the overall image of mass transit, when you have a lot of unused capacity going back and forth."

Seattle is banking on the arrival of new employers such as Amazon.com and UW Medicine, along with new condos, to boost ridership.

Consultants predict it will triple by 2020, and city transportation officials this month presented their ideas for four new streetcar lines to run between Queen Anne and the Central Area, between Ballard and Fremont, between South Lake Union and the University District, and between Capitol Hill and First Hill.

The city's streetcar project manager, Ethan Melone, says his first step is to make streetcars a fixture in South Lake Union. Ridership then will increase.

"I think what we are trying to do is provide a reliable level of service," he said.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com

Puget Sound Infrastrcture gap is worst in the nation

2008-05-23T08:58:00.000-07:00

We're stuck with nation's worst road funding gap

$800-per-person shortfall twice as bad as other areas

By DEBERA CARLTON HARRELL
P-I REPORTER

The Seattle-Puget Sound area has the largest gap between transportation infrastructure needs and secured funding of any metropolitan area in the country, according to a study.

The shortfall amounts to nearly $800 per person in the four-county area around Puget Sound -- King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties, according to Infrastructure 2008, a report released Wednesday by the Urban Land Institute.

The report, dubbed a wake-up call for politicians, planners and taxpayers, compared the transportation infrastructure and funding of 23 cities worldwide.

American cities are falling behind Asia and Europe in investing in roads, transit, bridges and other systems needed for growing populations, the study said.

Among U.S. cities/metro areas studied, the Seattle-Puget Sound area's infrastructure-funding gap was nearly twice that of Dallas-Fort Worth, which was second at nearly $400 per capita. ULI, a nonprofit education and research institute that focuses on land-use, population growth, urban planning and the environment, worked with financial consultants Ernst & Young to produce the 60-page study.

"By 2040, the population of the Seattle area is projected to grow by 1.7 million new people, with 1.2 million new jobs ... that's like dropping the population of greater metropolitan Portland into the Puget Sound area," John Hempelmann, co-vice chairman of the Reality Check Task Force for ULI Seattle, said Wednesday.

"That's a big number, and a huge challenge, given the lack of infrastructure capacity and lack of funding."

Speakers at an event Wednesday to release the report attributed the gap to converging factors, including diminished federal funding, failed regional transportation measures, and a regressive tax system overly reliant on sales and gas taxes.

The result is traffic congestion and aging infrastructure, such as the Evergreen Point Bridge, the Alaskan Way Viaduct, regional freeways, local streets and other bridges, that need to be fixed or replaced.

While work on Sound Transit's light rail system between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport and from downtown to the University of Washington is progressing well, the agency now is seeking input from voters on a future bond issue to fund extensions north and east across Lake Washington.

The Puget Sound Regional Council, which provided data for the report, has planned for higher density, including rail and bus rapid transit.

But "the report shows we have this history of laying out our plans and not being able to carry through, in part because the voters aren't thinking long term," said Charles Howard, the council's transportation planning director.

Greg Johnson, chairman of ULI Seattle and president of Wright Runstad & Co., said "the report tells us we need to come up with financeable solutions sooner rather than later ... and get going on our infrastructure."

Keynote speaker William Hudnut, a ULI senior fellow, called for a greater federal role in building and funding infrastructure, public-private partnerships, more regional cooperation and citizen responsibility to bridge the gaps.

"It's kind of discouraging," he told the audience, that in 1960, the U.S. spent 12 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure and now spends 2.4 percent. Japan spends 10 percent, China 9 percent and India 4.6 percent, Hudnut said.

Earlier this year, he said, a bipartisan congressional commission estimated the U.S. needs to spend at least $225 billion annually on transportation systems alone "just to catch up and keep pace with the rest of the world."

It shows in Americans' daily lives. Europeans are connecting major cities using high-speed trains traveling 200 mph, Hudnut said.

But Seattle-area drivers spent about 45 hours in traffic delays in 2005 -- more than a week of vacation -- in contrast to 12 hours in 1982, according to the report.

Some are hoping for a reauthorization of the depleted federal Highway Trust Fund in November 2009, but with a shifted focus from cars to transit.

"We don't know how it's going to shake out, but the hope is that people will start talking more at the local and national levels about infrastructure needs," said Carl Koelbel, research associated with the ULI in Washington, D.C.

The case for and against the Columbia Bridge

2008-05-21T11:33:00.000-07:00

ORWELL ALERT: Proponents of a new $4.2 billion Columbia crossing say doubling the number of lanes from six to 12 is not an expansion because the new capacity represents “auxiliary” rather than through lanes.

[May 21st, 2008]

Rex Burkholder until recently would have probably ranked last on a list of Portland elected officials most likely to push for a $4.2 billion highway project.

“Every penny we spend on transportation is wasted,” Burkholder wrote in a November 2006 Oregonian op-ed.

Burkholder is a true greenie. Before winning a seat on the Metro Council in 2000, he founded the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in 1990 and was a founding trustee of the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994. His oft-stated belief that people should live where they work and trade in SUVs for bicycles and bus tickets has made him, for critics of Portland’s mania for mass transit and land-use planning, the devil on two wheels.

Google Burkholder and you’ll find the plainspoken 51-year-old Kansan transplant is treated as a bespectacled piñata by highway-loving conservatives on postings such as “Is Rex Burkholder Mentally Challenged?” (NW Republican, August 2005).

“Rex’s idiotic transportation dogma has caused congestion to grow more quickly [here] than [in] any other urban area,” wrote GOP activist Rob Kremer in a February 2007 post on his blog.

But lately something big and blacktopped has taken hold of Burkholder. It’s called the Columbia River Crossing project, which if built, would be the most expensive public works project in Northwest history.

On May 2, the 39-member bi-state CRC task force published a document describing the five options for reducing congestion on the six-lane Interstate 5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Wash. Leading the charge for the Cadillac-cost option, which includes a new 12-lane bridge: none other than Burkholder.

“In terms of congestion, safety and obsolescence, the existing bridge is broken,” he tells WW. Burkholder believes incremental fixes would cost nearly as much as a new bridge and would be far less effective.

“Instead of patching a leaky roof, it’s better to build a whole new house,” he says.

Burkholder is Metro’s representative on the CRC task force. Although Metro is but one of eight government entities that must approve the project, the agency’s vote next month on which option to pick is crucial because Metro is the conduit for federal transportation dollars.

Yet the gigantic project wasn’t much of an issue in the races for Metro—Burkholder was unopposed for re-election Tuesday to his third term on the Metro Council—and two of his colleagues faced only nominal opposition. And even in hotly contested primary races for mayor, City Council or even U.S. Senate, candidates (other than City Council hopeful Chris Smith, a critic) rarely mentioned the issue.

Despite his decades of work to end the primacy of the single-passenger auto on local roads, Burkholder is now advocating a mega-project to make it easier to commute between Clark County and Portland.

The $4.2 billion he wants to spend could buy a $21,000 Toyota Prius hybrid and a year’s worth of gas, four new $1,000 bikes, and an annual $1,260 C-Tran pass to Portland for each of Clark County’s 150,000 households.

Burkholder acknowledges his views have changed during three years on the CRC task force. Hearing Washingtonians’ pain led him to the epiphany that Clark County suburbs aren’t structured like Portland’s Irvington neighborhood where he leads a mostly carless existence.

“When we started, I said, ‘This [building a new bridge] is not my issue,’” Burkholder says. “But it’s been death by 1,000 cuts.”

The tectonic shift in Burkholder’s approach—from highway hater to bridge booster—is evidence of just how difficult it is for even the most committed environmentalists to choose between the way Americans live now and the wrenching sacrifices needed to combat global warming.

Critics of the CRC project, many of whom are longtime Burkholder allies, have banded together into a group called SmarterBridge. They say Burkholder is simply choosing a mid-20th-century roads-first solution rather than seizing an opportunity to attack global warming.

“This bridge is the first real test of whether we’re going to change the status quo,” says Jeremiah Baumann of Environment Oregon. “Instead of changing our auto dependence and giving them options, we’re preserving the status quo.”

Rather than building additional capacity, Baumann and other project critics would toll both Columbia River crossings now to discourage driving and to fund light rail and seismic upgrades to the existing six-lane crossing. And they’d leave intact the spans that a 2006 ODOT inspection found were in “fair to satisfactory” condition.

Oregon politicians from Gov. Ted Kulongoski to Burkholder to Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams talk tough on global warming: Oregon has committed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; the city has committed to reducing emissions to 10 percent less than 1990 levels by 2010.

Rex Burkholder: "I am convinced there is a serious problem." (PHOTO: Jonathan Maus)

But below are six reasons critics are dismayed those same pols are driving full speed ahead on the CRC project—in spite of such ambitious carbon-reduction goals.

And if you think the bridge is somebody else’s problem because you don’t drive or because you don’t live in Vancouver, remember this: You’ll open your wallet to pay for the project in the short term, and in climate terms, we’ll all pay in the long run.

1: The bridge isn’t Oregon’s problem.

The task force says the option that best reduces congestion is also the most expensive—with an estimated cost of $4.2 billion. That sum would streamline seven I-5 entry ramps approaching the Columbia River and build a light-rail/bike-and-pedestrian bridge and a new 12-lane bridge for vehicles, replacing the existing I-5 bridges.

Although the project is pitched as a bi-state partnership, traffic counts show the congestion on the I-5 bridges results primarily from Clark County commuters. During the morning rush hour, for instance, southbound traffic outnumbers northbound commuters by about 2 to 1. And figures show more than three-quarters of the vehicles carry only one person.

But the financing plan calls for Oregon and Washington to split the balance of whatever the feds don’t pay.

Critics question that allocation.

“Why should people in Portland pay for tax refugees in Washington to travel to Portland?” asks Burkholder’s Metro Council colleague, Robert Liberty, who favors tolling, light rail and phased improvements to the existing bridges.

Burkholder and other CRC members say congestion affects Washington and Oregon residents alike.

“We have to look at the transportation system as a whole,” Burkholder says. “A million new people are going to move to this region in the next 20 years, and we need to figure out how to manage that growth on a regional basis.”

Transportation dollars are tight in both states. Given that the Oregon Legislature hasn’t increased the gas tax—the source of most local transportation funds—since 1993 and Metro has compiled a wish list of critical transportation projects costing $15 billion in the region, some observers fear the CRC could crowd out other priorities, such as replacing the Sellwood Bridge.

“I worry that it could consume all the federal dollars for the area for the next 20 years,” says City Commissioner Sam Adams, a member of the CRC task force. Yet Adams is a cautious supporter of the project, provided it includes light rail, bicycle and pedestrian capacity, and relief for Hayden Island.

Doug Ficco, a WashDOT engineer and co-director of the CRC project, says Adams’ concerns are unfounded because federal transportation funding comes from different pools of money, and the CRC project would not compete with other regional priorities.

Liberty says teeing up a $4.2 billion project without considering the impact on other more environmentally friendly projects around Oregon is irresponsible. “We ought to figure out what our priorities are, how much we have to spend, and then rank our possible expenditures,” he says.

2: Gov. Kulongoski’s own climate change task force says there is an “urgent” transportation problem—but that problem is not congestion.

In January, Kulongoski’s climate change integration group, which included Burkholder, sounded a dramatic wake-up call.

“The earth’s climate is undergoing unprecedented change as a result of human activity, and this change will have significant effects on all Oregonians, their families, their communities and their workplaces,” the group’s report stated. “It is urgent that we act now.”

The most effective action, the report says, is to reduce driving, which accounts for 34 percent of Oregon’s carbon emissions.

“Reducing VMT [vehicle miles traveled] is simply the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” the report said.

Yet reducing vehicle miles is nowhere near the top of the list of CRC task force priorities. And CRC forecasts show the project would not result in a material reduction in vehicle miles—estimates show that compared to leaving the bridges intact, the proposed $4.2 billion project, which proponents say is “revolutionary,” would reduce VMT only four-tenths of a percent by 2030.

Despite championing emissions reduction, Kulongoski is also a big booster of the new bridge. Dave Van’t Hof, the governor’s sustainability adviser, denies the two concepts are in conflict.

icon Story continues below
advertisement

advertisement

Jill Fuglister: "We think every investment of any size has to move us toward a net reduction in carbon emissions."

“If the governor’s criteria are met and the project includes light rail and congestion pricing, it will be a national model of a climate-friendly project,” says Van’t Hof, who represented the governor on the climate change group.

Critics note that as proposed, the tolls would only be installed after the bridge is built in 2015. That means their purpose is to finance additional capacity rather than reduce vehicle miles traveled.

“We want to make the climate change goals primary,” says Jill Fuglister, co-director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, the Portland nonprofit Burkholder helped to found. “The question they are trying to answer is how do we relieve congestion. We think every investment of any size has to move us toward a net reduction in carbon emissions.”

3: $4.2 billion is a lot of money for marginal improvement.

Even if Vancouverites ride light rail, instead of rejecting it as they did in a 1995 vote by a 2-to-1 margin, and even if the 500 or so who now walk or ride bikes daily across the bridge were to quadruple, CRC projections show the reduction in total carbon emissions associated with the bridge versus the no-build option could be a less-than-Olympian 2 percent (emissions would drop more than VMT because of reduced congestion).

“Even if you accept that their assumptions are right,” says Environment Oregon’s Baumann, “they’re talking about a very small improvement to a very big problem.”

Traffic studies project the morning rush-hour commute for Clark County residents in 2030 would be 41 minutes from 179th Street in Vancouver to the I-84 interchange—if the new bridge gets built. That’s 10 minutes longer than today and only five minutes faster than if there is no new bridge.

CRC projections show it would actually take two minutes longer to drive the busiest part of the route—from SR-500 in Vancouver to Columbia Boulevard in North Portland—with a new bridge than if we stick with the old one. That’s because by 2030, 44,000 more vehicles—178,000 vs. 134,000 now—would be crossing the 12-lane bridge.

Critics say the minimal improvements in southbound commute times prove building the new bridge would only shift the existing bottleneck south.

WashDOT’s Ficco says concentrating on the rush-hour travel time misses the bigger picture—that the proposed bridge reduces the number of hours of daily congestion from a projected 15 by 2030 to 5 1/2.

“If we don’t do this, what we call ‘rush hour’ now will last all day,” he says.

4: In fact, if you build it, however, they will drive…more.

There’s a concept transportation planners call “induced travel,” which means more road capacity results in more traffic.

While the precise relationship between capacity and demand remains under debate, CRC figures show if a new bridge were built without tolls, the number of people crossing the Columbia would increase dramatically, versus the no-build option. Figures show that without tolls, a new bridge would carry 225,000 passengers a day by 2030, while the current bridges, if left in place, would carry only 184,000. The difference of 41,000 is the “induced travel” generated by the newly built capacity.

If, as the task force proposes, the new I-5 bridge is tolled, and an adjacent light-rail, bicycle and pedestrian bridge is built, that combination would reduce traffic by 47,000 car trips, leaving only a small net reduction—6,000 trips from the no-build scenario (see chart below).

“Unfortunately, the added lanes [on the bridge] are projected to erase most of the benefits of tolls and light rail, reducing the gain to just a 3 percent improvement,” Baumann says. “For $4.2 billion, Portland should do better than a 3 percent improvement.”

5: The need for a new bridge is predicated on a massive increase in traffic—but current behavior raises questions whether such assumptions are valid.

There’s a flip side to a new bridge creating more traffic demand. That is, people may already be changing their driving habits, according to Portland economist Joe Cortright.

Cortright, who is part of the SmarterBridge group, is no highway engineer. But he is a nationally recognized expert on economic behavior (a report he did in 2002 for the Brookings Institution correctly predicted OHSU’s bio-tech hopes were a pipe dream, for example).

He says CRC backers’ underlying assumptions are opaque, and probably wrong when they project traffic congestion more than doubling, from six hours per day currently to 15 hours in 2030, if nothing is done.

For one thing, the price of gas is now an attitude-adjusting $4 per gallon and could go a lot higher. And, Cortright says, the CRC models seem to assume people will continue blindly moving to and commuting from Clark County to Oregon regardless of increasing congestion.

CRC staff have punched back at Cortright, charging that he cherry-picks data to support his arguments. But data released by ODOT recently tend to back up Cortright’s case. They show Oregonians are driving less and using the I-5 bridge less. Highway miles driven decreased from 20.9 billion in 2002 to 20.6 in 2006, even though the state’s population grew about 4 percent during the same period.

“This project is predicated on the assumption that traffic will increase at about the rate it did from 1990 to 2005, when we had declining real gas prices that averaged maybe $1.25 a gallon,” Cortright says. “People adjust their behavior when the world changes significantly.”

6: Greenies and land-use advocates stopped the Mount Hood Freeway in 1974 and a proposed Westside Bypass in Washington County in 1988. Why, with so many questions remaining about the CRC project, does it appear to have the momentum of a brakeless log truck careening down a mountain pass?

One of the five options the CRC task force evaluated was doing nothing. That’s a nonstarter with road builders, manufacturers, shippers and trade unions represented on the CRC task force.

At a Portland Planning Commission hearing on the CRC project last week, Corky Collier, director of the Columbia Corridor Association, which represents more than 100 local manufacturers and shippers, noted the unusual nature of many of the public comments.

“What you have here is a roomful of business leaders asking for more government spending,” Collier said.

“This [the CRC project] is the No. 1 transportation priority for us,” testified the Portland Business Alliance’s government affairs director, Marion Haynes, at the same hearing. Haynes noted that every major business group in the region supports the project. Construction trade unions also love the new bridge.

Democratic governors, Democratic legislatures and overwhelmingly Democratic congressional delegations control both Oregon and Washington. Democrats win elections with union money. A $4.2 billion construction project would create thousands of union jobs, which helps explain the lack of political opposition.

“There are no fiscal conservatives when it comes to transportation projects,” says Metro’s Liberty.

Next month, Metro will vote on a preferred option for the CRC. It is unlikely the Metro Council will block the project at this stage.

And later this summer, Portland’s City Council will weigh in. While Adams and Commissioner Randy Leonard are leaning toward the project, Mayor Tom Potter and Commissioner Dan Saltzman both say they have serious questions about its financial feasibility.

If global warming is a dire threat—as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and most climate scientists say it is—you might think there would be serious debate about spending $4.2 billion.

But this is a country in which sacrifice is for other people, as shown by two of the three remaining presidential candidates suggesting a summer gas tax holiday and most citizens’ total disassociation from the Iraq war.

Burkholder says critics are coming late to a debate that started even earlier, with a 2001 bi-state freight mobility task force that also recommended bridge replacement. He says he’s already asked all the questions his critics now want examined and found the greenest and most efficient solution is a big new bridge.

For his re-election bid this month, Burkholder accepted $500 contributions from the Portland Business Alliance and Oregon Truck Political Action Committee. Nobody is suggesting those modest checks bought his support, but they reflect a puzzling duality in a politician known for ideological purity.

Maybe, as Metro watchers suggest, he’s moving toward the political middle in preparation for a bid to replace Metro President David Bragdon in two years.

Or maybe after dozens of meetings with highway builders, business lobbyists and the representatives of commute-weary Washingtonians, he’s suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Burkholder says he’s simply changed his thinking based on facts.

“I’m open to learning, and after three years on the task force, I’m convinced there’s a serious problem,” he says. “It may not affect Oregonians, but building a new bridge is the right thing to do.”

His Metro colleague, Liberty, says the bridge is a litmus test, not only for Burkholder but for all politicians who’ve swaddled themselves in green.

“The fate of this project will tell you about whether Oregon is serious about reducing carbon emissions,” he says. “Or whether all the talk is so much greenwash to help get politicians elected.”
The CRC options are contained in a “draft environmental impact statement,” a document required before the feds will approve and fund any project. To read the draft and other project documents, go to columbiarivercrossing.org. For more on critics’ concerns, see smarterbridge.org.

The $44 million spent so far on CRC studies is nearly one-third of the projected $140 million cost for replacing the Sellwood Bridge.

The CRC’s 70 staffers work in Vancouver. And the Washington Department of Transportation has kicked in most of the $44 million spent so far on studies.

In 2005, state figures show Clark County residents paid $145 million in Oregon income taxes.

The public comment period on the project ends July 1, 2008, after two open houses discuss the CRC options 5-8 pm Wednesday, May 28, at the Red Lion at the Quay in Vancouver, and 5-8 pm Thursday, May 29, at the Portland Expo Center.

Doug Pearson writes on May 21st, 2008 8:07am

As a Washington "tax refugee"--who somehow has been unable to avoid paying Oregon income taxes for about 18 years now without any right to vote in the state--my wife and I ride the bus every day to Downtown. As a life-long resident of Clark County, and a life-long Oregon worker, I have to chuckle at the incredibly naive tone of some of the critcisms noted in the article. I would ask those that have adopted the "it's Washington's problem" philosophy to assess the largest tax paying sectors of Oregon's economy....Hhhmm? Who's paying all that income tax but using almost no public services in the State? Also, I wonder why Clark County has experienced explosive growth? An unusually high birth rate among Washingtonians? Or, could it be Oregonians escaping in hordes across the river to find afforable housing and better schools?--thereby maxing out Clark County's own public services. So, I would ask folks to think in broader terms before becoming involved in public policy debates and accept that Oregon and SW Washington have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both states' tax coffers. I would certainly love to see daily SUV drivers forced onto buses with high toll fees, but I also live in the real world. Though it's sometimes forgotten in Portland political debates, all of us tax payers don't live in condos in SW or close-in SE. Also, frankly, I really don't want to ride a bike to work in the cold rain.... The "bridge issue" is about 30 years past due date of when alternative planning should have been seriously considered. And, now we're in this rediculous artificially created "crisis". We can thank our government officials for failing to have the strength of vision to address this problem earlier. I absolutely agree that planners are not being creative in problem solving this issue. When I was up in arms about the loss of the Southbound HOV lane in Clark County a couple years back, one regional traffic planner's quip was: "Hey, just hold on buddy, you're gonna get a new bridge"...I responded that that will be wonderful when I'm retired in about 30 years to see the new bridge being built. Planners seem incapable of supporting intermediate fixes like supporting mass improvement/expansion of existing public transportation or having the slightest political will to support even simple HOV lanes. Of course, massive public works projects are really cool and just think how many mid-level planners will be employed for the next 3 decades?

Source Williamette Weekly

Plans to expand Seattle Streetcar program

2008-05-13T11:44:00.000-07:00

Seattle goes gah-gah over choo-choos

As Seattle considers a plan to extend the South Lake Union Streetcar line, it's time to decide whether returning to a 19th-century transportation method is really the answer.

By Ross Anderson

We have seen the future of Seattle mass transit, and it looks suspiciously like the past. It is shiny and red and goes clackity-clack between South Lake Union and Westlake. It travels at a maximum speed of 20 mph and costs about $40 million per mile to build.

Seattle, it seems, has gone downright gah-gah over choo-choos. Whatever the price in dollars and aggravation, the city is determined to take the A-Train. We haven't yet completed that $2.7 billion-dollar rail line to Sea-Tac, but Sound Transit is desperately seeking more billions to extend that line to Northgate. We have the new South Lake Union Streetcar. And this week, planners unveiled their sketchy visions for streetcar lines in neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and the University District.

All this stokes the ongoing debate: How do we best relieve traffic, or at least provide an alternative way to get around? More roads? Or buses? Or rails? If the rail buffs have their way, we'll soon be looking at and living in a cityscape reminiscent of another century — the 19th.

The operative map for Seattle's transit vision is about a century old. You can go back to 1910, when Gramma and Grampa got around town just fine on a system of about 70 miles of streetcar tracks, including the legendary Interurban trolley that rumbled all the way to Everett and Tacoma. It was a fine system, and we probably should have kept it.

But we didn't. The tide turned in about 1911, when the city hired a smart fellow (read "consultant") named Virgil Bogue to come out and draw up a bold new plan for Seattle. Bogue looked around, hired a crew of draftsmen, and produced an inch-thick document calling for an elaborate, New York-style transit system, with subways and elevated trains and a tunnel under Lake Washington.

Put to a popular vote, the Bogue Plan lost by nearly 2-1. That was the beginning of the end. By the 1930s, the city was ripping up tracks and replacing streetcars with buses. The Interurban made its last run in 1939, just as engineers were completing the first floating bridge across the lake. By the beginning of the War, the transition was complete; Seattle had banked its future on the automobile.

Rail buffs blame a nationwide conspiracy by General Motors to sell more buses. But rail transit was always geographically challenged in Seattle. All those picturesque hills and lakes serve as significant obstacles to streetcars that don't climb hills, and don't float.

In any event, things haven't worked out well. In the late 60s and early 70s, voters rejected plans for new freeways and for a proposed rapid transit system. So the city had to grow and prosper without any major expansion of its transportation system. For some time, the preferred strategy was buses, or more precisely "bus rapid transit," which uses express buses in exclusive transit-only lanes, including the downtown bus tunnel.

But by the 1990s, the city was gridlocked. Drivers rolled down their car windows, shook their collective fists and bellowed something like "Do something. Do anything. But fix this mess!"

And that's more or less what's happening. Government is doing something and anything — digging holes, pouring concrete, laying rails, buying railcars — in a desperate attempt to rebuild what it dismantled 70 years ago. It's a system development by committee, or by many committees. Sound Transit builds light rail and operates those commuter trains to Tacoma and Everett. King County Metro builds and runs the new streetcar, along with the existing bus system. The state is adding HOV and transit lanes to the freeways. For a while, we had yet another agency building a monorail, until it collapsed on itself.

Which is what skeptics expect to happen with some or all of those other railroad-builders. Critics of rail trail transit scored a huge victory last fall when voters rejected Sound Transit's bid for billions more tax dollars. Yet the streetcar fad suggests that somebody out there is still determined to ride those rails.

Rail critics see their own conspiracy. Randal O'Toole is an Oregon economist and self-styled libertarian who argues that Seattle is about to join dozens of cities that have got little or no benefits from the billions spent on light rail. Trolleys and streetcars are 19th century technology that is too slow, too dangerous and too expensive, he says. "Light rail is simply one more way to take money from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and put it in the pockets of wealthy businesses."

Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives, a citizen group opposed to light rail, argues that Seattle had built one of the world's best bus systems, and could adapt HOV lanes and traffic lights to move express buses more efficiently than light rail.

But for every O'Toole there is a Todd Litman, a Victoria, BC, consultant who travels the world advising cities from Dubai to Valparaiso to San Jose how to build rail transit systems. And Litman is pro-streetcar. "Seattle originally developed around streetcars and railways," Litman says. "It doesn't make sense to argue that it can't work again."

Litman learned his way around transportation issues as a volunteer bicycle advocate in Olympia, and eventually studied transit issues at Evergreen State College. He frequently finds himself at odds with the likes of O'Toole.

Ultimately, the choice between rail transit and bus transit is made by passengers, he says. "There is a bias out there. People will pay more for a Mercedes than for a Chevy. There is nothing wrong with people wanting something more prestigious, and they view light rail and streetcars as more comfortable and more prestigious."

But do taxpayers want to pay $40 million per mile for a little prestige?

John Niles, a transportation consultant and critic of light rail, is a little kinder toward streetcars. They are probably a mistake, he says, "but the scale of the error is so much smaller than with light rail."

Streetcars have a few things going for them, he says. South Lake Union businesses are picking up part of the costs of the new line, and hopefully that would be the case with other lines, he says. They may attract some tourists. And neighborhood businesses are very fond of them.

"As transportation, they don't make much sense," he says. "But they're nice. They're an amenity. They're street candy."

* Ross Anderson is a freelance journalist and blogger who lives and works in Port Townsend, Wash. His blog can be found at rossink.com.

My grandmother used to say
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on May 13, 2008 8:06 AM
Editor's Pick " when they passed out brains, they though they said TRAINS, and they MISSED theirs..."

As a multi generational resident, and one who works in and around Seattle transportation, I was interested to read the proposal for a new Seattle Streetcar Network.

I am a supporter of light rail, streetcars, cable cars, and any form of pragmatic transportation. But I am curious about the lack of discussion of an interbay route.

King County staff spent time and our money to review a potential extension to Interbay from the old Benson Trolley route about five years ago. We were told both the Port of Seattle, and the major tennant of Pier 86 office park, Amgen, were very interested. Now even MORE development is going on in this corridor with Whole Foods, condos, and most importantly, the new Cruise Ship terminal scheduled to open next summer.

With a majority of the more than 200 plus sailings a summer planned from the Port of Seattle’s cruise ship terminal at Pier 90/91, this dock is poorly served by METRO and Sound Transit. At a time when we are attempting to build a green city, forcing ships to plug into the dock, we are bringing upwards of 6,000 folks PER DAY in and out of this pier.

Further, this line could be built mostly on land ALREADY owned BY THE CITY (through Myrtle Edwards Park), and run parallel to existing heavy rail. A simple extension of the current Benson Line could bring streetcar access to the thousands of folks working along Elliott, at Pier 86, and the pier, along with Smith Cove. Clever routing could even bring it to the Interbay neighborhood. Clever routing could even make it circle around Nickerson, serving SPU and South Freemont Bridge, then back south to meet up with the current line at South Lake Union.

The line could also take the WEST side of the Elliott Street parking from Denny North, and on the sidewalk from Broad Street to Denny, and a spur could climb up and over the bridge, or stay on the east side of the tracks and head north on 15th.

The other end of the line should and could be extended through the ID, and even then curve down under the freeway interchange of I-90 and I-5, and circle over to Safeco Field and the Quest Exhibition Center, then loop back in to the line.

I am aware that when they built the SAM Sculpture Park, the right of way for BNSF left not enough room for the trolley line. I believe this could still be achieved by routing via the pedestrian side of the bridge (to the west) or with the help of a safe signal / bypass to insure the trolley would only venture through the gap when there was no train. (a similar signal system was installed at the Monorail after the crash).

I believe the Port might even help fund the line for the sake of traffic reduction and tourism. Currently Metro does such a poor job of service to the offices of the biotech firm at Pier 86, Amgen hired a private company to offer their employees a SHUTTLE service that runs all day long between their other offices and that site.

At first glance, it would appear that this line could even pay for itself with the ridership potential, yet there is no mention of it.

I believe the new terminal would be a great candidate for a Trolley Line. I would hope it would be studied.

by: vito on May 13, 2008 8:54 AM
I suspect the City's energy behind expanding a streetcar system is simply to be able to control and add capacity to transit within Seattle without having to beg or pay off Metro. This is an indicative of a larger trend to plan for transit at a regional level where regional solutions - such as light rail - always benefit at the expense of locally focused investments - such as bike facilities. This creates disincentives for dense communities which could actually make transit work.

Bring back the cable cars
by: dn on May 13, 2008 9:49 AM
Why do we let the other city by a bay attract zillions of tourists and their dollars when we could easily compete? Since streetcars are at best amenities and not mass transportation systems (and becoming commonplace across the country as an urban disease akin to penis envy spreads), we should go for the transit vehicles that would really attract interest and can navigate the downtown grade. There must be at least one in a museum somewhere that could be resurrected. Crosscut should start a campaign.

It's not about moving people
Rby: paddystclair on May 13, 2008 11:40 AM
What struck me about the plan to put streetcars through Freemont and on to Ballard is how closely the route followed areas that have been the target of developers who need to get rid of many of the industrial/business tennets before they can construct high priced water view condos. It's not like the City hasnt used "special developement taxes" before in order to preasure smaller business to relocate (See South Lake Union) in favour of larger firms easy aquisitions of those locations. So maybe the streetcars are designed to move people-- just not as transite.

My paranoia grows when I see a posting as sensical as the first one on this column. An Interbay route would serve an obvious need, have less impact on traffic, and create a positive first impression on visiting tourists who could disembark on peir 99 and be downtown in 10 minutes. An Interbay route would follow an historic rail line, connect dowtown residents to accessable grocery shopping ( once the new shoppng center has opened) and provide thrilling vistas if routed through Mrytle Edwards. In short, an Interbay line might actually move people--as opposed to the Slut, which we must admidt, is an over priced Disney ride for Mr Allen's vanity and Mayor Quimby's ego.

An Interbay route wont get ride of those pesky small business along Leary though--so I doubt that the City will find it very profitable.

"through Myrtle Edwards Park"
Report a violationPosted by: kieth on May 13, 2008 12:02 PM
In my mind I had trouble following the route described but I would be concerned about rail line going "through Myrtle Edwards park". Isn't the Park only a few hundred feet wide in several places (and even less in some places); how much park would remain if a streetcar line (northbound, southbound) went through there?

Street Cars worked great for me-
Posted by: JGropp on May 13, 2008 1:52 PM
As a kid, I rode the streetcars from Wallingford down through Fremont along Westlake. I just now looked carefully at your historical picture to see me getting off the streetcar to get my braces tightened- but I wasn't in the picture. Jerry Gropp Architect AIA

mment

better ideas?
Report a violationPosted by: david2 on May 13, 2008 7:55 PM
Editor's Pick So, what is the 21st century option, then? Maybe we can get some of those Japanese high-speed trains that would get us from downtown to the airport in 2 minutes...

I'm not a huge fan of the streetcar, given that it has to wait in traffic like everything else. On the other hand, it's cleaner and newer than the buses, and those signs that tell you when the next train is arriving are nice.

Individual cars obviously aren't the future; a city needs mass transit once it reaches a certain size. (I don't own a car, personally, and at the rate gas prices are going, my interest in driving is only declining.)

Whoever said "Seattle has one of the world's best bus systems" must not have lived in many cities. (Or else I've just been extremely fortunate in the places I've lived.) You can't even get from downtown Bellevue to Seattle after midnight, service is infrequent off-peak, buses are packed on-peak, bus-priority corridors are rare, no real-time arrival signs, few per-stop schedules... lots of room for improvement.

Age isn't a valid argument one way or another, anyway. Lots of old things are still good. (I'm still rather fond of the wheel.)

My hopes
sjenner on May 14, 2008 11:27 AM
1. The city council and whoever's paying the bill (nearby property owners, city residents, etc) have full and accurate information about just how much it costs to operate these trolleys, and where the funding will come from on an ongoing basis.

2. They won't slow down buses and make traffic worse.

3. The overall impact on air quality would be positive. Creating traffic jams could outweigh any positive impact of more riders on trolleys than on buses, which might or might not happen anyways.

As I looked at the diagram of the route maps in the paper, I was struck by how little land there is near to the proposed routes, particularly Eastlake. This creates a somewhat different situation compared to South Lake Union when it comes to taxing nearby property owners. There simply isn't that much property to tax.

DMorrill on May 14, 2008 3:47 PM
The streetcar plan is tragic and insane. We replaced streetcars with electic trolleys for the sane and simple reason that they are far more effective. Rail cars on arterials interefere with cars, delivery trucks, bike, busses, pedestrians and will create congestion and impede the flow of traffic. It is simple math and queing theory. Cuteness is not an acceptable basis for transportation planning.
O'Toole by the way is totally correct in his analysis of the economic of rail, including in Portland and Vancouver. Now folks here support rail on romantic grounds rather than economic effectiveness - there are few riders relative to the capital and operating costs, and a small payoff relative to alternative investments --but that's our right. Still the solution for quality uncongested transport is well understood by economists. If people had to pay closer to the real costs, via congestion pricing, tolls, parking, etc, carpooling and an extensive superior bus system would ensure an effective transport solution.

Bicycle enthusiast claims gas prices are leading to increase in bicycle commuters

2008-05-09T12:57:00.000-07:00

Thousands trade four wheels for two during Bike to Work Month

Rising gas prices, crowded buses, concern for the environment, and the desire to squeeze in a workout are motivating more people to commute by bike. Here's what you need to know if you're thinking about joining them.

By Bill Thorness

Craig Skipton traverses the concrete walkways of Ballard's Hiram Chittenden Locks nearly every working day, with bicycle in tow. The link to Magnolia proves convenient for the bike commuter on his way downtown, as he joins thousands of people using pedal power to get to work.

If it's a nice day, engineering consultant Ben Kerbaugh will hop on his bike in Northeast Seattle and head to his Redmond office at Medtronic, a 17.5-mile ride that's largely on the Burke-Gilman and Sammamish River trails. "It sure beats sitting in traffic," he says.

In May, many more will give the two-wheeled commute a try, cajoled by their office mates to try it during "National Bike Month," a promotion by the League of American Bicyclists. The event swells daily bike commuting from an estimated 6,000 in winter to 13,000 people in summer locally, according to Chris Cameron, director of bicycle commuting for Cascade Bicycle Club. Municipalities and organizations like Cascade promote the event, which includes a month-long "bike to work challenge" that has 11,000 riders on 800 corporate teams, and Bike to Work Day on Friday, May 16, where morning commuters — 19,000 of them last year — are greeted by free coffee and energy bars on popular routes.

Cyclists save money, pollute less, and find other reasons to commute by bike.

"It's the combination of the cost of gas, convenience, and the ease of using a bike for a journey between one and six miles, which is the ideal length of a bike commute," says Gordon Black, executive director of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington (BAW). On his commute from Bainbridge Island, he's seen the number of ferry cyclists increase from a dozen in 1993 to "79 riders on the 5:30 boat on a wet February day" recently, and more than 100 in summer.

"Exercise is definitely part of it" for Skipton, who's training for a marathon and says the biking "keeps my workout going." A landscape architect with Mithun, his 7.5-mile ride takes 30 minutes inbound to offices on the central waterfront, but 40 back to Ballard because of the hills. "It's faster to get to work, and less frustrating" than driving or riding the bus, he says. "It's amazing, the contrast of sitting on the bus crushed next to someone rather than cruising along."

"You arrive at work awake and arrive at home relaxed," says Kerbaugh. "It kind of blows the stress off you."

If you're not fortunate enough to work and live adjacent to a major trail, the first hurdle is often choosing a route. To find a safe ride that avoids really big climbs or the most dangerous traffic, consult municipal bike maps that chart off-street trails and streets commonly used for biking.

Cascade offers lunchtime bike commute seminars and group classes in downtown Seattle, and BAW has a "Bike Buddy" program that pairs mentors with new commuters.

Seattle's Bicycle Master Plan, enacted last year, means that the city is adding more bike lanes, signage, and even a few new trails that promise routing help. Last year, the city opened the Chief Sealth Trail, which bisects Beacon Hill and will connect with the light-rail line. Shoreline recently finished linking its sections of the Interurban Trail, and Issaquah just opened the Highpoint Regional Trail Connector.

Once at the office, changing from road racer to desk jockey presents more challenges. The most basic requirement is a shower and a locker to store work clothes and hang up the cleats. Secure, dry bike storage is also a must. Such amenities are being designed into new office buildings and touted by human resource recruiters. BAW suggests additional perks to make biking more attractive:

offer loaner cars for daytime meetings,

provide a bike lease or purchase program, and

offer to pick up cycling employees stranded by a breakdown.

In recent years, bicycle lockers have proliferated at transit centers and park-and-rides, but Black says such efforts are not keeping up with demand. "The popularity of bicycling is ahead of the government's response to the need to make improvements for bicycling," he says. BAW has a waiting list for lockers in the program it administers for King County.

Keeping upright between the cars is also a prime concern, as most bike commutes include some road riding in traffic. Skipton sticks to side roads in Ballard and a trail from Interbay to downtown, but a short stretch of riding on Alaskan Way proves perilous. "I actually had to call the police a couple of days ago" and report a reckless driver after a scary near-miss, he says. Last year, he slammed into the back window of a car that cut him off and made a right turn, and the driver simply yelled "You all right?" out his window as he drove away.

But even riding the trails can be dangerous. Kerbaugh collided head-on with another cyclist in a pre-dawn commute that left him with a broken collarbone and other injuries that requires surgery and four months to heal. "I've noticed I'm more careful on the trail now," he says. "It's more crowded, there are more people who aren't paying attention, and more people in the dark with no lights."

Primary safety advice:

Stay alert and ride defensively. Assume that drivers don't see you
and scan ahead for potholes and traffic problems.
Enhance visibility by wearing bright clothes and using front and
rear lights.
Become traffic, rather than an accessory. When cars are turning
right, move to the middle of the lane.
Avoid the most challenging route segments by combining mass transit with your ride.

Stow the iPod. Even at a low volume, you'll miss important auditory cues and be less attentive.

Wear a helmet. It's the law in many places, including King County, and it increases your chance of surviving a crash.

Road dangers, sweaty climbs, or even crowded bike trails might conspire to keep you off the bike, but consider the offsets: "Peace and quiet," says Kerbaugh.

"There's a lot of wildlife at the Locks," Skipton says. "I've been watching kingfishers catch fish lately."

Bill Thorness is a Seattle freelance writer and author of Biking Puget Sound: 50 Rides from Olympia to the San Juans (Mountaineers Books, 2007).

Source Crosscut

2040 Vision for Puget Sound includes growth of 1.7 million people.

2008-05-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

See: The Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040 plan?www.psrc.org/projects/vision/

Seattle Times

The combined populations of Seattle and Bellevue could grow by nearly 300,000 under a plan that attempts to direct much of the region's projected growth to its largest cities.

Vision 2040, adopted overwhelmingly Thursday by elected officials from four counties and more than 40 cities, also opposes building any more "fully contained communities," such as Redmond Ridge, in rural areas.

The Puget Sound Regional Council's 40-year blueprint for slowing sprawl and speeding up downtown renewal discourages high-density islands outside the urban growth line "because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine state and regional growth management goals."

Tacoma City Councilmember Mike Lonergan, who headed the planning effort, said fully contained communities are "an oxymoron" because they overwhelm rural roads as the new residents drive elsewhere to work, shop and attend school.

Cities and counties aren't required to comply with policies in Vision 2040, an update of the Vision 2020 plan that was adopted in 1995. But the Regional Council's role in allocating some federal road-building funds gives it influence over local land-use decisions.

Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon voted in committee last month against language discouraging fully contained communities. Snohomish County currently is considering a 15,000-resident planned community in the rural Lake Roesiger area.

King County Executive Ron Sims, saying Redmond Ridge was a mistake, supported the Vision 2040 goals.

Sims adviser Karen Wolf called Vision 2040 "fabulous" and said it will allow King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap counties to grow by 1.7 million people without moving the urban growth boundary.

The plan would locate one-third of those new residents in the region's five largest cities: Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton. Smaller cities would take 41 percent of the growth, and areas outside cities 28 percent.

Only one city — University Place in Pierce County — voted against the plan, and Kitsap County split its vote, with one commissioner in favor and one against.

University Place Mayor Linda Bird said the City Council supports the plan's goals but isn't convinced the city of 31,000 can handle 23,000 more residents, as the plan suggests.

Kitsap County Commissioner Jan Angel, who also voted no, said she fears jurisdictions could lose federal road-building money allocated by the Regional Council if they fail to comply with the plan. "My concern is the lack of local control," she said. "This will be another level of regional government."

Vision 2040 projects that Tacoma, a city of 193,500, would grow by 127,000 residents and Everett would nearly double by adding 89,000.

Bellevue City Councilmember John Chelminiak and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' spokesman Marty McOmber welcomed the goal of bringing 294,000 more residents into those two cities. Seattle now has 563,400 and Bellevue 109,600. That growth target will be apportioned between the cities through a separate county planning process.

But even as those ambitious growth targets were being adopted, former state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald questioned whether they are realistic without new efforts to attract more families with children to the largest cities.

From 2000 to 2007 — the first seven years of the Vision 2040 planning period — MacDonald said, only 13 percent of King County's growth went into Seattle and Bellevue, well below the target of 32 percent.

Lonergan drew applause from the PSRC "general assembly" members when he responded to MacDonald by saying, "Yes, we need to do better, but, yes, we are headed in the right direction."

Ongoing debate over viaduct takes place behind closed doors

2008-05-06T12:00:00.001-07:00

Source Crosscut
Psst! Wanna see the Viaduct disappear?

By David Brewster

The debate about Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct used to be a very public, contact sport, but as many local politicians were carted off the field, the controversy moved to a 30-person stakeholders group, who meet very quietly. Meanwhile, the politicians edge back onto the playing field and hint at solutions.

Gov. Chris Gregoire addressed a group of civic worthies Wednesday and dropped broad hints that she is now a fan of the no-tunnel, no-viaduct, surface-plus-transit solution that she used to excoriate. Noting that Seattle is an "international city," Gregoire defined that gauzy term by saying an international city could not possibly have on-street parking downtown or two-way streets. (So much for New York and Paris, but nevermind.) Those may be weird definitions, but they are unmistakable signals that she is buying into the stakeholder group's emerging consensus to divert a lot of viaduct through traffic to Seattle's downtown streets, thus needing only a four-lane, slow boulevard on the central waterfront.

But this is only a hint, so far, a kind of don't-hold-me-to-it pander to Seattle urbanists who favor this solution. The actual recommendation of the state-convened group is not due out until after election day next November. Likewise, another mediation group is keeping alive the hope that the 520 bridge could afford a deep tunnel connecting the bridge to the Husky Stadium intersection, so the governor doesn't alienate the Montlake zealots. Gregoire's opponent for governor, Dino Rossi, meanwhile has surprised many by saying he now favors a skinny-lane tunnel on the waterfront, and also an eight-lane 520, thus appeasing both the eco-density gang on the waterfront and the highway-hugging traditionalists in the suburbs. (Rossi badly needs some transportation advisers of a contemporary outlook.)

The other politician putting his head up above the foxhole, just a bit, is state House Speaker Frank Chopp, who has all along wanted the viaduct to remain elevated (for those great views) and able to handle all 110,000 vehicles a day that it currently carries. These ideas are anathema in Seattle, so Chopp has tried (always backstage) to come up with mitigations. First he put a park lid on top the new structure. The latest version, unveiled to the unimpressed stakeholders' group last week, is a lower structure, partially covered with green space and incorporating new buildings and low-income housing to help pay for the costs and spread around the political benefits. The new structure would reportedly be moved out to the shoreline, where its great weight would be a problem over such deep water.

The imperatives of getting re-elected, combined with the wariness of politicians who lit all those exploding cigars last time, mean that we don't get to know the actual proposal until after we've done our duty in the voting booth. But it's getting pretty obvious that there is a broad coalition on the new waterfront plan, including unions, the urban design crowd, the Downtown Seattle Association, and greens. It means a surface boulevard replacing the viaduct, and various ways of deflecting the extra traffic with a little more transit (bus rapid transit serving Aurora, Ballard, and West Seattle) and a lot of new traffic capacity on Seattle streets, especially Western, First, and Second avenues. State, county, and city politicians seem on board (always excepting Chopp).

It's one thing to be on board when everything is still not public. The real test will come when the public sees the details, stores start screaming about lost curb parking out front, and everyone worries about how the scheme might end up diverting too many cars to I-5, already jammed. (The I-5 impact had originally been Gregoire's main reason for ridiculing the surface option.) The other real test is getting anything past the all-powerful Speaker Chopp, though he may budge if there's enough low-income housing somehow worked into the package.

The story marks a remarkable political journey by local politicians. They have gone from thinking that all the present traffic needed to be accommodated by any solution to the viaduct to thinking in terms of moving people (in various modes), not just cars. All these urban freeways were once paid for largely by federal money. Now they are in need of expensive repair and the feds have fled. One solution is to scrape up local money to rebuild them. When the voters said a loud No to that idea (and the climate change issue moved to the fore), we quietly thought about another approach: removing freeways. It might work.

Why Sound Transit shouldn't be moving forward towards a fall ballot

2008-05-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

Sound Transit did not hear us

Prop. 1 was soundly defeated, but the leadership of Sound Transit plans to deliver Son of Prop. 1 to the voters this fall. The agency better get used to rejection.

By Ted Van Dyk

"I'm leaning 'no' (on a Sound Transit ballot measure this fall)...Why would you go back to a vote when you don't have the answers (regarding unresolved engineering and cost issues)?" — State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, Sound Transit board member.

Undeterred by the one-sided defeat last fall of Proposition 1, which called for the largest local-level tax increase in American history, mainly to fund the extension of Seattle's unfinished light rail system into King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties, Sound Transit is asking citizens to give their opinions on two possible options for a 2008 ballot measure.

The first option, costing an estimated $9 billion, would be financed by a sales-tax increase in urban areas of the three counties. It would extend light rail north to Northgate, east to Overlake Hospital in Bellevue, and south of Sea-Tac airport to South 200th St. It would pay for design of a light rail extension to Everett, land purchases for extensions to Everett and Tacoma, and study of an extension to Issaquah.

The second option, costing an estimated $10.4 billion, calls for a slightly-larger sales-tax increase and would extend light rail east to Redmond and south to Highline Community College. It also would pay for a streetcar connection to First Hill and north to Aloha St. and bus-lane improvements on Route 99 in Shoreline.

Both options also would include some money for improved bus and Sounder service.

Sound Transit conducted a survey earlier this year and will hold public meetings, whose times and dates are to be announced, as well as offer further opportunities to comment online. It wants to decide what to do by mid-summer.

Notably absent from this taxpayer-financed opinion sampling are two other options which voters might reasonably expect to consider.

Option number three would direct Sound Transit to complete its present Phase I line before proposing any Phase II expansion. The initial line, from Sea-Tac airport to Northgate, is far behind its construction schedule, billions over its promised budget and missing several stations promised when the plan was initially approved by voters. First Hill station, projected to be the station with heaviest use, has been cancelled because of engineering problems and financial shortfalls. (The next projected northward station, at Husky Stadium, would disrupt traffic patterns near the university for several years and require drilling and excavation in the area. The area already is well served by bus transit).

Option number four would direct Sound Transit to terminate northward light rail construction in downtown Seattle. It would provide funds to jump start expansions of normal bus and bus rapid transit service in the three counties. Such service expansions could be instituted immediately — not years from now — and at a small percentage of the price tag attached to a notoriously cost-ineffective light rail system.

Sound Transit, according to previous form, is offering us only two similar options — both centered around gold-plated light rail — and not a fuller range of options which public officials and knowledgeable transportation specialists normally might expect to consider.

My own reaction to the exercise is: What can they be thinking?

Prop. 1 was thunderously rejected both because of its cost and because it neglected other transit and road options beyond light rail. Son of Prop. 1, if presented to voters this fall, apparently would follow the same pattern. What did Sound Transit board members not understand about last fall's vote?

The other consideration is obvious: The region is under economic pressure. Both individual voters and the general economy do not need fresh tax increases. The Boeing tanker contract, WaMu distress, the sale of Safeco, and the recently abandoned Belltown real-estate super project all should tell Sound Transit board members that now is not the time for another tax increase for a light rail-centered ballot measure.

The Sound Transit obtuseness provides yet another reason that the Rice-Stanton proposals for an elected regional transportation body should be adopted. No board member, directly accountable to voters, would dare come forward with the two options presented.

As Transportation Secretary Hammond has pointed out, the proposals were framed with many cost and engineering questions about them still unresolved. Sound familiar? Consider the abandoned Seattle Monorail plan, the dueling Alaskan Way tunnel and elevated-highway rebuild proposals, the running-near-empty Allentown Trolley from Westlake Center to South Lake Union and, of course, the notorious Prop. 1.

Message to Sound Transit board members: Get real. Get it right. Or get out.

Ted Van Dyk has been involved in, and written about, national policy and politics since 1961. His memoir of public life, Heroes, Hacks and Fools, was published this year and has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction by the publisher, University of Washington Press. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.

Source posted on Crosscut Magazine

Nation's first bike sharing program

2008-04-29T10:21:00.001-07:00

Bicycle-Sharing Program to Be First of Kind in U.S.
Ed Alcock for The New York Times

Bikes waiting for pickup at a self-service docking station in Paris, where the Vélib sharing program began last summer.

By BERNIE BECKER
Published: April 27, 2008

WASHINGTON — Starting next month, people here will be able to rent a bicycle day and night with the swipe of a membership card.

A new public-private venture called SmartBike DC will make 120 bicycles available at 10 spots in central locations in the city. The automated program, which district officials say is the first of its kind in the nation, will operate in a similar fashion to car-sharing programs like Zipcar.

The district has teamed up with an advertiser, Clear Channel Outdoor, to put the bikes on the streets.

“There’s a lot of stress on our transit systems currently,” said Jim Sebastian, who manages bicycle and pedestrian programs for Washington’s Transportation Department. Offering another option, Mr. Sebastian said, “will help us reduce congestion and pollution,” as well as parking problems.

In the deal, Clear Channel will have exclusive advertising rights in the city’s bus shelters. The company has reached a similar deal with San Francisco. Chicago and Portland, Ore., are also considering proposals from advertisers.

For a $40 annual membership fee, SmartBike users can check out three-speed bicycles for three hours at a time. The program will not provide helmets but does encourage their use.

Similar programs have proved successful in Europe. The Vélib program in Paris and Bicing in Barcelona, Spain, both started around a year ago and already offer thousands of bicycles.

Mr. Sebastian, who started trying to bring bike-sharing to Washington even before its success in Paris and Barcelona, said he believed that the program could grow within a year and hoped that it would eventually offer 1,000 bicycles.

While automated bike-sharing programs are new to the United States, the idea of bike-sharing is hardly novel. Milan, Amsterdam and Portland have all had lower-tech free bike-sharing programs in the past, with Amsterdam’s dating to the 1960s.

But “studies showed that many bikes would get stolen in a day, or within a few weeks,” said Paul DeMaio, a Washington-area bike-sharing consultant. “In Amsterdam, they would often find them in the canals.”

Improved technology allows programs to better protect bicycles. In Washington, SmartBike subscribers who keep bicycles longer than the three-hour maximum will receive demerits and could eventually lose renting privileges. Bicycles gone for more than 48 hours will be deemed lost, with the last user charged a $200 replacement fee.

That technology comes with a price, which is one reason cities and advertisers started joining forces to offer bike-sharing. The European programs would cost cities about $4,500 per bike if sponsors did not step in, Mr. DeMaio said.

Cities realize “they literally have to spend no money on designing, marketing or maintaining” a bike-sharing program, said Martina Schmidt of Clear Channel Outdoor. Washington will keep the revenue generated by the program.

Bike-sharing has become a “public service subsidized by advertising,” said Bernard Parisot, the president and co-chief executive officer of JCDecaux North America, an outdoor advertiser that made a proposal to bring bike-sharing to Chicago.

But, Mr. Parisot added, if users had to pay all of the costs for bike-sharing, “they would probably just take a cab.”

The low cost could be one of the program’s major selling points.

At George Washington University in Foggy Bottom, one of the program’s 10 locations, students were unsure how often they would use SmartBike, but said its price made it worth a try.

“I’d probably use it more in the summer than winter,” said Dewey Archer, a senior. “But for $40? That’s cheaper than gas.”

Ex WST commissioner sees flaws in Rossi's plan

2008-04-29T10:13:00.000-07:00

Serious flaws in Rossi's plan

By Aubrey Davis

Special to The Times

MORE traffic, more taxes and fewer choices are what Dino Rossi's transportation proposal would mean for area commuters.

Rossi's proposal has two serious flaws — among many — that would have drastic consequences for the future of transportation in our region, particularly for East King County.

As a central part of his proposal, Rossi wants to resurrect a long-ago rejected idea to construct an eight-lane replacement for the Highway 520 Floating Bridge. This extremely expensive and complicated project is riddled with engineering and economic problems.

I spent several years chairing a regional 520 executive committee that produced a very strong east-west consensus on the six-lane alternative with later capability for additional high capacity transit. Some mitigation issues in Seattle are now being worked out and the governor has directed that the new bridge be completed by 2014 with all six lanes in service by 2016.

When we considered constructing eight lanes of new concrete across Lake Washington, we concluded it would have severe consequences for our commutes on Interstate 5 and I-405, not to mention our environment, local communities and our wallets.

Engineering studies show that dumping eight lanes of traffic from 520 onto an already congested I-5 and I-405 would virtually shut down both freeways and create gridlock across the region. I-5 and I-405 would become the most expensive parking lots on Earth. Connecting an eight-lane 520 to I-5 and I-405 would be like trying to connect a fire hydrant to a garden hose, and the ones getting wet would be us, the taxpayers.

It has been estimated that billions of dollars in new lanes on I-5 and I-405 would be needed to make this fire hydrant-to-garden hose connection that Rossi proposes even remotely possible. These costs are not accounted for in Rossi's plan and funding is not available.

Furthermore, Rossi claims to be able to build an eight-lane bridge for less money than the planned six-lane bridge — a claim that not only runs counter to common sense, but one that doesn't jibe with detailed state cost estimates.

The second major flaw of Rossi's proposal involves the future of light rail and improved bus service in East King County.

In 1996, local taxpayers agreed to pay for and build key transit projects that are carrying thousands of people to work and back each and every day. Fortunately, in this first phase East King County has built up a down payment that will help us afford more light rail and bus service in the next phase of construction. This down payment could mean light rail across I-90 to Bellevue and beyond and more bus service and more park-and-ride lots throughout the Eastside.

Rossi's proposal hijacks this down payment and spends it on a 1950s-style transportation plan that's heavy on concrete and void of any reliable transit alternatives.

Rossi suggests redirecting East King County's current transit down payment to more state highway lanes. While there are many legal complications involved with redirecting local transit dollars to state roads, I'll stick to covering the policy implications.

By taking money dedicated to East King County light rail and express buses and spending it on highway lanes, Rossi is in effect telling this generation of Eastside residents that light rail and superior bus service aren't in our future, ever. With our region approaching $4 a gallon gas, we need more transit options, not fewer.

Anyone who has even just peeked across the lake at the massive construction cranes dominating the city of Bellevue's skyline knows that Bellevue is a city growing toward a 2050 land-use and community vision, not a 1950s automobile-dominated past. With more downtown workers and residents, Bellevue and its surrounding Eastside cities need more transit service, not less. Rossi's transportation proposal would give East King County 50 more years of the same crowded highways and limited choices for getting to work, school and home.

After years of neglect, our region and state are making progress in chipping away at the long backlog of road and transit projects. There is no doubt that much more work remains. To stay on track, we must pursue transportation projects that are affordable, doable and forward-thinking. Dino Rossi's proposal is none of the above.

Portland becomes more bicycle friendly

2008-04-29T10:09:00.000-07:00

Bicycle-friendly Portland works to be bicycle-safe, too
Commuting - New city policies and outreach efforts aim to remind everyone to share the road
Monday, April 28, 2008
STEPHEN BEAVEN
The Oregonian Staff

By late last week, six bright green bike boxes were installed, and eight more are on the way. But the biggest changes in Portland's efforts to make cyclists safer are far less obvious.

The Portland Police Bureau changed its policies for investigating crashes involving cyclists and appointed a liaison officer to work with the cycling community. The city, meanwhile, is retrofitting its truck fleet with "bike guards" to protect riders. It also invited cyclists and truckers to meet and mingle on Southeast Clinton Street during the evening commute on Tuesday.

Although the bike boxes and other safety measures were on the drawing board for some time, those efforts took on a new urgency in recent months following the deaths of two cyclists in high-profile crashes in October.
Advertisement

Now the city and the cycling community are working more closely to put new policies and equipment in place to make bike lanes and intersections safer for two-wheeled commuters.

"Those two deaths were a catalyst for positive change," said Mark Ginsberg, an attorney who is chairman of the city's bicycle advisory committee. "It has definitely accelerated."

Capt. Larry O'Dea, who heads the Police Bureau's traffic division, plans to meet with attorneys, judges and cycling advocates in May to better understand language in several bike-related state laws. The bureau has appointed an officer who used to be a bike messenger as a liaison to the cycling community.

O'Dea also has begun talking with members of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and regularly attending bicycle advisory committee meetings.

"In being at all these meetings, I'm getting very strong feedback from the bicycle community," O'Dea said. "They want a good relationship with the Police Bureau."

Perhaps the biggest change at the bureau came in February when Chief Rosie Sizer issued an executive order that changed the policy for investigating crashes involving cyclists, as well as pedestrians, skateboarders and others defined as "vulnerable road users."

Before, there was no separate standard for crashes involving such users. Investigations were mandatory only if there were serious or life-threatening injuries.

Now any collision in which a cyclist is taken to a hospital by an ambulance is investigated. The traffic division investigated nine such crashes involving cyclists last month, compared with five in March 2007, O'Dea said.

Ginsberg credits the bureau for building a better relationship with cyclists, adding that it was especially helpful for officers to hand out educational brochures instead of tickets when the bike boxes were initially installed.

But he'd still like to see the bureau pursue reckless and careless drivers more aggressively, even if cyclists aren't injured. O'Dea said he has already asked the Bicycle Transportation Alliance for help in determining where the bureau should focus its efforts.

Cyclist Tim Calvert said he's glad the city is listening to the cycling community and taking even incremental steps to make the streets safer.

The bike boxes are an especially vivid reminder of the changes Portland has undertaken in recent months.

"I think anytime bicycling is elevated on the street level to a more equal status with cars," Calvert said, "it helps both the drivers and cyclists acknowledge that they're both commuters, and they're both trying to get to work safely."

Stephen Beaven: 503-294-7663; stevebeaven@news.oregonian.com