The phrase,'Unsound Transit', was coined by the Wall Street Journal to describe Seattle where,"Light Rail Madness eats billions that could otherwise be devoted to truly efficient transportation technologies." The Puget Sound's traffic congestion is a growing cancer on the region's prosperity. This website, captures news and expert opinion about ways to address the crisis. This is not a blog, but a knowledge base, which collects the best articles and presents them in a searchable format. My goal is to arm residents with knowledge so they can champion fact-based, rather than emotional, solutions.

Transportation

Showing posts with label John Niles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Niles. Show all posts

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Sound Transit never open to light rail on 520

Rail: Visualize the '80s, not '50s

DARWIN P. ROBERTS
GUEST COLUMNIST

Local leaders and Sound Transit are making transportation plans that threaten to take us back to our distant past (Tuesday P-I). Apparently, in designing the replacement for the 520 Bridge, they are all but killing any chance that light rail will ever cross it.

We're told this is because we won't need light rail on state Route 520 in our lifetime, if we have bus rapid transit on that route and light rail on the I-90 Bridge.

But the prospect of bus transit on SR-520 apparently has also led to a "new buzz" for bus rapid transit in the I-90 corridor, particularly as a short-term substitute for the more expensive light rail. Rail might be built across I-90, but someday in the future, when voters' attitude toward it is "more clear." In the meantime, it's proposed that I-90 could be used for more express buses and single-occupancy vehicles in tolled "zip lanes."

Our leaders seem to have forgotten that Seattle made decisions just like this in the 1950s, and they crippled our current efforts to build rail transit. When I-5 was being planned, the city's Transit Commission proposed reserving a 50-foot right of way in the freeway median for future rail transit. But as HistoryLink's Moving Washington Timeline puts it, "The state was only willing to consider express bus service." This intransigence led I-5 to be built with reversible express lanes only, "frustrat(ing) future transit planners."

In the 1980s, in contrast, we planned the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel for our future rail transit needs. It was designed from the start to be used by a rail system, even though we didn't know whether we'd actually build one. Because of that foresighted decision, Link light rail will run the length of downtown Seattle next year.

If you walk by Convention Place Station, though, you can still see where our smart planning in the '80s ground to a halt against our poor planning from the '50s. The '80s rail tracks come out of the transit tunnel, run through the station, curve hopefully to the north -- and then stop dead, just short of I-5's reversible express lanes. We could have left a path for the tracks to go to Northgate, but we decided not to. The billions we'll spend fixing that mistake could instead have been spent adding rail lines to all the other parts of our region that need light rail service.

Today, we can't afford to plan as badly as we did when we built I-5. We've made a massive regional investment to build a light rail system, which is finally about to start paying off. For the foreseeable future, rail transit will be critical in keeping our economy and environment healthy.

When we plan any major transportation project, such as SR 520, we should include the capacity for future rail if there is any reasonable chance we'll need it -- just like we managed to do in the '80s. And across I-90, we should stop fiddling around with the warmed-over traffic strategies of the '50s and get a rail line to the Eastside built. It'll be good for all of us.
Darwin P. Roberts lives in Seattle.


Readers Comments


Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 3/19/08 5:41 p.m.


In the 1980s, in contrast, we planned the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel for our future rail transit needs. It was designed from the start to be used by a rail system

Did you forget that we just spent more than $30 million to 'fix' the tunnel for rail?

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews
/2002557741_tunnel13m.html


Posted by skeptical at 3/19/08 7:08 p.m.

Seattle plan - are you kidding?

They could not even decide to use the rail line for rail -
going to make a trail out of it. So they can spend Billions later for rail.


Posted by John N at 3/19/08 7:23 p.m.

Sound Transit is in charge of light rail in this region. The systems design for light rail has been locked down for over ten years.

Read the Sound Transit long-range plan from 2006.

Read the Master Plan from the 1990s.

The Sound Transit light rail design has NEVER been open to the possibility of light rail on the SR 520 bridge.


Sound Transit's tunnel and track design does not have the capacity to aborb the predicted ridership load from Northgate, plus from the Eastside, in the University Link tunnel that is planned between U of W and Pine Street.

The Eastside light rail ridership MUST come in to the Seattle downtown from the south of Seattle's downtown, across I-90, in the ST design.

To have changed the design at any point in this current century would have jeopardized the $750 million Federal grant that ST hopes to achieve later this year.


Hi John N,

While it is true that ST never planned to take Eastside commuters over 520, why should we propagate their shortsightedness from 15 years ago?

Things change in 10 years, much less 50 years. And we are talking about a 50-100 year system lifespan. Why should we lock in future planners because of today's short sighted thinking? Remember, we will have an additional 1,000,000 people on the Eastside in 20 years. Bellevue will surpass Seattle as the state's largest city.

Unfortunatly, Ron Sims is responsible for much of this now outdated transportation thinking. I can see his dirty fingerprints all over this decision making process.

Remember how, just a few months ago, he was absolutely adamant about permanently blocking future Eastside rail with a stupid bicycle trail on the BNSF right of way? He even wrote threatening letters to POS board members. Good thing the county council and the Port of Seattle pulled him up by his jock strap. That stupid jerk was going to tear up the tracks immediately. The heck with the next 1,000,000 people moving to the Eastside in the next 20 years.

I have a sneaking suspicion that another rail crossing may be needed to accommodate that future growth. Unless, of course, Seattle is willing to tear out the Burke-Gillman trail....

Posted by BenSchiendelman at 3/20/08 1:03 a.m.

Wow. Possibly the only time I've ever (kind of) agreed with John Niles.

It would be pointless to build light rail capability into this bridge, because we have so much other light rail construction to worry about before we'll ever want to do 520.

The capacity argument isn't exactly true, as light rail trains in the future can run with very tight headways (as little as 2 minutes), just like other mature systems. It would just be extremely expensive and frankly, silly, to build an underground connection to rail over 520 when we already have the infrastructure built to build it over 90. Interlining does work perfectly over 90 as well.

This explains the issue simply and well:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/eastlink/LoadBalance.pdf
Report violation
#391191

Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 3/20/08 1:23 a.m.

For one of the few times in his life, JNiles actually applies some real world logic to his axe-grinding jihad. Niles references ST's long range plan, thus acknowledging the value of following some semblence of a blueprint-driven planning over the decades. Don't worry? Though. Niles will find something monorail/technobabble/ new to pursue soon. Since he works for tv Discovery Institute, look for a submerged vacuum tube footferry tlcing m n

btw, the author of this half-sane guest column wins the transportation Darwin award.

When he said "skip LRT on I-90, and do Buses Stuck in Traffic (BrT) instead of light rail, do you think Mr. Darwin Award even took a peek at what it would take to do short headway buses once the coaches leave I-90?

Of course he didn't.

And do you think Mr. Darwin Award ever examined the 35 year planning history behind converting the center lanes to light rail ?

Of course not.

Why on God's green earth would you build light rail on a bridge which was designed for light rail

Hands down, many rabid anti-rail nuts have seized on this520 rail concept, because they also know 520 ISNT ready for rail any time soon. Delay is a good thing for the crank-ideologue.

What a joke: transit opponents doing what transit opponents do best: propose sure losers. Look at Shilo's string of ideas. (two long)

Mr. Darwin Awards, what axe are you grinding today? NIMBy axe? Grudge axe ? Maybe somebody told you about Will Knedlik's free and easy BNSF crazy train?
Your guest column was convoluted an confused...the sure sign of a grudge-based secondary agenda. You're in good company with that.
Report violation
#391193



Posted by rwb77 at 3/20/08 6:35 a.m.

We could solve this problem on the proverbial cheap by people living on the side of the lake on which they work, but that would be too much to ask of Americans, wouldn't it?
Report violation
#391351

Posted by shilos dog house at 3/20/08 7:57 a.m.

Hey Soul,

I am not against mass transit in any form, other than extremely expensive holes in the ground.

What I am against is designing a transit system that creates built-in expansion restrictions.

Bellevue will be larger than Seattle in just a few years. There is no doubt about it. One only needs to look at the population history of Seattle to realize that it has only grown 10% in 50 years. Bellevue, on the otherhand has grown 1,000% in 20.

Transit planners like Ron Sims some how cannot envision this gargantuan poplulation and power shift that will occure in the near future. By constantly focusing on a Seattle centric system they obscure the much larger picture of the whole county all the while asking the whole county to pay for it.

If we do not plan for this future growth I am afraid we will have BIG Issaquah popping up all over the Eastside with no infrastructure to accomodate it. Are we ready for a Hobart with a population base of 50,000?
Report violation
#391390

Posted by hparks_3 at 3/20/08 8:26 a.m.

As has been proven (and rejected at the polls repeatedly) in the past, rail is too expensive and inflexible. But it makes the Left feeeeeel good.
Report violation
#391416



Posted by gettingreal at 3/20/08 9:06 a.m.

What we need is to have rational people plan this without their own agenda. Local planning is dominated by people who have little vision, but lots of personal agenda. Ron Sims envisions 1/2 of the population taking the bus. It is well known that buses are expensive to operate, 73 cents/passenger-mile.
king county metro government statistics

His plan won't work, because that's $15 to travel 20 miles. No matter, king Ron won't give up his fantasies. All we need to keep light rail alive is to build the 520 pontoons wide enough to handle 8 lanes, and hope future generations have better leaders.
Report violation
#391527

Posted by shilos dog house at 3/20/08 10:12 a.m.

One thing to keep in mind. Short-sightedness is inherent in all planning.

John N. talks about the plans from 10-15 years ago, and how rail on 520 was not in the plan. Ron Sims was the driver in that planning group.

I met Ron about that time at a meeting in Bothell on Brightwater. His first comment was "Wow, you guys in Bothell live way out in the country!"

Ron Sims' horizon for planning was his constituency base in the central area of Seattle. Guess where all the rail transit was/is focused? Thinking much beyond the city limits was out of his grasp at the time. Having served multiple terms now as the county Executive has broadened his scope somewhat. However, Bellevue is apparently still far off "way over there". Issaquah might as well be Denver as far as he can see.

There are 1,000,000 new people coming our way. They won't be settling inside the Seattle city limits. They will be in Hobart, Carnation, Duval, Covington, Ravensdail, Black Diamond, or Maple Valley.

For the last 30 years Seattle has been diminishing as the economic and population center of our region. That has steadily been moving east, across the lake. Microsoft is not in Redmond/Bellevue just for the view. They have located in the center of the growth pattern. We need to refocus our transportation planning for that reality. Ron Sims is not the man to do it. I don't know who is, but I know who it ain't.

To preclude future transportation planners from using 520 or any other current open corridor is just silly, to the point of being criminal. Just because a short sighted man set the plan 15 years ago is no reason at all for refusing to review that plan today.
Report violation
#391582

Posted by frustrated at 3/20/08 11:00 a.m.

I think the posts about the future importance of the eastside are correct. The eastside seems to have a lot more of the tech jobs that drive a region, and people who are leaving Microsoft or other established ventures to start something new are more likely to start them close to where they live. Often this is the eastside.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Measuring the Success of Transit-Oriented Development

Measuring the Success of Transit-Oriented Development

Retail Market Dynamics and Other Key Determinants



Prepared for the
American Planning Association
National Planning Conference
Seattle, Washington, April 24-28, 1999
Session S-180: Will Retailing Collide with TOD?

by

John Niles
Global Telematics
4005 20th Avenue West, Suite 111
Seattle, Washington 98199
Phone: 206-781-4475
Fax: 208-730-2420
Email: jniles@alum.mit.edu


Dick Nelson
Integrated Transport Research, Inc.
122 Northwest 50th Street
Seattle, Washington 98107
Phone & Fax: 206-781-0915
Email: dicknels@msn.com

Abstract

Transit-oriented development (TOD) has become the dominant urban growth planning paradigm in the United States. Yet scant evidence has been proffered to indicate that it will produce significant environmental and social benefits commensurate with the costs of the major transportation system improvements that it requires.

Sixteen distinct planning issues will determine whether TOD significantly changes travel behavior in a metropolitan region. While some analysis exists, understanding of these issues needs improvement. In particular, more research is needed on non-work travel, retail market dynamics, and the likely constraints this $2.3 trillion area of business and human behavior imposes on TOD.

Introduction

Over the past two decades numerous metropolitan areas in the United States have embraced the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) in an attempt to control and manage the negative environmental and social impacts of dispersed growth patterns (Porter 1997). TOD, it is suggested, will increase pedestrian and transit trip taking while reducing the number and length of auto trips, and it will contribute to the livability that some feel is lacking in modern suburban development (Calthorpe 1993).

In essence, TOD means the creation of denser, mixed use activity nodes connected by high quality public transportation. Proponents believe that a combination of design features will induce travel mode shifts that result in reduced area-wide traffic congestion and improved air quality. These features include improved street connectivity, public amenities, and a concentration of residences and jobs in proximity to transit stations and commercial businesses. As an additional benefit, the enhanced pedestrian environment will increase "casual encounters" among neighbors that can contribute to a sense of community.

These efforts typically begin implementation with major new "mass" transit investments, often light-rail systems, that are designed to link central city cores, suburban downtowns, and other major activity centers. TOD is possible without new transit, but most metro areas choose to make the transit investment. Bernick and Cervero (1996) suggest that what is needed for TOD to succeed is a "transit metropolis," meaning a sufficient number of TODs having balanced or special uses that are connected and allow for efficient rail travel with bi-directional travel flows.

Construction of the new transit system usually precedes the land use restructuring required to effectively support the investment, i.e., the concentrations of population, employment, public amenities, and commercial activities that will attract transit riders in sufficient numbers to satisfy the transit system’s fare box recovery requirements. Commercial activities, in particular, often become a consideration after the transit system alignment is finalized and station areas are identified.

A useful review of previous studies in the urban planning and transportation literature of the transportation impacts of neo-traditional development and TOD is provided by Berman (1996). This paper summarizes several more recent empirical and modeling studies of TOD, and it indicates how TOD success should be measured. Specifically, it outlines the key factors that need to be understood and weighed before significant new transit investments are made. Our aim is to enhance the regional planning process in a way that leads to cost-effective investments of scarce public dollars.

Local Benefits vs. Regional Benefits

It is important to distinguish between regional and local benefits produced by TOD, and the magnitude of benefits at both scales of measurement. Intuition suggests that station-area development involving mixed use and higher employment and residential densities will induce more pedestrian and transit trips. Several studies lend credence to this belief. However, since the ideal TOD is still a planner’s vision, researchers have resorted to comparing older neighborhoods that approximate TOD with conventional suburban neighborhoods that do not. These studies suggest that the increase in non-auto trips, although small, is measurable (Bernick and Cervero 1996).

Yet local area benefits may not translate to regional benefits, especially when weighed against the costs of the transit investments needed to link individual TOD centers. Consequently, the central question for planners and decision makers is the magnitude of TOD’s regional impact, namely reduced congestion and improved air quality that are the principle concerns of the traveling public. Nelson and Niles (1999), after reviewing the empirical studies to date, suggest that they provide insufficient evidence that TOD on a regional scale, even when supported by large transit investments, is likely to produce significant regional benefits.

It is important, therefore, to understand the factors that determine the regional and local success of TOD. This paper reviews the key factors and suggests where further work is needed that will expand our understanding of the strength of each and hence of TOD’s potential. We focus particularly on the obstacles posed to TOD by the dynamic nature of the commercial marketplace, an important area of inquiry that has been largely overlooked in previous studies. Our purpose is not to be exhaustive, but to provide a overview which might stimulate more in-depth work.

Key Factors Determining TOD Success

A number of variables will determine the success of TOD at both the station-area and corridor or regional scale (Table 1). As indicated previously, we define success as the extent of the mode shift -- from autos to pedestrian and transit modes -- that is attributable to TOD. In economic terms, success is the benefits of this shift net the costs of building and operating new transit facilities. As thusly defined, success is measurable, and may be predictable. Other measures of success, such as sense of community and livability, although appropriate and important, do not easily lend themselves to either empirical measurement nor estimation through the use of models (Project for Public Spaces 1997).

Some factors play a major role in determining local, station-area success, while others have a significant impact at both the local and the larger, corridor/regional scale. In other words, success may be achieved at one or several TODs if a few positive factors are present, but success will probably not be achieved at a regional scale unless a greater number of factors contribute in a positive fashion. We are not suggesting either the relative magnitude nor the sign of the impact of these factors, only that each may be significant in determining the success of TOD.

Together, these factors in Table 1 represent independent (exogenous) variables in equations that might be written to predict either the probability of success or its magnitude at both scales of interest. Several studies have attempted to dissaggregate the effect of some of these variables, while others have measured their combined effects. In the following, we cite the most recent research into these factors, and we suggest gaps in our understanding that need to be addressed.

TABLE 1. Factors determining the success of TOD
Factor Station-area success Regional success
Number of TODs (& station areas) X
Transit quality X
Transit technology X
Street pattern X X
Station-area parking X X
Employment and housing density X X
Commercial mix X X
Retail siting criteria X
Regional market structure X
Consumer activity patterns X
Travel behavior/trip chaining X
Zoning flexibility X
Resident reactions X X
Housing type preference/life style & life stage X
Self-selection in residential choice X X
Government policies X

Number of Stations/Extent of Transit Investment

Supporters of TOD envision a network of dense, mixed-use activity centers linked by high quality transit. Centers can serve a neighborhood or a larger area. The latter, or urban TOD, includes the suburban downtowns of major metro areas and major employment centers. Activities in each of these centers or nodes are origins and destinations for regional travel.

TOD land use and public transportation structure will change travel patterns and modes to the extent it offers improved access to desired activities for a significant portion of the population currently experiencing acceptable auto accessibility. Centers must be within an easy walking distance (1/4 mile) to residents, and one or more other centers must be easily accessible by transit. As the distance between a center and the traveler’s origin increases, transit accessibility will tend to decrease more rapidly than auto accessibility. More transfers and hence more wait time will be a reality of the transit trip.

The proportion of the regional population that lives within close proximity to activity centers and their transit stations will obviously depend on the number of stations. And, of course, the number of centers and stations will depend on the public’s willingness to build and operate the transit system. For any metro region, then, the number of people shifting to transit will be determined by the quality of the public transit system as well as the number of their daily activities that are located in TODs.

Calculating the accessibility (and mode shifts) for levels of transit quality deemed affordable to a given region is obviously a complex exercise that requires an accurate regional model. However, it is possible to estimate the scale of the transit investment that is needed to capture a sizable fraction of auto users.

Downs (1994) did this by calculating the number of TODs needed to accommodate the average population and employment growth during the 1980’s of metropolitan areas with a 1990 population of one million or more. He concluded that TODs could handle the growth if their numbers were large, but that this would require a regional transit system that a city might not find financially feasible.

This leads to the inference that considerable numbers of travelers who live outside of TODs need to be attracted to transit, both for work and non-work trips. Again, this will entail investments in new transit, possibly in the form of neighborhood circulators, e.g., small vans, buses, or personal rapid transit vehicles that deliver passengers to TOD station areas and, with well-coordinated intermodal transfers, to a regional network of TODs.

A number of metro regions have modeled the transportation performance of various TOD scenarios based on assumptions concerning the portion of new growth that will be accommodated by existing and new activity centers. There is not space here to review these estimates, but it should be noted that the numbers generated, usually travel delay and air quality, will be highly dependent on the accuracy of the model and whether its design takes into account the interplay of the variables listed in Table 1. We address the status of current models and the need for decision making tools below.

Transit Technology

It is often asserted that TOD benefits from rail or other fixed-guideway transit. Commercial developers, it is believed, are attracted by its permanence. In pre-auto cities, dense development around subway and surface rail stations that dates back to the turn of the century is common. Yet it is not as easy to draw the conclusion that rail transit is both more permanent and a greater attractor of development than is bus transit.

A number of historical studies have reviewed the evolution of transit in several cities. However, none appears to have explored the question of the relative permanence of rail versus bus. A cursory and unpublished study of bus routes in Chicago found that most had remained unchanged since they were established in the early 1900’s.1 Many post-auto cities have experienced the development of electric trolley systems starting in the 1890’s and their removal and replacement with bus in the 1930’s and 1940’s. And now some of those trolley lines are coming back in the form of light rail.

Porter (1997), in a study of TOD across the United States, concludes that rail tends to stimulate concentrated development in areas such as central business districts where transit is highly accessible and auto traffic is impacted by congestion and costly parking. Another study found that rail alone is not sufficient to generate development; strong market forces and supportive public policies are also needed (PBQD 1996).

Street Patterns

TOD design would have street patterns oriented along a grid, as opposed to the cul-de-sac and curvilinear street designs of many post Word War II US suburbs. Within the grid are sidewalks and streetscapes that encourage walking, and narrow streets and other traffic calming features that discourage driving. Crane (1996a, 1996b, 1998), Crane and Crepeau (1998), and Boarnet and Sarmiento (1996) have reviewed previous studies that suggested positive impacts of these design elements. Their more recent evaluations question the assertion that more traditional street design will reduce auto travel.

Crane (1998), based on a review of empirical studies that compare travel patterns for neighborhoods with traditional designs and modern suburbs, suggests that TOD can just as easily increase auto travel, both trip rates and vehicle miles traveled. He observes that auto travel may increase because of improved street connectivity and accessibility to neighborhood centers. Crane finds that most studies have ignored income and demographic variables that explain differences in travel behavior.

Station-Area Parking

TODs are designed to be pedestrian and transit friendly. The potential for reducing auto travel is enhanced if parking demand and supply at centers can be moderated. Some studies indicate that this may be difficult, given the current and expected continued auto dependency. Steiner (1998) found that San Francisco area shopping centers generate auto trips from outside the immediate vicinity and consequently may require more parking capacity than prescribed for by New Urbanism standards. Similarly, Thompson (1999), who modeled TOD performance in the Sacramento region, suggests that work centers must provide sufficient parking to meet the demands of the large majority of residents and employees in TODs who will continue to use autos for their travel.

Station-Area Housing and Employment Density

Studies in different metro areas have shown (Moudon et al 1997; Cervero & Kockelman 1997) that denser residential development within an easy walk of a TOD center and transit station will generate walk trips, and that these trips may substitute for vehicle trips. However, in the case of work trips, regional success is dependent on density at both trip origin and destination. At least a few concentrated employment centers served by transit are needed to attract significant numbers of commuters. The problem is that employment locations have become highly dispersed outside of the central business districts in most metro areas.

These trends appear to be continuing as central cities decline in relative, and some cases absolute, share of regional employment. For example, in 1970 39% of all jobs in the Seattle metro area (central Puget Sound region) were located in the central city. By 1994, just 29% of regional employment was inside the central city, even though it has remained a vibrant commercial center. Another 17% was situated in 16 satellite urban centers. More than half of all jobs were located in areas outside urban centers -- in commercial and industrial zones spread across four counties.

Cervero (1996), acknowledging the problem of density at both ends of the commute trip, cites the example of commuting in the San Francisco Bay area. Using 1990 Census data, he estimates that 9 % of residents in the three BART-served counties lived within a half mile of a BART station, and just 18 % of these station-area residents commuted to work by rail transit. Thus only about 2% of commute trips within these counties were taken by station-area residents using BART. Thompson (1999) suggests that transit use will grow and contribute to the success of TOD only if public policy can channel dispersing job growth to suburban transit corridors.

Station-Area Commercial Mix

Handy (1996) studied the importance of commercial establishments to the inducement of walking trips in several traditional and modern Austin neighborhoods. Although she found the total savings in auto travel by households to be small, it was statistically significant and increased with the number and variety of local stores.

A key question arises with respect to the commercial mix around stations when rail transit is retrofitted into existing urban form. There is evidence that the commercial market may not value the financial rewards of station-area location as much as planners value the regional environmental and social benefits. Porter (1997) found that development around station areas, even in the case of the first of the new rail systems, such as those in Washington, DC and San Francisco, has not occurred as rapidly as expected. He summarizes the conclusions of researchers that station-area development is more a product of market interest in specific locations than a response to transit.

Store Siting, Regional Market Structure, and Consumer Behavior

The commercial market’s apparent reluctance to choose station areas reflects the criteria for preferred store sites that are determined by the needs of developers and owners to succeed financially. Nelson and Niles (1999) suggest that an understanding of key retail site selection criteria and the market forces currently shaping a metropolitan region’s retail structure may help planners identify ways to improve the commercial mix at stations so that they attract more pedestrian and transit traffic.

These criteria are summarized in Table 2. Some stores, both those that offer goods and services, tend to cluster to achieve market advantage. Clustering, which is most observable in planned shopping centers, also facilitates more efficient auto access. Stores of all kinds are getting larger, both in floor and market area, taking advantage of economies of scale. Sites that offer good visibility and regional as well as local access tend to be preferred. Often, this is in a stand alone location rather than in a commercial cluster. Developers tend to avoid locations that create environmental impacts that might be objectionable to local residents.

TABLE 2. Key retail location decision criteria

Agglomeration economies

Scale economies

Visibility, access and parking

Environmental impacts

Zoning and public resistance

Retail location has shaped and is in turn shaped by consumer behavior (Table 3). Consumers express strong preferences to buy cheaply, to compare competing products, and to experience variety. And they are willing to travel often and farther than their neighborhood commercial center to find each.

TABLE 3. Consumer behavior characteristics

Bargain hunting

Comparison shopping

Preference for variety

Destination flexibility

Schedule flexibility

The modern marketplace provides consumers considerable flexibility that was not previously present. The variety and choice offered by the marketplace allows consumers to undertake a particular activity at several different locations. And by extending hours and days they are open, retail stores accommodate diverse personal schedules.

These location criteria and consumer characteristics combine and interplay in ways that have produced the pronounced retail structural trends summarized in Table 4, trends that are seen in metro regions across the United States.

TABLE 4. Major trends in retail market structure

Retail activity increasingly polycentric and dispersed

Planned shopping centers dominate market

Smaller malls cluster around major malls

"Big Boxes" market share growing

"Super" stores growing in kind and number

Many chains prefer stand alone sites

Dining out continues strong

Drive to and through convenience growing

Source: Nelson & Niles 1999

Figure 1 shows how one of these trends, the growth of planned shopping centers, has developed in the Seattle metro area. Planned shopping centers of three or more stores now number over 450 and contain about 80 million square feet of leasable area. They are spatially dispersed and are located where there is good auto access.

The modern retail structure has in turn produced profound changes in personal and household travel patterns that must be understood in order to improve TOD’s chances of success.

Travel Behavior/Trip Chaining

Our focus is on "retail" activities because they directly or indirectly account for a large majority of all personal travel. By retail, we mean shopping for goods and services, eating out, and engaging in recreation, social and cultural activities outside the home. These nonwork activities generated almost three out of five person trips in 1995 (Table 5).

TABLE 5. Trip Purposes (Percent of All Person Trips)
Work 20%
Shopping 20%
Family/Personal Business 24%
Recreational/Eating Out 17%
Other 22%

Source: NPTS 1995

Nonwork trips are often chained with work trips and with other nonwork trips to maximize travel efficiency. The data in Table 6 show the importance of trip chains for the Work to Home and Home to Home tours, and the differences between genders. These data suggest that if TOD is to accomplish mode shifting, activities to be located in a TOD should be identified by pinpointing the specific purposes and locations of stops in these tours. Other tours of interest are, of course, the Work to Work and the Home to Work tours.

TABLE 6. Chaining of non-work trips (Percent of weekday tours with two or more Stops)


Work to Home


Home to Home

Men


17.7 %


38.6 %

Women


28.2 %


43.7 %

Source: McGuckin and Murakami 1999

Zoning and Resident Reaction

Redevelopment and infill often have to contend with zoning and environmental issues. Zoning, once established, is not easily changed, especially if the intent is to increase density, convert commercial strips to more compact nodes, and create a greater mix of uses. The authors could not find a comprehensive study of the national experience regarding proposals to change local zoning, but they are familiar with attempts to revise zoning in the context of Puget Sound area growth planning. Residents of neighborhoods where government has proposed TOD development tend to resist increased density and its impacts, whether real or perceived. Even commercial development that brings new stores and services is not always welcomed. People tend to oppose change, especially if they believe there will be impacts such as increased vehicle traffic. Attitudes toward zoning changes may differ in metro regions that have been working on this issue for some time. For example, a transportation plan for suburban Portland recommends zoning be used to guide all new retail space to TOD sites (1000 Friends of Oregon 1992).

Housing Type Preference: Life Style & Life Stage

Proponents of TOD believe that more Americans will choose "traditional" housing types -- small houses, condos, walkup apartments, accessory units -- especially when they are conveniently located near amenities. This assumption cannot yet be verified, even though the market has begun to deliver more housing of a traditional character, and buyers and renters have responded well to many of the new developments (Steuteville 1998). The number of developments, especially on urban and suburban infill sites, is still relatively small even when counted nationally.

Yet, for planning purposes, it would be instructive to know whether the current market response reflects new converts to TOD housing, or whether consumers are simply selecting housing that they would have otherwise chosen. And if there is a conversion process underway, how significant will it be in the longer term? Is it more than a small niche market? Will most home buyers and renters be attracted by the affordability of housing and on the metro fringe, as well as other attributes of suburban and exurban living?

Without the revealed preference of consumers, we are forced to fall back on what people say they prefer. National surveys commissioned by Fannie Mae (Fannie Mae 1996, 1997, 1998) provide some perspective on American’s housing preferences. In 1996 Fannie Mae asked adult American about their attitudes towards housing and home ownership. Of those contacted, 73 % said their ideal home is a single-family detached house with a yard on all sides. Since ownership of all types of homes, including townhouses and condos, is currently at about 64 %, if the trend follows stated preferences, it should be toward more single-family detached ownership, not less. The same survey found that Americans are willing to make significant tradeoffs for home ownership. Four of five would drive a longer distance to work if they could own rather than rent a home.

Fannie Mae’s 1997 survey asked people where they would like to live. A large majority indicated they preferred either a small town or a suburb near a large city. Only 9% favored a large city.

For the past 30 years the housing market has produced a growing proportion of single family units with steadily increasing floor area (see Figure 2). New multifamily units have also been increasing in size, growing 20% in average floor area from 1988 to 1997 (US Census Bureau). The low mortgage interest rates, relaxed borrowing requirements, and strong economy of the late 1990’s have pushed home ownership to record levels. Fannie Mae’s most recent survey, in 1998, indicates that a majority of renters have a strong desire to move up to ownership. It will be of interest to see if the detached single-family preference and size trends continue as ownership rates increase.

Another recent private sector survey (American LIVES 1995), for the real estate industry, found that four of five consumers who bought or shopped for a home in several states, were unwilling to give up the cul-de-sacs, large yards, and privacy that comes with single-family detached homes set back from the street. A large majority didn’t like the often homogenous look of conventional suburbia either. Their preference: a new suburban look with a town center as a community-gathering place, small shops, green space, and plenty of convenient parking.

The American Housing Survey sheds some light on the reasons people move and choose their neighborhood. Of the many reasons cited for leaving a previous home, the desire to establish one’s own household and the need for more space rank highest in the most recent nationwide survey (Census Bureau 1997). The attributes of the house itself and its convenience to job were given most often as the top reasons for choice of neighborhood, while convenience to public transportation was eighth on the list of reasons.

A wild card that may effect housing type and size is the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation. The US population age 55 and over will increase from 21% of the population in 1995 to over 29% in 2020. These "empty nesters" may choose to downsize their housing and opt for more locational convenience. Fannie Mae explored the future housing preferences of Baby Boomers in its 1998 Survey. A majority, 53%, said they will remain in their current house, either as is or with renovations, while 35 % indicated that they would sell, and either buy or rent a new house. The survey did not probe whether the size of the new house had been considered in retirement plans.

Self-Selection in Residential Choice

A factor related to travel behavior and housing type preference is the propensity for self-selection in choice of residence location, i.e., people who are the most likely to use transit choose to live near transit stations. Self selection, to the extent it occurs, will mask the magnitude of transit’s true impact on travel behavior. Crane (1998) points out that empirical studies that compare the travel behavior of people who live in one kind of neighborhood with people who live in another ignore this data bias. To analyze the self-selection problem, Boarnet and Sarmiento (1998), using econometric analysis, modeled both the choice of where people live and how they choose to travel to nonwork activities. They could find no influence of land use on travel in their Southern California sample when controlling for self selection. Dueker (1999) points to the possible importance of self-selection in assessing the ridership numbers for a new light rail system in Portland, but suggests that more data are required to isolate the strength of this factor.

Government Policies

Several metro areas have actively worked on TOD implementation for more than a decade. In the process, some excellent resources have been developed. For example, workbooks have been produced and workshops convened to encourage TOD in the Puget Sound region (PSRC 1998; Puget Sound Regional Council 1996; Snohomish County 1993; Energy Outreach Center 1997). These efforts have identified available policy initiatives that could encourage TOD.

Local governments have several policy tools available to leverage denser and more diverse development within TODs. These include the provision of public amenities such as parks, recreational facilities, and government services. Private development can be induced through density bonuses, tax abatement, tax increment financing, and direct grants. Joint development schemes serve to stimulate developer interest. Porter (1997) has reviewed the policies and actions taken by local government and transit agencies in a number of metro areas. He concludes that light rail is likely to attract relatively small development projects outside of central business districts (Porter 1998).

Many actions involve expenditures of some kind, so they will be subject to the financial limitations of local government budgets. They will have to compete with other demands on the public purse. Also, to the extent they are offered to a few developers, there may be pressures to provide similar benefits to others who cannot, for whatever reason, operate within the confines of a TOD. The cost of these expenditures obviously must be weighed along with transportation costs in planning TODs.

Discussion: Importance of Retail Dynamics

The potential for TOD’s success will to a great degree depend on the response of the retail marketplace, including developers, store owners, and consumers, to the imperatives of density and transit accessibility. This follows from the significant fraction of all personal trips, including commute trips, that now involve nonwork activities.

Unless present long-standing trends are reversed, the marketplace will continue to evolve, producing ever greater variety and choice and, as a result, greater spatial dispersion of activity locations and more complex travel patterns. Consumer goods, services, and entertainment are converging to create new types of consumer venues where kids and parents can eat, shop, and play together or separately. At the same time, new market forces are rapidly entering the scene in ways that may gradually change the spatial relationships of consumer to stores. Online sales tripled in 1998 over 1997. But even in the $4-5 billion range, it is minuscule compared to $2.3 trillion in retail overall.

Market richness has allowed older retail strip neighborhood centers to adapt and flourish even as they have lost traditional stores to the economies of scale and clustering. New kinds of specialty goods and services have entered the market. For example, some older neighborhood centers have become regional or sub regional destinations for consumers seeking an ethnic dining experience or antique chair. These centers, that may have otherwise been candidates for redevelopment and consolidation to a TOD had they remained underutilized, have developed a new life without the requirement that they change their form.

The large number of market variables and these dynamic changes make it difficult to predict the response of developers, store owners, and consumers to the TOD paradigm, even assuming TOD’s need for major land use and transportation restructuring can be accomplished. Urban models, even new activity-based models, may not be able to predict consumer demand for new types of housing and the mix of activities that can be accommodated in TOD. The model may be capable of prediction, but the data needed to validate the model may not exist.

Planners thus face a dilemma. Local government policy makers will continue to feel public and federal government pressure for answers to the congestion and air quality problems. They will probably continue to embrace TOD and its concomitant requirements for major transit investments. But these polices will be established without clear proof that the investments will produce commensurate public benefits.

NOTES

1. Personal communication from Prof. Genevieve Giuliano, University of Southern California School of Urban and Regional Planning.

REFERENCES

American LIVES, Inc. 1995. New Urbanism Study: "Revitalizing Suburban Communities?", San Francisco, CA.

Berman, Michael Aaron. 1996. The Transportation Effects of Neo-Traditional Development. Journal of Planning Literature 10,4: 347-63.

Bernick, Michael, and Robert Cervero. 1996. Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boarnet, Marlon G., and Sharon Sarmiento. 1998. Can Land-use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link between Non-work Travel and Land-use Characteristics. Urban Studies 35,7: 1155-69.

Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cervero, Robert, and Kara Kockelman. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research D 2D,3: 199-219.

Crane, Randall. 1996. On Form versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, of Increase It?. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15: 117-26.

Crane, Randall. 1996. Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in Neotraditional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 62,1: 51-65.

Crane, Randall. 1998. Travel by Design? Access 12 (Spring): 2-7.

Crane, Randall, and Richard Crepeau. 1998. Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel?: A Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data. Transportation Research D 3,4: 225-38.

Dueker, Kenneth J., and Martha J. Bianco, Light Rail Transit Impacts in Portland: The First Ten Years. 1999. Paper presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 1999, Washington, DC.

Downs, Anthony. 1994. New Visions for Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Energy Outreach Center and Puget Sound Regional Council. 1997. Redevelopment for Livable Communities. Report of May 1997 conference. Olympia, Washington.

Fannie Mae. 1996, 1997, and 1998. National Housing Surveys, Washington, DC.

Handy, Susan L. 1996. Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record 1552: 135-44.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1997. Our Nation’s Travel: 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Early Results Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

McGuckin, Nancy A., and Elaine R. Murkami. 1999. Examining Trip-Chaining Behavior: Comparison of Travel by Men and Women. Paper presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 1999, Washington, DC.

Moudon, Anne Vernez, Paul M. Hess, Mary Catherine Snyder, and Kiril Stanilov. 1997. Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use, Medium-Density Environments. Transportation Research Record 1578: 48-55.

Nelson, Dick, and John Niles. 1999. Market Dynamics and Nonwork Travel Patterns: Obstacles to Transit-Oriented Development? Paper presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 1999, Washington, DC.

Niles, John, and Dick Nelson. 1999. A Prerequisite to Planning for Transit-Oriented Development: Understanding Non-Work Activity Location Patterns and Trends. Paper prepared for presentation at Seventh National Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Transportation Research Board, March 1999, Boston, MA

1000 Friends of Oregon. 1992. Making the Land Use-Transportation-Air Quality Connection, Market Research: Volume 3A, Prepared by Market Perspectives and Hebert/Smolkin Associates, Inc.

PBQD (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., et al). 1996. Transit and Urban Form, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 16, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Porter, Douglas R. 1997. Transit-Focused Development: A Synthesis of Research and Experience. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 20. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Porter, Douglas R. 1998. Transit-Focused Development and Light Rail Systems: The Lite Connection. Transportation Research Record 1623: 165-69.

Project for Public Spaces. 1997. The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 22. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Puget Sound Regional Council. 1996. Developing Your Center: A Step-by-Step Approach. Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Regional Council.

Puget Sound Regional Council. 1998. Creating Transit Station Communities: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook (Draft). Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Regional Council.

Snohomish County Transportation Authority. 1993. A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation, Volume II: Applying the Concepts. Lynnwood, WA: December 1993.

Steiner, Ruth. L. 1998. Trip Generation and Parking Requirements in Traditional Shopping Districts. Transportation Research Record 1617: 28-37.

Steuteville, Robert. 1998. Year of Growth for New Urbanism. New Urban News 3,5 (September-October): 1-7.

Thompson, Gregory L., and Ivonne Audirac. 1999. TOD’s Importance to Transit: Transit’s Importance to TOD: Planning Scenarios for Sacramento. Washington, DC: 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

US Census Bureau. 1997. American Housing Survey for 1995.

US Census Bureau. Current Construction Reports: Housing Starts, monthly, and Characteristics of New Housing, annual.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

LA Expands Bus Rapid Transit

Los Angeles County to Expand Bus Rapid Transit
Matt Rosenberg 6/6/07

As part of its current budget proposal, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Los Angeles County is planning to add eight more "Metro Rapid" bus rapid transit routes to the 20 that will already be in operation by later this month. The LA Times reports. If you're someone at all inclined to take the bus to and from work once or more a week, see how this sounds.

Service on the Metro Rapid Program, implemented in June 2000, is 25% faster than regular service because the buses make fewer stops and run every three to 10 minutes during peak travel times, the MTA says. Also, the Rapid buses have equipment that extends green lights or changes red lights 10 seconds faster. By June 2008, 500 Metro Rapid buses, up from 359, will serve 28 transit corridors covering 420 route miles and 35 cities throughout the county.

More here on what makes Metro Rapid rapid. One additional factor is "low floor," near ground-level entrances; rather than the usual several steps. That's part of a larger Metro Rapid emphasis on cutting the amount of time that buses are stopped - either for passenger ingress and egress, or traffic signals.

In the central city-suburban core of the Seattle region, King County Metro, which operates a bus system and wastewater treatment facilities, is planning to initiate five bus rapid transit "RapidRide" routes as part of the "Transit Now" package approved by voters last fall. This map shows the routes. Metro says RapidRide service will include increased frequency, new buses, upgraded passenger waiting areas, and technology to synchronize traffic signals.

A clear and publicly-stated emphasis on fewer stops, enablement of faster boarding, and specific pledges of reduced travel times - as in LA - would be helpful, and increase public interest in the planned RapidRide routes. It would also be good to see King County Metro gather and make easily available online information on which among all current routes have the highest and lowest riderships. This could help guide decisions on re-allocating existing funding to additional, selected RapidRide routes.

Ridership data made easily available to the public online should include average and peak hour load factors (percentage of seats filled) for the given routes, and the system-wide average and peak load factors. Where a route's load factor continues running significantly below the system-wide average even at peak hours, that route should be cut, and the savings funneled into expansion of "best practices" rapid bus service on high-capacity transit corridors.


Responding to: "Where a route's load factor continues running significantly below the system-wide average even at peak hours, that route should be cut..."

The degree to which a government jurisidiction considers public transit to be a utility that covers all the geographic territory of the place may be an important consideration here. There may be some minimum level of service that represents a policy-set floor.

Of course "service" doesn't need to mean a 60 passenger bus. It can mean issuing taxi scrip to carless impoverished senior citizens in the target market for the utility.

Posted by: John Niles | June 7, 2007 2:04 AM

Sound Transit defies law requiring annual performance audit

State Auditor Brian Sonntag finds Sound Transit has failed to comply with a legal requirement to conduct annual comprehensive performance audits

Sound Transit replies that it will not comply

Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag's audit team has conducted a performance audit of Sound Transit. The audit report was released on October 4, 2007 and is posted here in pdf.

The top detailed finding in a list of 20 findings on pages 4-6 is that Sound Transit has not commissioned an independent comprehensive performance audit every year.

The State Auditor concluded that the Sound Move Plan and Resolution 75 approved by voters in 1996 require Sound Transit to conduct such an audit every year. The Auditor's report provides a detailed example (shown below) of why this would be a good idea even if there were not such a legal requirement.

The State Auditor then recommended that Sound Transit comply with the requirement by commissioning such independent performance audits annually.

Sound Transit was offered the opportunity to respond to the finding, conclusion, and recommendation, and did so in writing in the report.

Sound Transit's response, in summary, is "NO," Sound Transit won't do this; Sound Transit intends to do only an annual financial audit.

The State Auditor provided the final word, repeating that Sound Transit should conduct a comprehensive performance audit, because the intent of the 1996 Sound Move plan was to provide the public with an annual assessment of the performance and management of Sound Transit.

The Auditor concludes, "interpreting this requirement as only having to conduct comprehensive, annual financial audits misleads the general public and does not meet the intended outcome of the goal."

What will happen next as a result of Sound Transit's defiance in the face of the Auditor's finding, conclusion, and recommendation is not clear. The State Attorney General and the Citizens Oversight Panel both have a stake in the outcome of Sound Transit's refusal to comply with the Sound Move commitment, in addition to the interest of the general taxpaying public in the Sound Transit district.

Sound Transit wrote in its response to the Auditor that the State Attorney General has reached a legal interpretation that is "not inconsistent with our own legal interpretation." The Auditor wrote back, "We believe the intent conveyed to the voters, regardless of Sound Transit’s internal legal opinion, was for performance audits to take place."
Further Detail

In its performance audit of Sound Transit released on October 4, 2007, the Office of State Auditor included the following result, described as a finding and a conclusion:

Sound Transit has not Commissioned Annual, Independent, Comprehensive Performance Audits Limiting the Ability to Identify and Address Budget, Schedule, and Scope Issues

The following is the text of the Auditor's report on pages 31-35 justifying this finding, with underlining added for emphasis of key points:

The following discusses the issues Sound Transit encountered regarding cost, schedule, and scope changes relating to the Central Link Light Rail Project and provides recommendations that will contribute towards Sound Transit’s present culture of continuous improvement. The Citizen Oversight Panel (COP) — the 15-member volunteer committee appointed by the Board — was created to oversee and monitor the implementation of Sound Move. In addition, the COP is mandated to oversee the completion of annual, specific assessments through independent performance audits.

As an independent group charged with this purpose, the COP’s input is central to ongoing year-to-year management decisions. Evaluating project alternatives, capital and operating budgets, financial plans, management of the regional fund, equity in sub-area budgets and reporting, adhering to schedules and budgets, and reviewing annual performance audits is paramount for accountability.

Performance audits are crucial to helping the COP assess the health of the organization. In addition, performance audits enhance transparency of operations and practices, increase accountability, and provide recommendations for improvement. The intended impact is increased efficiency and effectiveness of the audited entity.

Independent, comprehensive performance audits have not been conducted annually. Sound Move states, within its Public Accountability requirement that the RTA will:

a). Conduct an annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services;

b). Appoint and maintain for the ten-year construction period a citizens' oversight committee, charged with an annual review of the RTA’s performance audit and financial plan, for the reporting and recommendations to the RTA Board." In addition, Resolution 75 states: To ensure that the ten-year development and implementation program occurs within the framework and intent of the financial policies approved by Resolution 72, the RTA will conduct an annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services and appoint and maintain a citizens’ oversight committee for the ten-year construction period.

The oversight committee is charged with an annual review of the RTA’s performance audit and financial plan and for reporting and recommendations to the Board."

Sound Transit’s legal counsel has previously advised the Sound Transit Board and the COP that the COP is only required to review Sound Transit’s annual independent financial audits to assess compliance with the financial policies adopted as part of Sound Move. However, language stated within Sound Move, Resolution 75, and the financial policies approved by Resolution 72, specifically requiring an annual comprehensive performance audit, appears to go beyond a financial audit. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines a performance audit as follows:

Performance audits provide an independent assessment of the performance and management of government programs against objective criteria or an assessment of best practices and other information. Performance audits provide information to improve program operations, facilitate decision making by parties with responsibility to oversee or initiate corrective action, and contribute to public accountability. The term performance audit is used generically to include work classified by some audit organizations as program evaluations, program effectiveness and results audits, economy and efficiency audits, operational audits, and value-for-money audits.

This definition is widely publicized and accepted. By specifically using the stated terminology annual comprehensive performance audits implies to the average reader that an assessment of operational efficiency and effectiveness as it relates to public accountability will be conducted. These types of audits have not taken place on an annual basis.

Since comprehensive performance audits were not carried out on an annual basis, strategic action plans addressing the cause of the budget, schedule, and scope problems were not implemented in a timely manner. For example, a performance audit that was limited to Sound Transit’s cost estimating systems and project controls was not carried out until 2001. The audit found that when the estimating guidelines were completed, they were issued (February 1999) but never formally implemented during the development of the earlier project estimates. As a result, it appears there were some deficiencies in the development of the earlier estimates. Based upon a review of the available documentation as well as interviews with various Project personnel, some of these deficiencies were discovered or noticed during [Deloitte & Touche’s] D&T’s assessments.

Sound Transit noted on their website that the same auditor "concluded that Sound Transit used adequate methods and data in developing its current Link light rail cost estimate." This is an example of a reactive rather than proactive process. Sound Transit would have benefited from a proactive audit plan.

Sound Transit’s lack of annual performance audits since 2001 has made it a challenge for the COP to address the cause of problems. In April 2005, the COP’s Sound Move Year 8 Report noted ten "lessons learned." However, the causes of these issues were not identified. A comprehensive performance audit would have provided a mechanism to identify those causes. This has made it difficult for the COP to measure whether Sound Transit has addressed why problems occurred and how Sound Transit’s culture of continuous improvement mitigates the risk of the addressed problems happening again.

Recommendations identified in annual performance audits should also be followed-up upon in subsequent years to assure status of implementation, benefit, and validity.

Recommendation #1a: We recommend Sound Transit initiate annual comprehensive performance audits, incorporating a process of review and reporting on the status of actions and progress on previous report recommendations.

Recommendation #1b: We recommend the Citizen Oversight Panel ensure annual comprehensive performance audits are conducted and reported to the public and the Board when they have not been performed.
The Performance Audit report then provides this text written by Sound Transit that responds to recommendations 1a and 1b, underlining added for emphasis:

Sound Transit appreciates the benefits that can be identified through independent review of Sound Transit’s operations. Over the last ten years, Sound Transit has been one of the most frequently audited governmental entities within the State of Washington. Appendix A-3, for example, identifies forty-nine (49) different audits that were previously completed, many of which were targeted performance audits. In fact, between 2003 and January 2007, Sound Transit had an independent Performance Audit Committee, which was tasked with planning, directing, and monitoring performance-based audits focused on agency deliverables and outcomes. Upon passage of I-900, which gave the State Auditor's Office performance audit authority, Sound Transit sunsetted this committee.

Additionally, as the auditors have noted in this report, Sound Transit has internally identified numerous lessons learned from the construction of the Initial Segment. Many of these lessons learned are already in place, and Sound Transit is in the process of incorporating others.

Independent review and auditing plays an important role in the refinement of procedures.

However, because the auditor’s conclusions conflict with settled Washington law regarding the applicable legal rules of statutory interpretation, Sound Transit disagrees with the auditor’s interpretation that Resolutions 72 and 75 require comprehensive, annual performance audits of all of Sound Transit’s operations. In fact, Sound Transit’s Board previously requested a legal analysis of this very issue.

That legal analysis, which was made available to the auditors during the audit process, demonstrates that Sound Transit’s governing documents plainly require only that Sound Transit perform a comprehensive, annual financial audit. We understand that this issue has also been reviewed by the State Attorney General in past years, and that the AG’s conclusion is not inconsistent with our own legal interpretation. In accordance with this interpretation, we have conducted such an audit each year and have made the annual financial audit available to the COP each year to ensure compliance with the adopted financial polices (e.g., subarea equity) as legally required by Resolutions 72 and 75.

Comprehensive, annual performance audits of all of Sound Transit’s operations are also unfeasible. By way of comparison, this audit was only of Link construction, and it has taken more than seven months to complete and, although not actually tracked, has likely required well over a thousand hours of Sound Transit personnel time, in addition to the cost of the auditors. A comprehensive performance audit as suggested by the auditors, however, would encompass all of Sound Transit’s operations, including the construction, maintenance, and operations of Sounder Commuter Rail and Regional Express bus service, as well as all of Link operations and all of the various departments and operations that support Sound Transit generally. The magnitude of such an audit would easily increase by a factor of five or ten, resulting in a cycle of perpetual audits requiring the addition of full-time audit support personnel and disruption to normal activities.

Perpetual audits would also create no lag time between audits to allow for evaluation and incorporation of recommendations and lessons learned. Follow-on audits would be conducted prior to there having been time to incorporate recommendations from the prior audit. For all of these reasons, comprehensive, annual performance audits of all of Sound Transit’s operations are not only not legally required, they are also logistically unfeasible.

As noted, Sound Transit appreciates the value of both self-evaluation and external evaluation. We intend to continue to self-evaluate and implement lessons learned as they are identified. As we have done in the past (see, for example, the eight previous performance audits identified in Appendix A-3), we will also continue to request our own limited performance audits that are focused on areas that have been specifically targeted for evaluation. Finally, as required by our governing documents, we will continue to perform a comprehensive, annual financial audit every year.
To conclude this section of the Audit Report, the State Auditor responded to the Sound Transit with these concluding remarks, underlining added for emphasis:

Performance audits help insure that Sound Transit efficiently and effectively spends Washington State taxpayers’ dollars. We believe the intent conveyed to the voters, regardless of Sound Transit’s internal legal opinion, was for performance audits to take place. The language stated within Sound Move, Resolutions 72 and 75, specifically state that annual comprehensive performance audits are to be performed. We believe that the common definition of performance audits coupled with the placement of the requirement within the public accountability statement of Sound Move, indicate the intent to provide the public with an assessment of the performance and management of Sound Transit. Interpreting this requirement as only having to conduct comprehensive, annual financial audits misleads the general public and does not meet the intended outcome of the goal.
Finally, note that CETA spotted this gap in Sound Transit's performance in 2003

Citizens for Effective Transportation Alternatives (CETA) and the Public Interest Transportation Forum (PITF) provided the first public notice of Sound Transit's deficiency in conducting annual comprehensive performance audits. PITF published the following information in summer 2003 on the World Wide Web of the Internet, and alerted journalists via email:

In 2003, CETA members Will Knedlik and Emory Bundy uncovered that Sound Transit up to that point in time had never conducted a "comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services" in the seven years since voters approved its Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, a requirement of the Plan and subsequent Board resolution. This issue is documented in the following description from Emory Bundy:
Sound Transit Executive Director Joni Earl sent a memo to the Sound Transit board, August 26, 2003, titled "Report on performance audit request." (Download this document in pdf, with reference documents included.) She contends that the agency is not obliged to conduct a performance audit, as described in the Ten-Year Plan and in Resolution 75. However, the language of the Sound Move Plan adopted by voters in 1996 is clear on the promise of an annual comprehensive performance audit:

"Sound Move: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan
Appendix B: Financial Policies

"To insure that the ten-year construction program development and implementation occurs within the framework and intent of these [financial] policies, the RTA will:

a) Conduct an annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services;

b) Appoint and maintain for the ten-year construction period a citizens' oversight committee, charged with an annual review of the RTA's performance audit and financial plan, for reporting and recommendations to the RTA Board."

There is a Federal interest in the conduct of these performance audits, because of the probability that they would reveal problems pertinent to the successful completion of the Link Light Rail project as defined by a Full Funding Grant Agreement. The need for such audits has been clear for years.

For example, back in September 2000 there was a "Call for an Independent Audit" made by 88 citizens of the central Puget Sound region. Sound Transit officials declared in response on September 6, 2000, that the agency had been "audited to death," there were "no cost overruns," and anyone who suggested otherwise was "twisting the truth." At the time, Sound Transit officials were in possession of bids for the Capitol Hill tunnel, the cheapest of which was $300 million more than the budget. They also knew that the right-of-way costs in the Rainier Valley were multiples of what they were representing; they were claiming $42 million, the next month they admitted $90 million. The current budget is $233 million. Independent estimates of cost overruns on the 1996 plan for 21 miles of light rail now come to about five billion dollars.

Sound Transit is obligated to commission an "annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services," just as it's obligated to "appoint and maintain a citizen's oversight committee for the ten-year construction period." Furthermore, it is the explicit responsibility of the Citizen Oversight Panel to conduct "an annual review of the RTA's performance audit and financial plans" That is what the Citizen Oversight Panel is created to do: review the annual performance audit and financial plan and, having done so, make reports and recommendations to the board. It cannot do its job unless the annual, independent performance audit is conducted--that's a fundamental precondition of its mission.

At the oral hearing for the Sane Transit v. Sound Transit lawsuit before the State Supreme Court, June 10, 2003, Justice Sanders directly asked Sound Transit's chief counsel, Desmond Brown, whether the agency is obliged to observe all the provisions of Resolution 75, or whether it is free to select and observe some portions, and not others. Mr. Brown was unequivocal, and declared: "All of them."

"REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 75

"Section 5. To ensure that the ten-year development and implementation program occurs within the framework and intent of the financial policies approved by Resolution 72, the RTA will conduct an annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services and appoint and maintain a citizens' oversight committee for the ten-year construction period. The oversight committee is charged with an annual review of the RTA's performance audit and financial plan and for reporting and recommendations to the Board."

Monday, March 10, 2008

Light Rail wont make any difference to congestion

3/7/04

Sound Transit EIS Document Predicts
Link Light Rail to Northgate Won't
Change Seattle Rush Hour Traffic in 2010

by Jim MacIsaac and John Niles

Many hopes and claims have been made as to what the light rail system planned by Sound Transit will do for Seattle. The most significant claim or implication is that it will reduce or at least stem the growth of traffic congestion. But those making this claim are leading with their hearts and hopes, not with the official government forecasts in the November 1999 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. After several millions of dollars in studies and travel modeling, the EIS on page 3-5 (Section 3.1.2.2) states:

"The Transportation Technical Report provides further information on traffic volumes across screenlines. In most cases, the traffic volumes across screenlines with light rail alternatives are within one percent of the No-build volumes. This small difference is generally within the reliability levels of regional models. Therefore, based upon traffic forecasts, the light rail system will not result in a significant difference in regional traffic volumes, but it will provide needed additional travel capacity. Peak hour volumes for the No-build and light rail alternatives are also expected to be similar across all screenlines."

What the EIS is telling us is that there will be little effect on traffic volumes within the rail corridor, whether we implement the rail plan or do nothing (No-build). To illustrate this statement graphically, we have copied Figure 5.2-1 from the referenced Transportation Technical Report (page 96) from Sound Transit and presented it below on this page.

The graphic is a simplified map of Seattle showing the major highways and the several Link light rail routes studied from S.200th Street to the Northgate shopping center area. It shows three drawn-in screenlines, each an artificial straight line that crosses several main highways or arterials that parallel the planned tracks of light rail. City of Seattle "concurrency guidelines" require analysis of future traffic volumes crossing these screenlines with and without a planned project. The estimates of total vehicles (cars, trucks and buses) crossing each screenline with "Light Rail" and without the rail project ("No Build") during the PM Peak Hour (late afternoon commuting time) of the day by year 2010 are shown to the right of each screenline location. The range of the estimates shown with "Light Rail" represent the range of difference in findings for the several alternative rail route alignments. All estimates reflect completion of the train line to Northgate.

Result: The calculated future traffic volumes across each of the three screenlines with and without Link light rail are practically the same. For example, the top screenline at the Lake Washington Ship Canal shows an estimate of 45,789 vehicles crossing this screenline during the PM peak hour in 2010 under the "No Build" scenario. Full implementation of the Link Light Rail plan from S.200th Street to Northgate would result in a reduction of between 34 and 55 vehicle trips, or a traffic reduction of 0.1% (0.00098). Traffic reductions crossing the screenline South of I-90 are estimated between 0.3% and 0.7%. At the screenline North of I-5/SR518 the estimates show that there could even be a very slight increase in traffic after building light rail.

There are a number of other tables in the EIS documents that evaluate vehicle-miles of travel, vehicle-hours of travel, effect on air quality and a number of other global environmental factors. They all result in findings of a fraction of 1% difference between the Build options and the No Build alternative.

Rail Screenlines.jpg (448263 bytes)

Bottom line result from the official analysis: no environmental difference between building the proposed Link Light Rail and doing nothing. Obviously if the Light Rail project is built, some people will ride it. In fact many existing bus riders originating north of Northgate and south of S.200th Street will be forced to transfer to rail to complete their trips to destinations along the rail line -- some express bus routes will be truncated at these outer stations. Some riders originating within the rail corridor will also lose direct bus services to downtown Seattle and instead be transported laterally and forced to transfer to rail. What the EIS studies are telling us -- if we care to listen -- is that the rail line will predominantly serve pre-existing bus transit riders. It will do nothing to address traffic congestion and the choice to travel by private auto and carpools.

Where do the editors of the Public Interest Transportation Forum stand on building light rail? The calculations do not surprise us. Not enough people will ride the Seattle light rail train to make any difference in traffic. This has already been shown by light rail in other US western cities. The measured contribution of light rail to the level of traffic is very minor. Nobody can afford to build rail systems with tracks to enough of the places where people need to go.

Most people will need to travel by car or ride the bus to get from their home to a Link light rail station. This requirement limits the appeal of the system.

And what about building it anyway, in the words of the EIS, to "provide needed additional travel capacity"? Simply building more "seats" in a corridor does not mean they will be used. We already have three or more empty seats in most vehicles on our road system. Any program to utilize better those already available empty seats would be a much more cost-effective solution than investing in a rail project that appears headed toward more damage to the neighborhoods through which it passes than it will provide benefit. It is simply wasteful to spend billions of dollars to replace portions of what is considered one of the best bus transit systems in the country. Our answer on expensive "additional travel capacity" is negative. Don't build the Link light rail!

Even before we turn the first spade of dirt it is already looking like "WPPSS on Wheels." Sound Transit and supporters would tell you that in the long-run future, 10, 20, or 30 years beyond the year 2010, the high capacity of the new Link light rail will eventually be used. We would call that judgment a high-stakes gamble with our limited transportation tax dollars. There are less risky, less expensive, more effective ways to build a transportation system for the future, even here in a list of what we have earlier analyzed to be cost-effective elements in the 1996 Sound Transit Plan that could be expanded.

Light rail in Seattle should be killed now, and the money for it should be reprogrammed to solutions that will work

Olympia Bill to Expand Sound Transit Role to Roads

Bill would expand Sound Transit's role

Agency would coordinate, finance regional projects

Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Last updated 8:06 a.m. PT

By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

Could a larger regional transportation agency solve the Puget Sound area's congestion problems?

The chairwoman of the state Senate Transportation Committee thinks so.

Bills to eliminate an existing road-project agency and make Seattle-based Sound Transit the first agency to coordinate and help finance major transportation projects were proposed Tuesday by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island.

Senate Bill 6772 would reduce Sound Transit's board from 18 members to 12, with seven elected by voters, including six from geographic districts, and serving six-year terms. The state secretary of transportation and the director of the Puget Sound Regional Council would be nonvoting members.

Currently, the board's members are appointed by executives in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

Haugen said the bill also would allow some regions to form new transportation entities similar to Sound Transit.

The proposal comes weeks after regional voters rejected Proposition 1, the $47.2 billion road-and-transit ballot measure.

But Haugen said she introduced it because the Puget Sound area and other heavily populated parts of the state need a regional entity to complete transportation improvements the state can't afford.

"We (the state) cannot fully fund everything that is needed across the state," she said.

Sound Transit and possible new agencies created regionally could, with voter approval, raise a variety of taxes to finance new road and transit projects -- up to 1 percent additional sales tax, up to 0.8 percent in motor-vehicle excise tax and annual car license fees of up to $100 for each vehicle. All are similar to those proposed in Proposition 1.

Sound Transit also could impose a local gas tax and use the proceeds for roads.

If the Legislature passes the measure and Gov. Chris Gregoire signs it, the new Sound Transit would develop projects that would be subject to voter approval.

Another measure, Senate Bill 6771, would eliminate regional transportation investment districts such as the one including King, Pierce and Snohomish counties that developed the road portion of last fall's ballot measure.

"It didn't work," Haugen said. "We need to take it off the books."

At least two state commissions have recommended in the past a regional transportation agency of some kind, saying it would prevent delays, reduce duplication and make certain officials more accountable.

But it's unclear if either bill will pass; hearings haven't been set, and legislative officials contacted Tuesday said they hadn't had time to analyze the measures.

A spokesman for Seattle Mayor and Sound Transit Chairman Greg Nickels said, "Our focus is going to be, do (the bills) fix the problem?"

Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick said the agency will "look closely" at how the change would affect its efforts to get a $750 million federal grant to extend light rail service to the University of Washington, though "there's nothing out of the gate that would suggest (the change) would endanger it."

Others weren't so sure.

"I'm concerned about adding to the scope of responsibilities and funding availability for Sound Transit, since its staff is so committed to light rail," said John Niles, a fellow at the Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a think tank involved in development and transportation issues.

King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson said it's OK for lawmakers to eliminate the districts, if it means the state is ready to fully finance needed highway projects.

Mike Ennis, director of the market-oriented Center for Transportation Policy, said organizational changes should help, but officials have "got to do more to relieve congestion" as well.

Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, doubts the Sound Transit measure will get through the short session.

In previous attempts, backers of similar measures couldn't convince other lawmakers that the proposal would improve things.

And "if you can't convince people it would be better, it's hard to push forward," Clibborn said.

Growth in Congestion Pricing

Executive Summary 11/25/03

Transportation improvement in the central Puget Sound region— including capital investment, maintenance, and operations—desperately needs a new revenue source. Money is especially needed to manage and renovate the roadway infrastructure that supports the overwhelming majority of public transit boardings, truck deliveries, emergency travel, daily commuting journeys, and non-work-trip mobility in the region. Government agencies responsible for transportation have underinvested in the region’s infrastructure in comparison to growth in population and economic activity. Transportation funding from new fees charged to road users is increasingly appropriate.

At the same time, the region would stand to benefit immensely from a new traffic operations management (T-Ops) tool to push back on traffic congestion by efficiently allocating user demand for crowded road space. More revenue and better T-Ops would both be achieved with widespread Travel Value Pricing (TVP) supported by electronic toll collection. As our nation develops alternative fuel sources the ultimate improvement would be an in-vehicle metering system replacing fuel taxation that puts a value in cents on every mile driven by every vehicle. Such a system would collect revenue from vehicle owners and users commensurate with that value. Travel in congested periods would come at a higher price.

Nearly all transportation policy analysts have reached the conclusion that widely-applied time and place sensitive road (and parking) pricing is the single most effective tool available to bring about a fundamental change in the relationship between citizens and the daily traffic congestion that is the result of how we live. Until recently, it was hard to imagine exactly how the conversion to a different means of transportation revenue collection could be achieved. Now, with the advent of small computers and satellite-based global positioning systems (GPS), we can see how. The technical leadership of 21st century Cascadia can now envision the means to collect revenue from traveling citizens on a per motor-vehicle mile basis, value-weighted by time of day and place.

The larger challenge is to explain the reasons to the many who intuitively object to this kind of user charge. Many feel that changing to road pricing by the mile is not a good idea. The process of learning and teaching has been underway since the early 1990s, but the region is far from reaching a consensus that Travel Value Pricing is the right direction to take.

There are a many reasons why ubiquitous Travel Value Pricing will be difficult to implement, but this region is already stepping up to the challenge with first action in the form of two very innovative pilot projects, the Washington State DOT SR-167 HOT lane project and the Puget Sound Regional Council vehicle metering pilot. These fine works of public service build on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation report of 2000 and the Puget Sound Regional Council Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Both reports urge that variable road pricing become a part of the Region’s transportation future.

The Cascadia Project of Discovery Institute offers this draft discussion paper to regional leadership with an urgent overall suggestion to step up the pace of learning about and embracing Travel Value Pricing. The heart-felt but often misinformed objections to date expressed by regional citizens in reaction to government and private sector proposals for HOT lanes and other TVP indicate that much, much work remains ahead to achieve the transition to a more usage sensitive, traffic-smoothing revenue collection system for regional transportation.

What is Travel Value Pricing?

Travel Value Pricing (TVP) means a system of periodically adjusting the level of a highway toll or transit fare to make travel in high-volume periods more expensive in exchange for providing high quality, reliably fast travel despite congestion. Conversely, the price of travel during uncongested times of day is discounted in order to encourage more travel when more capacity is available.

Travel has value that partially depends on congestion. Faster travel despite congestion is more valuable than slow travel in congestion. TVP allows the cost of facilities – repayment of the construction loans – to be allocated to those willing to pay to receive the most value. TVP provides a monetary incentive to avoid travel in the peak periods, while simultaneously allowing a means for trips to be faster if a traveler is willing to pay money to save time.

Travel Value Pricing can be applied to any mode of travel. In the Puget Sound region, bus fares are higher during the morning and afternoon peak periods on weekdays, while weekend travel is a bargain with an available all-day fare. Airlines charge higher fares on their busiest days. Ferryboat travel to Victoria and Alaska is cheaper outside the main summer tourist season when demand is higher. On the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan, the tolls go up during peak periods. And on one stretch of the I-15 highway in California, there is an entry toll that changes every six minutes depending on how crowded the road is.

Travel value pricing is also called road pricing, congestion pricing, time-of-day pricing, variable pricing, or in-plain-English, road tolls.

Travel value pricing applied to highways is the topic of this presentation. High Occupancy Toll lanes (HOT lanes) that let solo drivers buy their way onto HOV lanes that are otherwise toll-free for vehicles with multiple passengers are one way of implementing road tolling and value pricing. Variable pricing can be applied to any tolled highway, bridge, or tunnel. For example, WSDOT plans to implement TVP for the expanded Tacoma Narrow Bridge within a few years after its opening in 2007, following a short period of flat rate tolling.

The toll levels set in a well done scheme of Travel Value Pricing seek to hit the moving target of optimizing vehicle flow by bringing the demand at the offered price into balance with capacity available.

When beginning in a local culture of toll-free roads financed through taxation that is unrelated to where a vehicle goes, tolls and TVP are best implemented in a framework of transportation choices. As stated in Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan from Puget Sound Regional Council: "For market incentives to work, people must be presented with viable travel options from which to choose. If motorists face charges to use roadway facilities there should be high quality transit alternatives available. Motorists must also be able to avoid or reduce the charge they experience by altering when they travel, through ride sharing, and route alteration. If transportation alternatives are not adequate, pricing will be punitive, penalizing travel without offering substantially improved mobility."

No Toll Plazas Required

Road tolls have long been associated with toll houses and toll plazas, the physical locations where travelers stop and pay money in order to keep going. But in the information age, stopping to pay is no longer necessary.

Tolls can now be electronically debited from a traveler's prepaid or credit card account following the occasions when the vehicle passes near a roadside sensor. The sensor detects the passage of the traveler and establishes a toll payment obligation. The roadside sensor identifies the vehicle by reading its transponder, an electronic device the size of a triple thick credit card attached to the inside of the windshield in the car.

For travelers who have not obtained transponders, there are means for authorities to use digital cameras to read license plates and then send bills to the vehicle owner. In the new area-wide pricing scheme for central London in the United Kingdom, license plate readers are the sole means for identifying vehicles.

Existing toll roads worldwide now provide non-stop lanes through the toll plazas for those who have set up an electronic means of payment. While tollbooths for those who would pay a toll in cash are planned for the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, those vehicles with transponders that record the toll automatically will be able to bypass them.

No toll plazas would need to be built if pre-paid transponders were widely available in gas stations or other convenient locations.

This electronic means of payment can be engineered to protect the freedom and privacy of travelers.

For the planned HOT lanes on SR-167, transponders will be mandatory for single-occupant vehicles that want to buy their way onto the HOV lanes. Otherwise, SOV cars must use the free general-purpose lanes alongside the HOT lanes.

The pictures below from USDOT show examples of the above-road gantry infrastructure that reads transponders or license plates. The left is from Norway, and the right from Singapore.


Travel Value Pricing Addresses Congestion

Worldwide prominence of central Puget Sound region makes ours a great place to live and work, thus yielding ongoing population growth and resulting travel demand.

As futurist John Naisbitt first described years ago, the world is both high tech and high touch. Despite the rising use of telecommuting and teleconferencing, there will be increasing demand for face-to-face proximity to yield high value, personal interaction that is qualitatively differentiated from growing, ever-easier remote interaction through networks.

Awareness through the Internet and ubiquitous wireless phones provide expanding knowledge of destinations and thus demands to travel, especially consumer demand for variety and choice in non-work destinations. The information age provides a rich environment of new ideas on when and where to go, whom to see, and how to get there.

Vehicle movement demands pressing against infrastructure capacity lead directly to expanding hours of peak period traffic congestion. Microsoft workers have the option of working late, thus avoiding evening peak traffic until such time as the WSDOT traffic monitoring web site tells them that evening traffic is beginning to ease. Trucking companies have the option of starting their runs earlier in the morning, making the morning peak start sooner.

Travel Value Pricing provides further signals to the public on when it's best to travel. Pricing of some infrastructure to allow relatively congestion-free travel through the thick of rush hour traffic provides new opportunities for meeting the demands of life.

Many Ways to do Road Pricing

Geographic options for Travel Value Pricing are described by Federal Highway Administration as follows:

* Facility -- all lanes of a specific highway section, bridge, or tunnel
* Partial facility -- a single lane in one or both directions
* Corridor -- all lanes of a highway and parallel arterial highways
* Spot -- a single congested point on a highway or facility
* Areawide -- an entire regional network of highways, or throughout a congested zone
* Parking -- all or most parking spaces in a downtown or other regional destination

Travel Value Pricing Addresses the Funding Gap

Infrastructure maintenance, replacement, and expansion demands are pressing against government revenue availability. Furthermore, until replaced or substantially shored up, selected infrastructure connections are vulnerable to catastrophic failure in an earthquake or severe storm – most prominently, the SR-520 Floating Bridge and the Seattle waterfront SR-99 viaduct.

As documented by PSRC, the current transportation financing structure:

* Is not self-sustaining because it fails to adequately link use of the system with the generation of revenues to build, operate, maintain, and preserve that system in an optimal manner

* Fails to satisfactorily support the region's goals and policies in its adopted long-range plan, VISION 2020 and its transportation element, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan

* Fails to amply link transportation planning with the generation of revenues to support planned projects and programs

Destination 2030 describes $100 billion in transportation investment needs. Only $57 billion is identified.

Fuel taxes will become less viable as the years go by. As noted by tolling specialist Peter Samuel for a Heritage Foundation Backgrounder: "Besides generating insufficient revenue, fuel taxes have a doubtful future as the principal source of funding for roads. Higher gas taxes face strong political opposition, and technology is steadily eroding the revenue yield of fuel taxes. The internal combustion engine is being made more efficient and able to use less fuel per mile traveled, while new power plants (hybrid gas-electric) and new fuels (ethanol, natural gas, and eventually hydrogen) complicate taxation."

How much money could tolling raise in Puget Sound region? The Parsons Brinckerhoff study for WSDOT of August 2002 reports as follows:

* Simulating economically efficient tolls in the regional travel demand model for seven major highway facilities in the regional network yields optimal toll rates that seek to minimize overall network travel time (maximize travel benefits). These toll rates are higher than those that would maximize individual facility throughput but lower than those which would maximize toll revenue.

* In the assumed year of implementation (2014), the optimal regional network toll rates range from 4 cents to 42 cents per mile in year of collection dollars, depending on the location, time of day, and travel direction.

* The Regional Toll Revenue Feasibility Study suggests that a regional toll network could generate toll revenues in 2014 within the range of approximately $252 to $457 million per year in inflated dollars, depending on the underlying value of time assumption and various operating parameters, and before operating and maintenance expenses. This estimated annual range is expected to grow to between $535 and $955 million by 2030, assuming tolls escalate with demand growth and inflation.

The level of toll-supported revenue bonds that are possible is approximately ten to twelve times the annual revenue amount. Every $100 million in steady annual revenue turns into one billion dollars or slightly more in construction funds.

Road Pricing's Long History

Tolling of transportation facilities has long history. In 1176, England's King Henry II chartered the construction of the first stone London Bridge over the River Thames in return for a toll concession.

In 1792, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth legislature chartered the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike Company, which constructed a 62-mile log-surfaced road for settlers and their goods. Tolling was common on American horse and wagon roads throughout the nineteenth century. In 1845, there were around 1,500 chartered private road builders collecting tolls on 10,000 miles of roads. However, the rise of steam railroads in the mid-nineteenth century eventually put most of the turnpike companies out of business.

Beginning in the late 1800s and into the new century, the rise of bicycles and automobiles made roads for vehicles important again. The Good Roads Movement in the Progressive era around the turn of the 20th century established a tradition of toll-free, taxpayer-supported roads that is dominant even today. However, the first tolled automobile throughway opened in 1911 -- the 48 mile Long Island Motor Parkway running eastward out of Queens along the spine of Long Island, NY. It was the first road for motor vehicles only, and was privately financed, built, and owned. Staying in service until 1938, it was eventually superseded by the government-funded, toll-free parkways of Robert Moses and New York Port Authority.

As cars became faster and more numerous, the first of the USA's present superhighways opened in 1940. Tolled from its opening until the present day, the Pennsylvania Turnpike initially ran for 160 miles along the bed of an abandoned railroad. According to Peter Samuel, 4,900 miles (9 percent) of America's 56,000 miles of Interstates, freeways, and expressways are now tolled. Tolls generate $5.4 billion a year, or 6.7 percent of total highway user charges. Major toll facilities exist in about half the states of the Union.

Since authorized by the legislature in 1937, Washington State has used tolling to pay for significant new bridges. The Lake Washington Floating Bridge to Mercer Island was the first tolled crossing in Washington, opening July 1940 with a bond issue of $5.5 million. The revenue from tolls retired these bonds in 1949. Galloping Gertie from Tacoma to Gig Harbor was a tolled bridge, briefly, and its replacement, the present Tacoma Narrows Bridge, was tolled through 1965. The SR-520 Evergreen Point floating bridge had tolls from its opening in 1963 through 1979. The construction bonds for the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge now under construction will be repaid 100% from tolls.

In other parts of the USA, tolling has been used to pay for operations, maintenance, and management of road facilities, such as repairs, incident response, and snow plowing.

Travel Value Pricing Rising in USA

1959 - Before a Congressional Committee, economist William Vickery proposes that road user fees be assessed on moving vehicles using electronic identifiers.

1991 - FHWA Congestion Pricing Pilot Program first authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Funding was rescinded for budgetary reasons in 1995, but FHWA was already participating in 10 congestion pricing projects.

1993 - Gordon Fielding and Daniel Klein first describe HOT lanes in a policy study for the Reason Foundation.

1993 - Washington State initiates its New Partners infrastructure program for WSDOT, authorizing private-sector infrastructure improvement projects to be funded with tolls.

1994 - National Research Council issues a special report, "Curbing Gridlock," which includes the statement, "Congestion pricing has great promise: it could reduce congestion significantly while helping to meet air quality and conservation goals."

1994 - 375 expressions of interest arrive from private sector firms worldwide in response to WSDOT New Partners solicitation; six project proposals are selected for further consideration, including rebuilding the SR-520 bridge over Lake Washington.

1994 - Anthony Downs of Brookings Institution in a speech to the Seattle Chamber's Annual Leadership Meeting held in Vancouver, BC explains why pricing is the only way to cut traffic congestion.

1995 - Citizens from throughout Puget Sound region rise in opposition to several of the six road tolling projects, causing State legislature to de-authorize the New Partners program.

1995 - Puget Sound Regional Council establishes a Transportation Pricing Task Force.

1995 - First U.S. HOT lanes become operational in California.

1997 - FHWA Congestion Pricing Pilot Program reauthorized in Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) as the Value Pricing Pilot Program.

1998 - Second U.S. HOT lanes project opens for traffic in California.

2000 - Washington State Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation recommends consideration of road pricing as a revenue source.

2002 - Puget Sound Regional Council Conference on Value Pricing held in conjunction with Hubert Humphrey Institute, Discovery Institute, and Federal Highway Administration.

2002 - Washington State Department of Transportation initiates planning for HOT lanes pilot project.

2003 - Congressional Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) and others introduce FAST Lanes legislation to permit states to add tolled express lanes to Interstate Highways to relieve traffic congestion.

2003 - The Federal Highway Administration of USDOT publishes the Guide for HOT Lane Development

TVP and T-Ops, Complements in Managing Infrastructure

Think of Travel Value Pricing (TVP) and Traffic Operations Managment (T-Ops) as two ways to manage transportation infrastructure!

* T-Ops – Traffic Operations Management – The New Management
* TVP – Travel Value Pricing – The New, New Management!

Type and amount of transportation infrastructure management is a policy and political choice – an opportunity and a challenge!

Potential Goals of Transportation Infrastructure Management

* Safety – stated top priority, in itself good, but also implications for free flow and productivity
* Environmental quality
* Economic robustness
* Equitable treatment of mobility-impaired
* Equitable treatment of passenger movement and freight movement
* Flow – smooth flow at an appropriate speed, but not necessarily full road design speed for highest flows
* Productivity – people per hour or vehicles per hour, which are maximized at less than free flow
* Balance demand/use with capacity – time shifting of demand
* Vehicle restrictions – force use of alternatives, "transportation demand management," reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) movement

T-Ops, Traffic Operations Management, does aim to optimize the flow characteristics and productivity of vehicle movement. There are many, many techniques, based often on technology applications:

* Signal synchronization, including transit priority or pre-emption
* Ramp metering
* Variable electronic road signs, including variable speed limits
* Traffic management centers focused on rapid incident clearance
* Traveler information systems about congestion ahead

A recent focus of T-Ops is managed lanes. Managed lanes are designed and operated to provide more efficient personal or vehicle throughput during high volume periods. Techniques to manage lanes include:

* Eligibility Definition, for example, HOV2 or HOV3
* Access Control, for example, ramp metering
* Pricing

Techniques can be used individually or in combination. A fundamental design choice for managed lanes includes modal choice: general purpose versus HOV versus busway versus truckway versus low height cars versus light or heavy railroad tracks. Or combinations of these modes can sometimes be operated on shared lanes.

Evolution of HOV Lanes to HOT Lanes

Definition: High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are managed, limited-access, and sometimes barrier-separated highway lanes that provide free or reduced cost access to HOVs, and also make excess capacity available to other vehicles not meeting occupancy requirements at a market price.

HOT Lanes mean pricing implemented one lane at a time. There are just a few existing HOT lanes operating in the USA:

* State Route 91 (SR 91) Express Lanes in Anaheim, California
* I-15 FasTrak in San Diego, California
* Katy Freeway QuickRide in Houston, Texas
* Northwest Freeway (U.S. 290) QuickRide in Houston, Texas

Some HOT lane benefits follow, as listed in the Guide for HOT Lane Development published by USDOT:

* Trip Time Reliability: Traffic volumes are managed to ensure superior, consistent, and reliable travel times, particularly during peak travel periods.

* Travel Time Savings: HOV and paying non-HOV vehicles travel at higher speeds than vehicles on congested general-purpose lanes.

* Reduced Corridor Traffic: Adding HOT options to existing HOV may provide traffic service improvements on congested general-purpose lanes and other parallel routes.

* Revenue Generation: HOT revenues can support transportation improvements such as the construction and operation of the lanes themselves, or to address corridor transit needs or other local demand management expenditures.

* Transit Improvements: HOT lane facilities can provide faster highway trips for transit vehicles.

* Freight Improvements: Provides new opportunities for commercial vehicles to move through congestion to meet pick up and delivery deadlines.

* Environmental Advantages: Compared to general-purpose lanes, HOT lanes reduce air pollution caused by stop-and-go traffic, and encourage carpools and mass transit, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road.

* Trip Options: In congested corridors with HOV facilities, SOV motorists have an additional travel choice.

* New Interest in Value Pricing: HOT facilities demonstrate the benefits of value pricing in transportation that may be transferable to a broader array of services.

HOT Lane Treatment for Under-Performing HOV Lanes

Prominent HOT advocates nationally are criticizing traditional HOV lanes as too empty, too much of the time, claiming low usage justifies adding SOV access for a fee – HOT Lane treatment – as a better option than conversion to general purpose lanes.

HOT lane applications have the potential to increase the number of vehicles traveling on underutilized HOV facilities and possibly reduce pressure to convert them to general-purpose use. In New Jersey a few years ago, before the HOT lane treatment became prominent, the governor converted some HOV lanes to general purpose lanes.

But Western Washington is not New Jersey. Central Puget Sound HOV lanes carry more people than adjacent general purpose lanes, while meeting the WSDOT standard for HOV of 45 mph 90% of the time to provide a travel speed and reliability advantage.

HOV critics note that according to the 2000 census, carpool commute trips dropped from 13.4 percent in 1990 to 11.2 percent in 2000. Overall, the use of carpooling for journey to work declined in 36 of the country's 40 largest metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000.

But in the Seattle region, HOV usage rose in the period from 1990 to 2000, from 12.1% to 12.8%. In fact, the Seattle region was the only metro in the top 25 nationally to see the market share for both transit and carpooling rise over the decade of the 90s.

WSDOT chose SR-167 for potential HOT treatment because it showed the most available capacity for additional vehicles during peak periods.

Below is an example of an evening toll schedule that varies every 30 minutes on a California HOT lane.

At the same time, WSDOT is qualifying some HOV lanes for free SOV access during off-peak periods.



What’s Happening Elsewhere?

California State Route 91 Express Lanes, Orange County

The SR 91 Express Lanes are a 10-mile, four lane, HOT facility built in the median of the existing Riverside Freeway through Anaheim and Yorba Linda, California in a high-volume, highly congested corridor. They opened at the end of 1995. Users enter only at either end as an option after viewing the present price on a changeable electronic message sign. Toll rates vary on a fixed schedule from $0.75 to $5.50 by direction, by time of day, and by day of the week. Customers must have a prepaid account and a transponder to participate in electronic tolling. Tolls for HOV3+ vehicles were initially free, later charged but discounted 50 percent, and are now free again.

A private consortium financed, built, and operated the new lanes. The consortium used toll revenue to repay debt and obtain a return on investment. The concession had a non-compete clause that barred parallel capacity improvements in the corridor, a barrier removed when the project was purchased by the local government transportation authority.

California I-15 FasTrak, San Diego

Running north out of San Diego, the I-15 FasTrak project converted an underutilized preexisting, eight-mile, 2-lane HOV facility into a peak-period (only) reversible HOT operation with an entrance and exit at each end. I-15 FasTrak allows single occupancy vehicles to pay a toll ranging from $0.50 to $8.00 to use the HOT lanes, otherwise reserved for HOV2+ vehicles which travel free. In response to congestion levels, the price changes every six minutes, and is flashed on an electronic sign at the entrance. Customers must have a FasTrak account and transponder.

Opened in late 1998, the project is sponsored by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO). SANDAG has earmarked a portion of the revenues derived from the HOT lane to fund expanded reverse commute express bus service in the I-15 corridor.

Portland, Oregon

The Traffic Relief Options study, 1996-1999, after evaluating travel value pricing in the Portland metro area from a regional perspective, recommended that it be considered whenever major new highway capacity is added.

A current Portland area study is developing several HOT lane and ramp meter bypass alternatives in the Highway 217 corridor, including a FAIR lanes alternative on priced ramp meter bypasses. (FAIR lanes are described below on page 19.) This major north-south transportation corridor in the western portion of the Portland metropolitan area, through Beaverton, needs additional capacity. A toll bridge over the Columbia River is also being considered as a replacement or alternative for the aging Interstate-5 bridge.

A statewide pilot is identifying and evaluating mechanisms to supplement or replace Oregon's fuel tax. After evaluating over 20 potential revenue sources to replace the Oregon tax on gasoline as the primary funding source for the state's highway system, a task force decided to go forward with a test of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee collected at the fuel pump. Data would be generated by either a simple GPS device or odometer sensor with automated vehicle identification (AVI) technology. Under either technology, the data would be transmitted to a reader at the fuel pump via radio. Area pricing is feasible with the GPS option. The task force will recommend that a mandate be imposed to have every new vehicle sold in the state equipped with a GPS device, taking over 20 years for full market penetration. Area pricing would not be implemented until every vehicle is equipped with the device. [From an FHWA quarterly status report.]

Vancouver, British Columbia

Highways in Greater Vancouver Regional District, Canada cross many bridges. Four were built and paid for with tolls, but none are tolled now.

The newest water crossing, the Alex Fraser Bridge, largest cable-stayed bridge in the world, and an alternative way over the Fraser River parallel (BC Highway 91) to the Massey Tunnel (BC Highway 99), was opened in 1986 without tolls. The lack of tolls on this bridge south of Vancouver became a political issue in how to pay for the upgrading during 1999-2002 of the Lion's Gate Bridge over Burrard Inlet and connecting Vancouver to the North Shore suburbs. No tolls were added to Lion's Gate.

A future new ferry-replacement crossing of the Fraser River in the eastern suburbs of Vancouver, however, is planned by the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA, popularly known as Translink) to be paid for entirely with bonding covered by user tolls.

Beyond project-specific tolling, more general value pricing of existing infrastructure use is under consideration. A revenue gap in the range of CA$100 to CA$200 million per year needs to be closed over the next decade.

GVTA discussion paper: "Tolling is likely to become part of the region's future; however, how it will be applied is a major issue yet to be resolved.... The GVTA and the Province must work together to develop a flexible policy that will meet the needs of this urban region."

At the November HOT Lanes Conference in Seattle, Translink Chairwoman Pat Jacobsen described a regional tolling and revenue collection model that this regional transportation organization is contemplating, as shown in the graphic below. Translink believes that a toll and revenue collection operation could serve the planned Fraser River Crossing (FRC) toll bridge to be built, and other tolled facilities in the more distant future.

What Do Citizens Think?

Public Opinion in Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia

A spring 2003 survey commissioned by Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority covered transportation payment options, with these findings, since confirmed in later surveys:

* Strongest support was for transit fares and tolling of new bridges and roads.

* Moderate support was for property, gasoline, and parking taxes.

* Weakest support was for tolling existing bridges and roads, and for vehicle charges per kilometers driven.

* Fixed-rate bridge tolls won out over time-of-day variable tolls by 63% to 35%.

* Using bridge tolls to cover just the bridge came in at 47% while 49% of respondents accepted that these tolls could pay for general regional transport needs.

Public Opinion in Puget Sound Region


A telephone survey of about 1,200 Puget Sound Region residents in May 2001 revealed that 41 percent of respondents are willing to pay tolls for faster trips, with about one quarter of respondents indicating they would be willing to do so up to three times per week. [Reported in the FHWA Guide for HOT Lane Development]

Other findings from this survey, conducted by Pacific Rim Research on behalf of WSDOT:

* People's attitudes toward managed lane concepts are essentially the same or very similar, regardless of region sub-area, travel behavior or demographics, including income.

* People believe in managing traffic.

* People believe HOV lanes and express lanes save time.

* Majority disagree or strongly disagree with converting existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes.

* Most would not reduce their own carpooling, vanpooling or busing if HOT lanes existed.

* Most do not support the 3+ HOV lane concept.

* Most support carpools, vanpools and buses getting through congestion faster, but not at the expense of eliminating SOVs in express lanes.

* Strong support for managing traffic in express lanes so that traffic flow is maintained.

* About half support varying toll rates in express lanes by time of day to manage traffic flow.

* Majority support carpool, vanpools and buses paying less to use express lanes.

* About equal support for using toll revenues for road improvements and transit services.

Source: May 2001 survey of Puget Sound residents by Pacific Rim Resources for WSDOT



What's Your Objection to Travel Value Pricing? Pick a Number from 1 to 10

NOTE: These objections were adapted from the list in the Tacoma News-Tribune story of November 20, 2003, "Readers slam the brakes on HOV fees" and from Peter Samuel's review of objections in the May 2, 2003 Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, "Tolls and Surface Transportation Reauthorization."

Very easy-to-answer objections

(1) The toll-booth traffic jam objection: Toll booths will slow down traffic.

Response: Toll booths, if any, will be an optional stop. Electronic toll collection makes stopping at a toll booth unnecessary. No toll booths are planned for the Washington State SR-167 HOT Lane project, because the general purpose lane will always be available with no toll.

(2) The privacy-violation objection: Electronic tolling will violate my privacy.

Response: Hopefully, your privacy would be violated IF you try to beat the toll. Otherwise, an electronic tolling system can be designed to protect traveler privacy by not reporting vehicle identification when a toll is successfully recorded. Privacy safeguards are essential.

Pretty easy-to-answer objections

(3) The overcrowding objection: Opening the lanes to SOVs that pay a fee will just make the lanes more congested. Overcrowding the HOV lanes is a bad idea, because we need to encourage ridesharing and we need a lane for buses and emergency vehicles to move quickly.

Response: HOT lanes have prices set and changed as necessary to keep the road free flowing for all vehicles. On one HOT lane in California, the price changes every six minutes. This has been demonstrated to keep traffic free flowing most of the time. Pricing on the SR-167 HOT Lanes will be changed as necessary, even after just a few minutes, to keep traffic flowing.

(4) The we-already-pay-taxes objection: I don't like to see tolls on a road that formerly was free, a road that has already been paid for with taxes. All people, all organizations, indeed the whole of society benefits from all roads. General taxation should pay for roads to reflect this entire scope of benefit.

Response: People prefer a "free," un-tolled road to a toll road, but an existing road is never truly "paid for." After opening day, it begins to deteriorate from exposure to the sun, rain, freeze-thaw cycle, and the weight of vehicles. Road toll revenues can cover continuing maintenance and periodic reconstruction. HOT lane tolls can also cover better T-Ops, such as enforcement of tolls and vehicle occupancy rules, and rapid incident clearance to keep traffic moving. The tolls for the SR-167 project will be used to cover the physical changes to make the HOT lanes safe and convenient, the cost of the toll collection equipment, and the ongoing enforcement to make sure those not paying the toll have passengers in the car.

(5) The I-love-HOV lanes objection: Adding toll access to HOV lanes adds a convenience that would defeat their whole purpose. The object is to get more people to car pool, not to bring more money into the state treasury. Car pooling is hard; it takes extra time and energy. It's unfair to give solo drivers an easy way out by just paying a fee.

Response: Data from California show that HOT lanes lead to an increase in car pooling, because solo drivers see car pool formation as a good way to get aboard the lane without paying tolls. A second reason for increased car pooling is the driver of a car pool can be confident of being able to use the fast lane even in the event of a usual passenger having a sick day or other absence. The driver can still use the lane solo by paying a fee instead of fighting traffic in the general purpose lane. This reliability effect appears seems to have increased car-pool formation in these corridors.

(6) The I-hate-HOV lanes objection: We've all paid for those HOV lanes; everyone should be allowed to use them. We need to get those lanes opened up now and get more lanes built for everyone to use.

Response: For every citizen who hates HOV lanes, there are other citizens who love them. HOT lanes are a government policy response to this difference of opinion among citizens. Increasing the number of vehicles on HOV lanes during the busy peak period to a point where the lanes are more productive but not bogged down is thought to be best achieved by rationing the access to those solo drivers who are willing to pay for extra speed from their pocketbooks on the days when they really need it.

(7) The I-hate-paying-more-to-travel-in-peak-period objection: It's unfair to charge more for an HOT lane during peak periods, just at the time I and others are forced to travel by virtue of employer work hours or other circumstances we don't control.

Response: The benefit of giving peak period travelers a brand new choice to pay for a more rapid and reliable trip would simply not be available if the HOT lane did not have its access rationed through requirements for minimum vehicle occupancy and tolls on SOVs. Also, the conversion of an HOV lane with spare capacity into a HOT lane pulls some drivers out of the general purpose lane, and out of the way of drivers who are unwilling or unable to pay for the HOT option.

The toughest objections to answer

(8) The economic equity objection: We have all paid for those HOV lanes with our federal and local tax dollars. Opening them for a fee would favor more wealthy people to be in those lanes, people who should not have government grant them more travel privileges than the rest of us. If there is a traffic issue, fix it for all drivers. If you want to cruise on a crowded highway, wait in line like everyone else. Some people can't afford the gas they are using to drive to work, much less pay a fee. HOT lanes will put a wedge between the haves and the have nots.

Response: On the California HOT lanes, the vast majority of drivers are not (rich) daily users, but rather are occasional users who come from all economic levels. They pay the toll for a faster ride when they are late to work or to retrieve a child from daycare. Reasonable tolls that are used occasionally are fair to all income groups. Wealthier people who take advantage of tolls frequently, even every day, are putting revenue into the transportation system that can be used to maintain and expand travel options for all people.

(9) The geographic equity objection: It's not fair to toll the road I need to use while other parts of the region have major roads that are free.

Response: Yes, but it's going to take time to implement travel value pricing over an entire region. This objection is the argument for implementing travel value pricing in several parts of a region at once. A regional policy of all new capacity and rebuilding being tolled may have a better chance of acceptance than tolling some major new facilities while leaving others free of tolls. In Washington State, as one example, the expansion of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will be paid from toll collections once the bridge is open.

(10) The how-will-the-money-be-spent objection: I don't like that toll revenue is going to be spent on [choose one] (a) this road, (b) another road, (c) all roads, (d) public transit here, (e) public transit elsewhere, (f) bicycle paths, (g) curing cancer, or (h) something else.

Response: This is a genuine public policy choice that has to be debated and determined for the specific jurisdiction and corridor at issue. There are legal issues that need to be considered also. The traditional use of road tolls is to pay off the bonds that built the road, and then to pay for operations and maintenance of the road. One HOT lane highway in California uses part of the toll collected to support express bus service along the highway. Another choice for tolls collected from an existing road includes building up a pool of funds to pay for eventual upgrading or even replacement of the tolled facility ... think about the SR-520 Evergreen Point floating bridge, which could sink in the next big windstorm. Maybe a toll should be collected now to pay for its inevitable future replacement. (This is an idea for consideration, not a policy that has been decided.)

Evaluation of the income equity concern

As reported by the Transit Cooperative Research Program, "[A] wide range of income groups have been observed to use [the SR-91 and I-15] value priced facilities, though at differing frequencies.... Arguably the income equity issue may in many cases be more one of higher income individuals receiving greater benefits, than one of negative effects on any group.

"In the case of SR 91, an early-on study of socioeconomic characteristics found the profiles of 91X Express Lane users to be similar to those for SR 91 general-purpose lane users. However, subsequently reported surveys of commuters in the corridor do show a marked difference in 91X usage between high-and low-income travelers.... [H]igh-income commuters (household income greater than $100,000) are more than twice as likely to be frequent toll lane users (using the lanes for more than 50 percent of their peak trips) and nearly half as likely to be non-users than are low-income commuters (incomes below $40,000). Paralleling the usage pattern, 72 percent of low-income commuters lack the transponders that allow them use of the Express Lanes, versus 31 percent of the highest income travelers."

FAIR Lanes

FAIR lanes, Fast And Intertwined Regular Lanes, may be used to overcome equity concerns about High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes....Unlike HOT lanes, FAIR lanes provide credits to those stuck in traffic on the regular lanes. FAIR lanes also allow for more than one express lane, by making it more acceptable to take an existing adjacent free lane for use as an express lane. This permits overtaking of slower vehicles, increasing capacity per lane, and allowing consideration for use of the lanes by heavy vehicles. With more capacity available for paying motorists, tolls can be kept affordable and more motorists can make use of this premium service.

Washington State DOT SR-167 HOT Lane Project

Based on extensive research on the potential for HOT lanes throughout the central Puget Sound region, WSDOT is now implementing a pilot HOT lane project to Washington State Transportation Commission. The project location is the nine miles of SR-167 running north and south between Renton and Auburn, with the tolled lane created by converting the existing HOV lanes. There is existing unused capacity in the HOV lanes that will be sold to solo drivers willing to pay between 60 cents and $1.20 to use them for a one-way faster trip.

Quoting the WSDOT SR-167 report to the State Transportation Commission:

* "Toll prices would vary depending on traffic volumes as a way to maintain HOT lane travel speed and reliability. Access into the HOT lanes will remain free for transit, carpools and vanpools."

* "As congestion increases in the general purpose lanes, fees for entering the HOT lane increase. If traffic volumes cause travel speeds in the HOT lane to drop, fees will also be increased to reduce the number of vehicles."

* "Today, SR 167 experiences strong peak direction congestion during both the morning and evening peak periods. SR 167 carries approximately 120,000 vehicles a day. Morning congestion occurs in the northbound direction as SR 167 approaches I-405 in Renton. Afternoon southbound congestion occurs primarily as SR 167 approaches SR 18 in Auburn. During peak periods, neither northbound nor southbound HOV lanes operate to capacity; there is significant space for more vehicles in both."

* "Toll collection on SR 167 will include an electronic toll collection (ETC) system, comprised of vehicle-mounted transponders, over-roadway transponder readers and dynamic toll rate signs throughout the corridor. Overhead signs will display toll rates and toll readers. When a toll-paying motorist drives under the reader, the reader ‘speaks’ to a device mounted on the vehicle."

* "Converting the HOV lanes to HOT lanes on SR 167 from Kent to Auburn improved traffic flow by moving 13 % more vehicles through the SR 167 corridor [according to a computer model] while maintaining travel speeds and reliability for buses, carpools and vanpools that use the HOV lanes."

The SR-167 Project will use payment collection technology that will let travelers pay quickly at other toll and fare collection points in the Puget Sound Region: the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the Washington State Ferries, and on regional transit. Users of one program could use the services of the other providers and receive just one bill.

The fares on SR-167 are being set at a level that covers a decade-long pay back on the costs to set up and administer the project.

Universal Vehicle Metering to Cover a Region

To institute Travel Value Pricing across an entire region, two approaches are now feasible. One is to establish an electronic cordon around a region, as City of London has now set up around its congested center, and which Singapore and a few Norwegian cities instituted earlier. Every vehicle crossing the boundary of the tolled zone is detected and charged, either via transponder, or license plate reading.

Puget Sound Regional Council’s Areawide Pricing Project

The other method is to put a meter in every car. This approach is now being considered in several states. In the Puget Sound region, the Puget Sound Regional Council with the support of Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation is setting up a test of metered vehicles. Around 500 to 800 vehicles will be volunteered by their owners to participate.

Travel meters will be placed in the vehicles. Different prices per mile will be imposed depending upon the location and time of travel. Drivers will be made aware of the pricing both though maps and other printed material, as well as a real-time read-out on the in-vehicle meter. The location and time of travel of the vehicle will be determined by an integrated GPS antenna/receiver. The GPS approach offers pricing ubiquitously. By relying on in-vehicle meters, the need for roadside sensing of vehicles is eliminated, and even arterial roads can be priced cost-effectively.

A "hold-harmless" study design gives participants the opportunity to participate without committing their own funds. At the start of the pilot, participants will receive a billing account with a positive cash balance. Any cumulative in-vehicle meter charges will be debited against this balance. Any funds remaining in the account at the end of the pilot may be kept by the participants. This technique gives vehicle operators the incentive to adjust their driving behavior so as to enjoy the surplus remaining in the account at the end of the experiment.

Universal Metering Could Replace Fuel Taxes

Supported by USDOT and 15 state DOTs including Washington, a team based at the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa has been working to develop a new approach to assessing road user charges using an on-board computer in every car or truck. In testimony to Congress in June 2002, the team leader described how the computer would store a record of actual road use by the vehicle, based on GPS tracking that lets the computer record where the cars moves geographically, that is, which jurisdictions are traversed. Periodically, the on-board computerized record is uploaded and transmitted to a data processing center. The DP center bills the vehicle owner and reimburses the taxing districts in which the vehicle has traveled.

The on-board computer system is secure and capable of protecting the user's privacy, because it is does not transmit detail, only the summary dollar amount to be charged. Importantly, the on-board system enables a variety of user charge conventions. In its simplest form, this approach can be used to assess a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) tax. With a VMT tax, the computer would calculate road mileage actually traversed; it compares this mileage with that obtained through an odometer feed. It then applies appropriate user charge rates to the mileage traveled within each jurisdiction.

The computer also contains maps that define the boundaries of each jurisdiction. Received GPS signals are used to determine the vehicle's position. The computer reconciles this position with the stored data polygons that make up the map, and thus determine the jurisdiction(s) in which travel has occurred; the miles traveled within each jurisdiction are used to compute user charges, which in turn are stored. When a vehicle crosses into another state or sub-state jurisdiction, it goes to a different map, and travel within that new map is used to compute user charges.

The institutional framework for this black box calculation of charges was discussed in a workshop in March 2001, hosted by FHWA and the Eno Foundation, "The Future Role of Value Pricing in Metropolitan Areas." Highway transportation experts envisioned a radically changed long-term scenario of funding and institutional arrangements, including:

* The highway network operated like a public utility, driven by market forces, funded in private capital markets, and regulated by the states.
* Fuel taxes phased out in favor of tolls, to reduce the inequities resulting from changeover to alternative sources of energy.
* Tolling restrictions on free roads lifted; federal aid for new construction and rehabilitation of freeway-standard roads reduced or ceased. The gas tax proportionately reduced to encourage states to adopt tolling.
* Discrimination eliminated in the Federal tax code against the private sector regarding tax-exempt financing; create enabling legislation for public-private partnerships with strong non-compete clauses to protect private investors from expansions of free, public capacity.

Directly and simply stated, the challenge is to link government’s transportation revenue requirement of approximately $6 million daily in central Puget Sound region to 80 million regional daily vehicle miles per day. The average price per mile computes out to just 7.5 cents per mile. Under a Travel Value Pricing scheme this could be adjusted up to (say) plus or minus 90% to reflect the congestion level and facility cost during which a vehicle’s mileage is consumed. Consumers in California are already willing to pay 50 cents per mile for a desired ten-mile toll-road quick ride through congestion on one of the new High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes built there in the last decade.

Personal Privacy in Metering

One should be concerned with the possibility of electronic tracking of vehicles for road pricing and toll collection becoming an invasion of privacy and a curtailment of liberty, especially with universal metering.

This need not be the case if technical restraints are built into the implemented systems. As the FHWA Guide for HOT Lane Development notes, "Tolling agencies have addressed [privacy] by linking the transponder with a generic, internal account number that does not reveal the driver's identity. Driver information is not disclosed to other organizations."

In other words, vehicle monitoring systems can be programmed to only report out the fees due to the billing agencies. They can be designed so that the vehicle owner can request an audit trail with details of trips, but this information is otherwise privileged.

Travel Value Pricing Supports Transit

Travel Value Pricing and HOT can be used to manage the number of vehicles and leave room for buses. Don Padelford, a founder of Citizens for Mobility in Seattle, originated and promotes the concept of BRT on HOT as the potential foundation for a uniquely-Cascadia high-capacity regional transit system. He points out that managing vehicle flows on HOV via TVP/HOT can include the goal of permanently ensuring that these lanes offer free-flowing access for buses.

Express buses from Puget Sound transit agencies already make use of the regional HOV lanes. These buses incrementally approach the concept of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), sometimes called Rapid Bus. BRT is a flexible transit concept that can be routed on freeways, highways, and arterials. At much lower cost, BRT is made competitive with light rail by:

* Readily identifiable routes - as with the Vancouver, BC Translink B-Lines
* High frequency service – 10 minute or lower headways
* Limited station locations with enhancements for customer convenience and comfort
* Right-of-way tweaking for speed enhancements – signal priority, bus-only lanes, etc.
* Promotion of development around transit stops; building sites with transit-oriented development on lids spanning freeways at BRT stops is proposed by the Cascadia Project.

Puget Sound BRT Sketch Plan

* Enhance Sound Transit Regional Express Bus now serving major urban centers with marketing to attract more riders, and higher frequencies in response to demand.

* Finish the freeway HOV network as the regional guideway for BRT, and convert to HOT.

* Hold off revamping the Downtown Seattle Bus Tunnel for rail until after a Phase 2 Sound Transit tax vote that confirms the regional commitment to Sound Transit's Central Link Light Rail and its affordability.

* Implement I-405 East Side suburban spine BRT with branch routes into neighborhoods.

* Implement the three already published King County Metro BRT options along arterials such as Aurora Avenue North.

* Implement BRT along future LRT and monorail routes to build up transit ridership.

* Implement BRT from Seattle CBD to Northgate and Lynnwood on I-5 two-way HOV/HOT originating in the Downtown Bus Tunnel ... a revival of the 1970s Blue Streak.

* Implement BRT along I-90 HOV/HOT from Seattle CBD to Bellevue CBD, between the Downtown Bus Tunnel and the Bellevue Downtown Transit Center.

* If Central Link terminates because of judicial rulings, reprogram its local funds under Sound Transit Resolution 75 to WSDOT-screened HOV connection improvements for BRT and other BRT investments.

Alternative Investment Opportunities for Central Puget Sound

The availability of time-variable electronic toll collection and Travel Value Pricing leads to consideration of the following investment opportunities:

* Less reliance on gasoline tax, sales tax, and MVET; more reliance on facility tolls and transportation value pricing of existing infrastructure.

* Additional HOT trials beyond the SR-167 trial now in development.

* Put a value-based toll on the present SR-520 to build funds for inevitable bridge replacement.

* Put a value-based toll on the present Seattle Waterfront Viaduct to build funds for inevitable reconstruction of that corridor.

* Rebuild the I-5 Express Lanes into a two-way, four-lane, HOV/HOT facility 24 by 7 between Northgate and Seattle CBD.

* Put HOV/HOT toll on I-90 Center Lanes, Mercer Island to Mt. Baker Tunnel.

* Build the WSDOT-recommended HOV connection improvements in North King for I-5 and I-90, those now unfunded in favor of building Link Light Rail between Northgate and SeaTac.

* Other infrastructure improvements that would be supported by SOV motorists and truckers in exchange for tolled access to faster, more reliable travel.

Investment of collected toll revenues in transportation improvements related to the tolled facility is assumed in all cases. These improvements can include rapid incident response and other T-Ops, improved public transit, and future reserves for capital construction in the same corridor.

The Role of Political Champions

A new international study of road pricing by Deloitte Research points out that "success in congestion pricing will depend on politics, good assessment, public consultation, planning, advocacy, and implementation. It will also depend on the prudent boldness of good leadership."

A frequently stated success factor is the need for an influential champion ... hopefully somebody in the political arena. The recent FHWA Guide for HOT Lane Development provides interesting commentary on the role of political champions:

"Political support is key to the successful implementation of variable pricing projects in the United States. All projects that have resulted in actual implementation to date can point to one or more elected individuals that championed the use of pricing as an effective method for addressing the growing gap between transportation demand and the available supply. Many of the projects that have not been successful can point to elected officials that actively blocked project implementation….

"Outreach to elected officials should discuss an array of issues about the proposed initiative, including any impacts that local constituents may experience as a result of the project. Other issues that elected officials may consider when deciding whether to back the project include:

* the disposition of toll revenues
* increased public spending
* increased public revenues
* relationships with other officials and political jurisdictions
* alternative financing scenarios
* competing transportation needs
* competing transportation projects
* their own political capital."

Trends in Automobility – Increasingly "Intelligent" Vehicles

Automobiles, light trucks, SUVs, vans, and buses will likely remain the dominant regional personal travel mode over the next 30 years. Trucks will remain the dominant freight and goods movement mode. Public policy should emphasize steps toward continuous improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of road movement given its popularity and dominance.

To push back against the discomfort and economic costs of traffic congestion, technology-application businesses like Microsoft are emphasizing improvements of in-vehicle telematics (computers and wireless telecommunications) to make time in a car more comfortable and productive.

Quoting recent Microsoft literature:

* "Windows Automotive allows you to make phone calls, retrieve e-mail, find your way around town, and even download news and entertainment--all hands-free. Microsoft technology will transform the vehicle into a mobile extension of real life, enabling drivers and passengers to easily and safely manage their daily lives, work and travel from the road. So watch for cars with Windows. They'll give you an incredible view of the future."

* "Today, Microsoft's Windows-powered technology is fueling 17 preinstalled and aftermarket devices from world-class automakers and suppliers, including BMW, Citroen, Clarion, Fiat, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Toyota and Volvo. Unveiled this past year in the U.S., Japanese and European markets, various models showcase advanced navigation, communication and infotainment systems that effectively deliver safe and reliable services to drivers and passengers. Capabilities include turn-by-turn navigation, hands-free cellular phone control, voice-recognition and text-to-speech functions, maintenance status and wireless synchronization of data with mobile devices."

Innovative consumer electronics applications from other companies, such as TrafficGuard, a commercially-available, hand-held display device showing drivers the WSDOT real-time traffic condition maps for the Seattle area, show the way to a future of increasingly sophisticated traffic information systems that give travelers opportunities to avoid joining up with existing traffic jams.

Other technology applications coming before 2030, such as adaptive cruise control, radar-assisted braking, centimeter-accurate continuously-updated in-car electronic maps, and lane-edge detection help drivers cope with increasingly crowded roads and narrower lane widths squeezed onto existing infrastructure footprints. The automated highways of the future are not going to depend on public sector infrastructure, but are likely to arrive incrementally, in the form of vehicle innovations like the new Toyota Prius just introduced for the Japanese domestic market, a car that can parallel park all by itself without the driver's hand on the steering wheel.

Conclusions and Follow Up Actions to Discuss

From U.S. General Accounting Office, "Congestion Pricing Has Promise for Improving Use of Transportation Infrastructure:"

"Congestion pricing can potentially reduce congestion by providing incentives for drivers to shift trips to off-peak periods, use less congested routes, or use alternative modes, thereby spreading out demand for available transportation infrastructure. Congestion pricing also has the potential to create other benefits, such as generating revenue to help fund transportation investment. Possible challenges to implementing congestion pricing include current statutory restrictions limiting the use of congestion pricing, and concerns about equity and fairness across income groups. In theory, equity and fairness concerns could be mitigated depending on how the revenues that are generated are used."

From Puget Sound Regional Council, Destination 2030, Metropolitan Transportation Plan:

"The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation recommends that value pricing and bonding be authorized for use by regions for investments in, and management of, transportation facilities. This recommendation is consistent with findings and recommendations of the Regional Council’s Transportation Pricing Task Force. Facility-specific financing mechanisms are most appropriate on controlled facilities, where access and egress can be managed and a financial transaction (manual or electronic) can take place. And within transportation corridors that will have self-financed facilities, travel alternatives should be available, in the form of alternative modes and/or routes, to ensure that travelers can make choices that best fit their needs. In the long run, value pricing of transportation may be administered on a system-wide level to improve travel speeds, to recover infrastructure maintenance costs, and to finance capacity investments in a reliable and efficient manner."

From The Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Project, "Where Do We Go From Here?"

"[C]urrent revenue proposals ... are making the possibly false assumption that the gas tax is a reliable future income source. Thus, broadening the funding base is simple prudence. Alternative financing must be explored, and that leads first to consideration of tolls and value pricing. Tolls are an appropriate user charge if their revenue feeds back directly into the building and maintenance of a particular facility or community enhancement."

Follow up Action in Cascadia Suggested by the November 2003 HOT Lanes Conference

* Manage roads and road vehicles toward the goal of reliable, uninterrupted flows at average speeds (lower than free flow) that maximize the number of people moved per hour.

* Seek to manage all Cascadia regional freeways, highways, and arterials for lower congestion levels with Travel Value Pricing that is variable depending on vehicle volumes.

* Establish facility-specific user tolls to pay for construction of all new highways, bridges, and tunnels.

* Implement traffic operations management for 24 X 7 coverage of all freeways, highways, and arterials.

* Convert existing HOV lanes into HOT lanes using lessons learned from the SR 167 Pilot.

* Ensure that all new or upgraded highways, bridges, and tunnels include HOT lanes.

* Emphasize electronic toll and user fee collection at discounted rates, but provide opportunities for cash payment at premium prices reflecting the higher costs of cash collection.

* Rigorously protect personal privacy while measuring overall travel behavior.

* Give appropriate priority at all times to more rapid passage of emergency vehicles, buses, van pools, and car pools.

* Using lessons learned from the Regional Council's research project, transition to universal variable road pricing using vehicle metering that recognizes distance traveled by location and time of day with prices that reflect road space scarcity during high volume periods

* Develop and implement a technological means that permits a smooth transition from universal fuel tax funding to universal vehicle metering.

Resources

* FHWA – Guide for HOT Lane Development: www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13668.html

* Hubert Humphrey Institute - Value Pricing: www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm

* Texas Transportation Institute, Managed Lanes Project: managed-lanes.tamu.edu/

* Washington State DOT - Toll Analysis Studies: www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/tolls/

* Puget Sound Regional Council Value Pricing: www.psrc.org/projects/pricing/index.htm

* Reason Foundation: www.rppi.surtrans.html

* University of California Irvine, Institute for Transportation Studies, Center for Urban Infrastructure:
www.c-u-i.org

* Deloitte Research - Congestion Pricing: www.dc.com/Insights/research/public/gridlock.asp

* Victoria Transportation Policy Institute Online TDM Encyclopedia - Road Pricing: www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm

* Urban Transport Pricing in Europe (Gateway to Six Projects): www.transport-pricing.net/

* National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, University of South Florida: www.nbrti.org/

* San Diego's I-15 FasTrak: www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=34&fuseaction=projects.detail

* Orange County 's SR91: www.91expresslanes.com

* Houston 's Katy Freeway commuter programs: www.ridemetro.org/services/commuter.asp

The articles are posted solely for educational purposes to raise awareness of transportation issues. I claim no authorship, nor do I profit from this website. Where known, all original authors and/or source publisher have been noted in the post. As this is a knowledge base, rather than a blog, I have reproduced the articles in full to allow for complete reader understanding and allow for comprehensive text searching...see custom google search engine at the top of the page. If you have concerns about the inclusion of a specific article, please email bbdc1@live.com. for a speedy resolution.