[sustran] Cox & Litman V5 & Bruun

[Wendell Cox]

Comments on the Eric Bruun posting...
>
> > I have enjoyed following the discussion between Todd and Wendell
> > so far. Maybe some clipping is in order to get below the 500 line
> > limitation so we can see the continuation directly instead of
> > being steered elsewhere.
> >
> > I have a comment myself since Wendell brought up Seattle:
> >
> > As a Seattle native, I am absolutely appalled at the traffic
> > situation there. Its the first thing I hear from others who go
> > back to visit as well: "My god, the traffic is bad" or something
> > similar.
> >
> > Wendell is really good at criticizing the plan to build one rail line. I
> > would like to know what he suggests instead for a city with a downtown
> > workforce of 140,000 people and few available transportation corridors.
> > The freeway through downtown is already 13 lanes wide. And what about
> > those of us who don't want to be forced to drive or the 30 percent of
the
> > population who don't have driver's licenses?
>
> Actually it is not 13 lanes wide through downtown, which is the problem.
It
> is very wide (13 lanes may be the number) coming in from the north, where
> there are three roadways. From the south as many as 10 lanes approach, but
> through the core the freeway narrows to no more than 6... This does not
mean
> that one should condemn land and triple the roadway right of way... it
does
> mean, however, that it is worthwhile looking at tunneling options that
might
> make it possible to greatly improve capacity, without destroying the city.
> The local Discovery Institute (whose Exec Director Bruce Chapman is a
> colleague of mine on the Amtrak Reform Council) has suggested something
like
> this.
>
> I suspect that a good percentage of the traffic on I-5... which is the
only
> through freeway on the Seattle peninsulas... is not headed for downtown.
My
> point is that building a network of light rail lines keying on downtown
> Seattle will change life little, because there will be little change in
work
> trip market shares of the various modes.
>
> The Seattle bus system is now providing something like 35 percent of the
> downtown work trips to the 100,000 employee core of downtown, and I
believe
> the number is near 30 percent of the larger area that Eric cites --- this
> ranks it something like 8th among CBD public transport work trip shares in
> the US. Adding light rail won't do much to change that, since there will
be
> virtually no time improvement in travel. I have heard that Sound Transit
is
> projecting time savings relative to cars, but that rarely materializes in
> the real world, once alignments and grade separation issues are decided.
> Moreover, even if you take the projections... and I have not studied the
> Seattle projections... or the actual usage of new light rail systems you
> will find little, if any diversion from autos. So it is not a solution to
> the problem that Eric raises.
>
> As regards the 30 percent without licenses, most of these are simply not
old
> enough to drive. I support efficient transit and buses make a lot of sense
> to concentrated downtown areas, such as downtown Seattle. But transit
> carries a very small percentage of work trips to other employment centers,
> and generally carries only those without access to cars --- average
incomes
> of people commuting to nondowntown locations by transit is approx 40
percent
> below average, while downtown transit commuters are approx the same as
> average. In Seattle, depending upon your definition of downtown, somewhere
> between seven and 10 percent of metropolitan employment was downtown in
> 1990 --- percentage would be smaller now. Light rail provides literally no
> benefit to the 90 percent of workers not employed downtown.
>
> >
> > The cost of building rail is also highly exaggerated. I think I
> > mentioned in a previous mailing that the Puget Sound Regional Council
> > found that less than 10 percent of all transportation spending in
> > the region is public. Even a multi-billion dollar investment over
> > 10 years will only change total annual spending by a tiny fraction. The
> > newspapers and official plan said that the tax scheme to finance the
> > expanded rail/bus network would raise the annual household taxes less
> > than $200 per year. But tens of thousands of households might be able to
> > save the cost of owning a second or third car, roughly $5000 per year,
if
> > transit services were better. Even one rail line, if it is part of a
> > scheme to redesign the network for timed-transfer operation, could be a
> > major boon to part of the region.
> >
> I would suggest that tens of thousands of people won't save having a
second
> or third car. Light rail and highways should be evaluated based upon their
> costs of some common unit... like passenger miles. That produces a serious
> imbalance.
>
> > Finally, why does everything have to focus on the money? If the public
> > wants to do something about improving their quality of life, why
shouldn't
> > they be able to do so? The US is supposed to be a democracy, after all.
> > I have to pay for pro-sports stadiums I won't attend. I am really angry
> > about it, as is much of the public, but we have been told to go and
> > <expletive deleted> ourselves. Therefore, I don't think it is
unreasonable
> > for non-users to have to pay for some public transportation they don't
> > want to use.
>
> Some of us believe that certain types of government actions are
> inappropriate. Others believe that other types of government actions are
> inappropriate. That is what the democratic process is all about.
>
> Concluding point.. Agree that the traffic in Seattle is bad. But light
rail
> will make it no better. Solution won't be easy, but will be delayed by
> attention to things, like light rail, that do not have the capability of
> making a difference, because they do not address the problem.
>