Cox & Litman V5 & Bruun

[Milnor H. Senior, III]

In response to the comments made regarding the high cost of transit products the
issue is a combination of high capital costs to build these rail products plus
the operating costs which will always exceed fare revenues so that constant
operating subsidies are required.  I believe the answer lies in building transit
infrastructure which can be built at an affordable cost and operated on a profit
making basis by private enterprises so that no public subsidies are required.
Please examine the web site www.biketrans.com to see an example of the type of
transit infrastructure which can exceed the carrying capacity of highway lanes,
most light rail systems and which offers higher speeds in congested urban
areas.  The System is not only less expensive to build and operate than current
transit products but the real savings will come from the improvement in public
health which will result from building exercise back into normal life
activities.  With cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of death in the
US and with obesity increasing at an alarming rate it is time to consider making
changes that benefit both human health and the environment while lowering
transportation costs.  Bicycling is the most efficient form of transportation
known and expanding its use within our transportation system should be used to
solve urban congestion problems.
    Sincerely,
    Milnor H. Senior, III
    President - Bicycle Transportation Systems, Inc.

Wendell Cox wrote:

> 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.
> >