July 2, 2008
Matt Rosenberg
Seattle Times editorial columnist Lynne Varner (below, right) is a resident of suburban Sammamish, a growing community north of Issaquah, and Interstate 90. Today she warns against the gleeful predictions of some commentators that commuting by vehicle, and the whole suburban lifestyle are heading toward the end stages because of spiking gasoline prices.
The New York Times recently published essays from writers expressing the national angst over skyrocketing gas prices. The mood was funereal. 
One was titled "Goodbye to the Great American Road Trip," and needs no further explanation. "Ghosts of the Cul-de-sac" announced, a tad gleefully, a mass exodus from the suburbs and exurbs as people escape their cars for city living.
Blog postings on the subject ranged from expressions of schadenfreude to something more venal. Suburbanites are stereotyped as gas guzzlers commuting to McMansions, the values of which are dropping like granite countertops. One poster predicted rising gas prices will scatter suburbanites like rodents.
...Barring a change in price, we're going to have to change the level of demand. It has already started. Cruising is down...The urge to blame someone - who better than affluent suburbanites and their cars? - is understandable, but a waste. Smart public policy will fail if its relies on emotional attempts to lure people back to the city or offer a bike for every garage. Better solutions are to continue efforts belatedly launched around telecommuting, fuel-efficient vehicle standards and increasing funding for public transit.
Varner's on point. Here are a few more thoughts.
A comprehensive North American carbon tax, offset by reductions in Social Security withholding taxes paid by employers and employees, and resolutely factored into the cost of gas, would probably do more than any other one thing to change the way people get around day-to-day. But politicians would rather futz around with cap-and-trade schemes that big business will game the same way they game their taxes. How can planetary citizens of North America lead their leaders in the right direction?
It's not just more transit use, and better fuel mileage for internal combustion engine vehicles that are needed; it's also new vehicle technology. Especially the all-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles now being developed by automakers. The challenge of making energy cleaner as demand grows is one we have to face anyway, no matter what kinds of cars people drive. Nuclear power will be a growing part of that conversation, as will renewable sources such as wind, solar, wave, and geothermal. Second generation bio-fuels made from forestry, agricultural and animal waste hold great promise to pencil out as substantially "net-green." But it's going take to take time, and great investment in research and development. The federal government has a legitimate, larger role to play here.
Transit is important; but It can't cost taxpayers billions upon billions, and depend upon tax hikes of indefinite duration. For both roads and transit, we're going to have to look north to our neighbors in British Columbia. They're pioneering transportation public-private partnerships in North America. One of several BC PPPs to help handle regional growth is the rapid rail Canada Line from the city to the airport and the suburb of Richmond. There are public funds being used, to be sure, but only to a degree. A private consortium was engaged to design, build, (partially) finance and operate the line. They are payed in full only if they meet achingly specific performance standards at various points in time. Are the trains running on time? Are they clean? And so forth. They make their profit in the end if they perform to standard - and yes - that profit comes in part from fares paid by passengers. But the region gets a valuable new transit line sooner rather than later or not at all, at a capped cost to taxpayers, with an operator incented to deliver good service.
Puget Sound commuters would benefit grandly if comprehensive regional bus rapid transit - BRT that really lived up to the name - were instituted with performance guarantees keyed to on-time performance. Private capital could help finance the construction of such a system. Alternatively, or perhaps complementarily, if voters here are to approve a broader regional build-out of Sound Transit's nascent light rail line beyond the Sea-Tac Airport to Husky Stadium stretch (which is now being constructed in phases), an approach like that used for the Canada Line just might do the trick.
As a transit rider, I want reliable pick-up times and trip times. I don't want to be stuck in traffic on at-grade rail or waiting at a stop for a late bus. But if a trip between the same two points takes longer on one mode than another, I don't care so much, as long as there's on-board WiFi. What if I am paying taxes for 30 years for some or another new transit line(s), but it won't begin service for 12, or 15, or 20 years?
Even assuming I would use it when built, that's a very big problem.
If we who pay sales taxes and vehicle fees are to be tapped again, projects have to be delivered in time for us to benefit in our working years. It's no good if improvements being discussed now only serve our grown children - assuming they even choose to stay here. Real performance guarantees, cost ceilings and accelerated construction timelines are essential. That's going to require a new way of doing business.
Game on?
Comments
Taxpayers foot $1.25 billion of the $1.9 billion for the Canada Line - hardly "only to a degree". In addition, the system is not being designed for the long term - its capacity will not scale past 20-30 year projected ridership growth, with only 40m maximum train lengths (compared to Link Light Rail in Seattle's 120m maximum). Planning that poorly to save a buck is what got us into our current infrastructure mess - you get what you pay for.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | July 2, 2008 8:40 PM
Another comment: Sound Transit 2 didn't wait 12, 15, or 20 years to open new service. North Link would have opened as far as Northgate only two years after University Link is already going to open. Points south of Sea-Tac Airport would also have opened much more quickly.
The 12, 15 or 20 year plans refer to when the LAST portion of service opens. If we used the metric being used here to describe Sound Move, we'd be simply ignoring the 10,000 daily trips on Sounder and all the ST Express routes packed to the gills, and focusing only on University Link, as that's the last component.
In the ST2 packages we're seeing this year, many Sounder and ST Express increases come online quickly - within a year or two. It's only the far ends of light rail that wouldn't open until the end - Bellevue would open a few years before Overlake, etc.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | July 2, 2008 9:26 PM
In Sound Transit's study of rail-equivalent BRT across I-90, it was found to be significantly less cost effective than rail. It cost only a few hundred million less - some 15-20% - but had much higher long-term operating costs, and was projected (using federal models) to move 30% fewer passengers daily.
I am surprised BRT is still coming up. Most of the cost models that showed BRT being less cost effective per rider (especially per passenger mile) than rail were based on $1.50-$2.50 diesel. Our next diesel contracts will be close to $5 - BRT doesn't even pencil out anymore for our mainline corridors. Even if fuel didn't increase in price any further, BRT would become more expensive than rail after only a few decades.
We're not building a 20 year system in Puget Sound - we're building a 100 or 150 year system, so we don't keep having to rehash the same arguments we heard in 1968. BRT proponents helped shoot down our rail package then by creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about rail systems. At the same time, San Francisco built BART. Which city has better transportation choices now?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | July 2, 2008 9:41 PM
// But if a trip between the same two points takes longer on one mode than another, I don't care so much, as long as there's on-board WiFi. //
I think you're alone there. People value their free time - the time they could be spending with their kids, fixing up their house, or spending on vacation. I don't thing many people want to spend money on more busses just to be stuck in the same traffic - even with WiFi and cup holders. Traffic-seperated transit is the only way to reduce trip times and get a large amount of people on transit.
Posted by: Matt the Engineer | July 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Matt The Engineer,
in fairness to me :), I wrote:
"As a transit rider, I want reliable pick-up times and trip times. I don't want to be stuck in traffic on at-grade rail or waiting at a stop for a late bus. But if a trip between the same two points takes longer on one mode than another, I don't care so much, as long as there's on-board WiFi."
I'd stress that first part about reliable pick-up times and trip times. So long as I can be assured this or that transit mode will pick me up and deliver me on time, I can plan around that, in terms of family time and leisure time, and with on-board WiFi, also be productive. The big challenge, with most transit modes so far, is that predictability. On some routes you have it to a good degree but on others you don't. As any rider of the Metro #54 can testify.
Posted by: Matt Rosenberg | July 3, 2008 11:11 AM
I don't argue the need for reliability. But you need both reliability and speed. Your second point shrugged off this second requirement.
I agree that anything that drives in traffic (our transit options so far) suffers greatly when it comes to both of these needs.
Posted by: Matt the Engineer | July 3, 2008 12:35 PM
Ben above is referring to "Rail-convertible BRT," a system of buses running on railroad-strength right-of-ways serving stations like railroads have with the intention of eventually laying track and running trains.
This scheme was invented by Sound Transit's consultants for the purpose of making bus service ridiculously expensive and the Link light rail scheme for crossing Lake Washington on a floating bridge seem reasonable. It isn't.
A reasonable approach to cross-Lake transit not analyzed by Sound Transit in its run-up to the Prop 1 defeat, but likely to be analyzed in the environmental process now underway, is to run more buses and other HOVs on the I-90 center roadway bridge deck that is already there.
Vote for higher taxes and trains if you like, but to call Sound Transit's light rail network a 100 to 150 year system is ignorant of both history and the technology applications in development for the future. The peak of urban rail travel occurred 100 years ago. Seattle's street railway network was ripped out around 1940. I've posted a 1916 system map here.
Incremental automation of driving on the ubiquitous road network lies ahead, with pay-by-the mile fees for congestion management. Introduction is imminent of cars that run on batteries recharged at night from the power grid. More bicycles, Segways, and golf cart-sized electric vehicles on special neighborhood lanes may have a larger place in this region as well. Who knows?
But to place billion dollar bets on expanding Sound Transit's light rail subway before the first substantial line is done?
As a bare minimum, as a very conservative compromise to begin to resolve contrasting views of the future, let's see how well the soon-to-start Sound Transit light rail from Macy's to the Airport serves mobility in actual operation before voting to double Sound Transit's taxes.
That means a new Sound Transit tax vote in 2010, not this fall.
P.S. to Ben -- very interesting analysis of the new subway in BC! Another train to keep an eye on for how it shakes out in operation. Translink certainly disagrees with your assessment that it isn't big enough to meet growth.
Posted by: John Niles | July 3, 2008 1:36 PM
[John] I'm just curious here, but what happens on the east side of a BRT solution? I've driven in the carpool lane on I-90, and there aren't a lot of options once you're off the bridge. Will busses just cram onto the overcrowded 405, or will you be building a seperate roadway?
Also, couldn't rail use one of these bridge lanes that you want to use for busses?
What's your alternative to "rail-convertable BRT" - just more busses stuck in traffic? Why would we want to delay getting rid of that, um, solution, and replacing it with something that bypasses traffic?
Posted by: Matt the Engineer | July 3, 2008 2:52 PM
The Canada Line was actually delayed for a year because of the extra time required to negotiate the public private partnership. The result was that in order to complete the project by the Olympics, the contractor had to cut and cover instead of bore the tunnel under Cambie Street. The cost of both cut and cover and bored tunnel are similar. It is just harder to guarantee a completion date. The cut and cover was really disruptive to business and residents along Cambie Street. In the end, in a $2 billion project, they estimated the benefit of the P3 only amounted to $50 million or so, probably less than the rounding error in the accounting for the benefits. As long as the private contractor performs, the public is still on responsible for the entire $2 billion. It is just an accounting trick that the government uses to keep the debt off the books.
By the way, the SkyTrain Millennium Line which was a publicly managed project, came in $60 million under budget.
Posted by: Richard | July 3, 2008 4:12 PM
Mr. Niles, rail-convertible BRT is the only kind of BRT that can be compared directly to rail. Any other sort has a lower service quality level than rail, so it always appears cheaper, when it is in fact also lower capacity.
The only way to get an accurate cost comparison between rail and bus is to compare them for the same level of service. Claiming that you can save money by using buses "instead" is misleading when you don't mention that you're also using less separated right of way.
Adding buses to the existing I-90 right of way only causes those buses to clump. It doesn't improve service levels, and it does nothing for reverse-peak commute, which accounts for 45% of peak hour trips.
It's a great point you make about the longevity of transit systems. In the 1920s and 30s (you're a little late with 1940, that was the very end), rail transit all over the country was removed - but the vast majority of it shared one characteristic. It wasn't grade separated at all, it shared right of way. Grade separated lines almost all continued operations, which is why we're building rail in its own right of way.
So no, I think applying streetcar logic to subway is ignorant of history.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | July 3, 2008 4:30 PM
One more thing, Mr. Niles.
You argue that we "wait and see" how rail does when Link opens, but how about we look at Sounder instead? With less service online than planned, the ridership curve is nearly twice as steep as expected.
There are two arguments you could make here. The first is that Sounder is in a different corridor - but then, so is East Link. By your argument, seeing how a line will "do", we can just point out that MAX and Skytrain are beating ridership records regularly and exceeding expectations.
The second argument you could make is that you want to see what Sound Transit's management of a system looks like - but again, you have Sounder and Tacoma Link operating without a hitch.
I'm not sure what your "wait and see" argument does, except try to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. I think we've seen great performance from the people at Sound Transit since their reorganization in 2001. Since then, they've been on time and under budget for most of their projects, and they've just passed two audits with flying colors.
If you're so worried about your tax dollars, why don't you rail against the Port of Seattle, instead of attacking an agency that's delivering projects without graft or waste?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | July 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Responding to both Engineer Matt and Progressive Policy Analyst Ben:
There are lots of factors that make buses slow besides traffic jams on the road and the lack of an exclusive transit right of way. Other issues include speed of passengers boarding/exiting (dwell time) and the spacing between stops in urban areas. Door-to-door travel time for a transit user depends on how close the transit is to destinations and origins of trips, which is where buses provide an advantage -- the money for transit investment goes further in deploying transit along roads, in buses, than it does for building a limited amount of rail right-of-way.
On right-of-way, I and others, including the leaders of U.S. DOT, reject the Sound Transit future forecast and vision of increasingly congested roads, with free-running rail right-of-ways as the main alternative. Society must find, and is on the way to implementing, mechanisms for managing vehicle movement for more free flows. It can be achieved incrementally through a combination of technology (vehicles as nodes on an intelligent network, with lane keeping and spacing distance increasingly automated) and economics (paying more by the mile, based on location and time-of-day, instead of only by the gallon). In other words, buses will cram onto a crowded I-405, but the crowded I-405 will be moving better than it does today.
Yes indeed, rail could use one of the I-90 bridge lanes. However, I contend that closely spaced buses that move on a variety of roads and highways upon leaving the bridge are a better option than widely spaced trains moving on a limited number of rail right-of-ways off the bridge. I recognize that this is a societal choice, and ST is trying very hard to put the choice on the ballot this fall, even before the technical issues of putting electric trains on a floating bridge are resolved in a final report coming out later this year from the Independent Review Team of engineering experts appointed by the Joint Legislative Committee on Transportation. Details at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/irt/ . Another key area of necessary staff work before committing the I-90 bridge to have RR tracks is to compare the environmental impact of light rail trains on the I-90 bridge serving a rail line to Microsoft against the alternative of a well-managed I-90 bus/HOV right-of-way and bus network serving the entire Eastside.
I disagree that "rail-convertible BRT is the only kind of BRT that can be compared directly to rail."
Buses have just as much capacity as the light rail contemplated by Sound Transit. The Sound Transit light rail design merges streams of downtown-bound trains of East Link and Airport Link and has fundamental capacity limits that are less than could be provided by a stream of buses coming toward Seattle on both SR 520 and I 90. Rail convertible BRT -- meaning buses run on a road bed with curvatures and weight bearing sufficient for trains -- is a Sound Transit invention designed to kill the bus alternative on I-90.
I disagree that "the only way to get an accurate cost comparison between rail and bus is to compare them for the same level of service."
Another way to compare rail and bus investments is to see how many riders are attracted to each at what cost. One of the bus system designs evaluated should use the present roadway infrastructure optimized with ITS technology and road user fees.
I disagree that "adding buses to the existing I-90 right of way only causes those buses to clump."
Why would running the Center Roadway as an HOV lane for buses and HOV2 cause buses to clump?
I don't understand the comment that "grade separated lines in operation before 1940 almost all continued operations, which is why we're building rail in its own right of way."
Virtually the entire interurban electric train network in America that peaked around the time of World War One has been removed from service. This was largely grade separated.
If you go to my paper on technology and transportation at http://www.discovery.org/a/1078 and check footnote 50, you'll see my finding, "In 1917 interurban electric trains traveled on 18,000 miles of track and in-city streetcars move on 45,000 miles of track." So you are right that the vast majority, the streetcars, were not grade-separated. But where does any of the 18,000 miles of interurban RR still run?
My recommendation that ST should try to get more of phase 1 completed before putting a doubling of ST taxes on the ballot this November is based on perceptions of three issues: (1) ST's performance getting Link to the airport done successfully and more or less on time. I'm reading Federal monitoring reports obtained via PDA request and see problems emerging. (2) Public acceptance of Link operational performance in light of potential train slowdowns or other traffic problems in the DSTT, in SODO through three grade crossings, and along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way through 18 signalized road intersections and a number of pedestrian crossings, both legal and illegal. (3) How well Metro, as the contract operator of both Link Light Rail and Metrobus, coordinates service across modes where buses meet trains at Link stations.
Furthermore, as noted above, qualification of the I-90 floating bridge as a reasonable right of way for trains is not complete.
In related news, readers of this Cascadia Prospectus may be interested in my list of 11 additional ways aside from grade-separated busways for speeding up trips on bus transit. It's posted as a long comment below the story at http://www.crosscut.com/blog/transportation/15656/ .
Posted by: John Niles | July 9, 2008 9:47 AM
By the way, "Roads versus Transit" is not a good verbal framing, since most (though not all) transit in Puget Sound and in the USA runs on roads.
That is, most transit is provided by buses. Even with 125 miles of light rail installed in central Puget Sound, the official government computer modeling shows most transit trips in 2040 would be by bus.
"Roads vs transit" is verbally akin to "tracks vs trains" since most, but not all, trains run on tracks. In Australia, very long combination tractor-trailer combinations are called "road trains."
What people really mean by "roads versus transit" is "roads that also carry buses versus passenger train tracks." The tracks can mean commuter rail, light rail, or heavy rail subways.
What really makes sense is creating policies and systems that work togther to let both transit and private vehicles share road space appropriately.
This framing opens up an extended discussion that is worth having. Roads always come first, because they carry police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, garbage trucks, and construction supplies. These vehicles leave lots of room for everyone and everything else, but space gets tight in peak periods. That's where active traffic management and road user fees come into play. Which opens up an extended discussion.
Posted by: John Niles | July 10, 2008 7:14 PM
Sure, people are cutting back on travel when it comes to higher gas prices. But there's always a sector that's struggling and why can't consumers just cut costs elsewhere, so that they can take a family road trip?
A simple cut back on going out to eat and driving to stupid places can save a ton!
Posted by: Tom | July 26, 2008 11:39 AM