##################################################################

TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #9: MAY 19, 1999

##################################################################

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> The NEXT MEETING is a SPECIAL MEETING: <>
<> Monday, May 24, 5 pm at CAFE BRASIL <>
<> 1410 Mission Street in Santa Cruz. <>
<> <>
<> The agenda for this meeting is to work on a paper to evaluate <>
<> the suggestions on the "50-item wish list" that was generated <>
<> by the Regional Transportation Commissioners on April 29 at <>
<> their Pasatiempo (Peachwoods) workshop. All are invited. <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The TTT meeting for May 19, 1999 started close to 5 pm with eight
people present. Three additional people arrived later. Present were
Peter Beckmann, Debbie Bulger, Bill Comfort, Scott Graham, Madeleine
Hormann, Dick Little, Emily Reilly, Peter Scott, Janet Singer, Michael
Singer and Richard Stover. Debbie Bulger facilitated the meeting.

We began with an idea of discussing Peter Beckmann's scheme for rating
various "wish list" items in terms of a "life cycle" or "lifetime" for
each, but as Bill pointed out, this is difficult because some items at
least are not really comparable in this way. For example, the lifetime
of a freeway lane cannot really be compared with the lifetime of a
railroad trestle.

Bill noted that we might start with projected population increases: In
2015 the projected population for the county is about 1.3 times what
it was in 1990. He also noted that for the 8 alternatives of the MTIS
study, the number of trips on the freeway is relatively independent of
which alternative is chosen.

Janet described a transit alternative she was enthused about, that known
as BRT, for "Bus Rapid Transit", and noted that it is being pursued in
Eugene, Oregon. There is a link [actually two links] to information
about the Eugene (Lane County) BRT project on the Singer's website.
BRT depends on congestion-free routes for buses, which helps reduce
the delays that normally plague bus transit systems. A typical way to
arrange this would be to reserve a lane for exclusive bus use.

[NOTE: The Lane County project is currently in the formative stages,
not yet operating, so it is not possible to evaluate its actual
performance yet. There is a prototype, however, that of the bus system
in Curitiba, Brazil. This system, which began to be planned in 1965,
has been developed in the years since then, and now "plays a large part
in making Curitiba a livable city". Curitiba, which is near Sao Paulo,
has a population of 2.2 million in its greater area. The system has
about 1,100 buses that make about 12,500 trips per day, serving more
than 1.3 million passengers per day. All this is described in a recent
booklet from the FTA entitled "Issues in Bus Rapid Transit". For us,
probably Alternative 6 of the MTIS (the busway on the RR right-of-way)
is what comes closest to a BRT system.]

Janet handed out a "cost per new rider worksheet" (from the MTIS) that
illustrates that projected (to 2015) numbers of "auto-person trips",
"transit-person trips", "carpool person-trips", "walk/bike trips" and
"single-occupant vehicles" all seem relatively independent of which of
the MTIS alternatives is chosen, each increasing by amounts roughly
proportional to the population increase for the county. These refer
to trips made on all roads in the county, not just those on Route 1.
This may illustrate that none of the alternatives seem to have
significant effects on the numbers of any of the types of trips
described. [NOTE: the models used by Parsons Brinkerhoff probably do
not take "induced demand" into account.]

Emily noted that she observed on a recent trip to the east that the
corridor from Dulles Airport to Washington DC appears to have a lane
reserved for buses (and carpools?) --- perhaps an HOV lane.

Michael mentioned State Route 91 in Orange County has a BRT lane, and
that Houston has a HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lane, and Janet spoke of
"HOT BUS" as a marrying of HOT and BRT; she also mentioned "value
pricing".

Peter Beckmann asked what our strategy should be vis-a-vis the RTC and
its upcoming initial prioritizing of the list of options at its June 3
meeting.

Madeleine arrived and distributed the formatted pages of "SCCRTC
Project Options", catagorized according to type---a useful list for
discussion purposes.

Janet and Bill both thought that BRT should be introduced into the
discussion, with the idea of creating a BRT/HOT lane on the Route 1
freeway.

Dick Little felt this might be a "win-win" idea.

Peter Scott noted that in view of the amounts of money to be spent, a
strong consensus on how to spend it is desirable. He also noted that
the recent survey seemed to imply the importance of consensus, both
among the voting population as well as on the RTC.

There was some discussion about the extent to which the TTT should
"advocate" any particular action or alternative. It was agreed that
"urging consensus" does not constitute "advocacy". We also agreed
that it might be helpful to try to draft a paper for discussion.

Madeleine mentioned the manner in which the recently voted-upon
Measure G (within the City of Santa Cruz) combined projects in a way
to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. In that bond measure, which
was strongly supported, funds were approved for greenbelt acquisition,
for fire protection improvements, and for local parks with playing
fields.

Peter Scott mentioned his personal desires for improvements in the bus
system overall, and for actions that could facilitate low-cost
trolleys running on the rail line such as those being envisioned for
Capitola and possibly Santa Cruz. He also expressed anxiety about
creating bus lanes on the freeway if it involved widening the freeway.

Janet said she likes improvements for bikes and pedestrians. She also
felt that if we don't have a visionary plan for the freeway we are
likely to get incremental freeway widening by default.

Debbie said she would like to see purchase of the RR right-of-way and
park-and-ride lots.

Emily said she has heard there might be support for (a) improving the
Soquel/Hwy1 interchange, (b) enabling the RR right-of-way to be used
for bicycles, and (c) for improvements to the local road system
parallel to Hwy 1. She also encouraged employer incentives to "get
people out of their cars" [Gridlock Sam Schwartz's Rule #1].

Bill agreed that it was important to "get people out of their cars".

Dick Little said that his conversation with Gene Bregman (the
consultant who undertook the survey) indicated that widening Hwy 1 to
include an HOV lane, fixing urban and rural roads, and rail on the
Hwy 1 median might be supported.

Regarding tax increases to pay for projects, it was mentioned that
many improvements might be accomplished without a sales tax increase.

We concluded by agreeing to meet to see if some kind of paper could be
drafted that would make recommendations or analyses regarding either
process questions or actual projects as described on the "wish list"
or otherwise.

A special meeting was suggested, and we zeroed in on Monday, May 24
at 5 pm. The Singers and Bill will work up a draft for consideration
at that meeting. Those interested in seeing their views incorporated
are urged to attend. There will likely be a second special meeting to
arrive at a final draft, if that proves possible.

-- Peter Scott, note-taker.

[p.s. I will not be able to attend this next meeting. If I were
there, I would suggest that we try to measure our actions against our
"Mission Statement", which reads (just as a reminder):

===================================================================

** To improve the quality of life by reducing the use of automobiles:

** by educating ourselves and the public;
** by generating ideas for more effective transportation;
** by crossing traditional political, geographical and
psychological boundaries.

===================================================================

I would also urge that any paper produced by the TTT have the
consensual support of the group. I hope that can be achieved, and
that we can, even with this constraint, contribute useful ideas and
information.] [Notations within square brackets like this are my own
comments, thoughts that occured to me as I was writing these notes.]

===================================================================

[FINALLY, The following gem was recently received courtesy of our
County's Recycling Programs Coordinator, Jeff Smedberg. He speaks of
a new book that was just released by the Union of Concerned
Scientists: "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices."

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization
of scientists and citizens working together for a healthy environment.

The book helps people set personal environmental priorities by focusing
on a relatively few especially damaging aspects of their consumption,
people in the US can reduce overall environmental damage dramatically.

The researchers first determined which environmental problems are the
most significant and which of these result primarily from consumer
actions. Then they used an economic input-output model to trace consumer
dollars throughout the economy. Finally, by combining information about
environmental problems with data on consumer spending patterns, they
developed a model to quantitatively analyze how specific purchases affect
the environment.

The most important conclusion of the research was that, of the 50 broad
consumer spending categories identified, ONLY SEVEN are responsible for
the vast majority of consumer-related environmental harm. Changes in
these SEVEN areas will produce the most marked environmental improvement.

The researchers suggest 11 priority actions to address these areas. Some
other consumer activities that are highly damaging did not make it onto the
"DIRTY SEVEN" list, because they account for very small shares of total
consumer spending.

Of the "DIRTY SEVEN" most environmentally harmful consumer categories, the
WORST is use of cars and light trucks.

FIVE of the 11 priority actions suggested for consumers relate to
transportation:

1) Live where you reduce your need to drive.
2) Avoid buying an additional car.
3) Choose fuel-efficient, low-polluting cars.
4) Set concrete goals for reducing car travel (i.e. 10 miles less per week.)
5) Walk, bike, ride public transit.]

===================================================================