##################################################################
TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #10: JUNE 2, 1999
##################################################################
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY JUNE 16, 1999 <>
<> STARTING at 5 pm, at CAFE BRASIL <>
<> 1410 Mission Street in Santa Cruz <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
[[[[[[[[[
NOTE 1: I am appending two pieces that may be of interest to readers:
(a) an email received from Rachel O'Malley about why she does not use
the Hwy 17 Express Bus, and
(b) an article from the May 30 Sunday Times from England, entitled
"Councils to Push Drivers Off Roads".
NOTE 2: Two special TTT meetings were held on May 24 and May 26, to
consider Janet and Michael Singers's description of their BRT/HOT lanes
proposal, but I was unable to attend those meetings, and we do not
have notes from them yet. Their proposal is posted on their web site.
]]]]]]]]]
Eleven people attended our meeting on June 2, 1999: Jeff Almquist,
Peter Beckmann, Debbie Bulger, Bill Comfort, Scott Graham, Madeleine
Hormann, Peter Scott, Janet Singer, Michael Singer, Richard Stover and
David Walworth. Debbie facilitated the meeting.
We started with some general discussion relating to the Major
Transportation Investment Study (MTIS) since the SCCRTC is now in the
process of evaluating and choosing among Hwy 1 corridor alternatives
and this topic has been on our mind. [In the next three paragraphs I
include language that appears in an MTIS report dated March 28, 1997.
It describes the historical evolution of the MTIS study.]
It was pointed out that the MTIS was designed to select and evaluate
various transportation alternatives (alternative transportation
improvement strategies) in the Watsonville Junction to UCSC
transportation corridor. Such studies are required by the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highways Administration, for
all major highway and transit improvement projects, prior to their
being included in local transportation plans elegible for federal
funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) of 1991. The ISTEA also requires that all studies of major
transportation improvement strategies be multi-modal in nature, so
that both highway and transit solutions must be considered and
evaluated in any study.
The MTIS evolved from a number of passenger rail studies, culminating
in the "Santa Cruz Fixed Guideway Project Corridor Refinement Study" of
1993. (In 1991, a group of government, business, and environmental
leaders endorsed the concept of defining fixed guideway solutions for
the Watsonville-Santa Cruz-UCSC Corridor, and in 1993 the SCCRTC's
Regional Transportation Plan identified the need and desire for a
"fixed guideway" component of the transportation system to
"significantly increase the mix and availability of convenient and
accessible alternatives to the private automobile in Santa Cruz
County.")
The MTIS process winnowed down, from an initial 34 alternatives,
8 alternatives for further study, consisting of the status quo,
widening of Hwy 1, three bus alternatives and three rail alternatives.
The planning horizon for the MTIS is the year 2015.
Richard asked whether funds can be obtained for items not in the MTIS.
Janet suggested that the FTA will not fund items in the absence of an
MTIS (presumably as described above--however this would appear to
apply only to ISTEA funding).
Peter Scott, wanting to return to an earlier agenda item, asked that
we spend some time discussing criteria by which various alternatives
should be evaluated, noting that cost and transit time, while useful
indicators, are not the only ones paid attention to by the users. He
suggested that we add "life-cycle" and "quality of experience" to the
list. Bill Comfort also suggested the "number of people served" is an
important factor.
Dave spoke of various "economies": economy of dollars, economy of
energy, economy of space.
Richard noted that some comparisons are difficult: for roads, the
users supply the vehicles and the energy, whereas for rail and bus
users, the energy and vehicles are supplied by the system.
Bill also mentioned safety as a criterion.
Michael noted that when speaking of energy, what is really of concern
is not so much energy per se, but the pollutants resulting from such
energy use.
We struggled to get a grip: Peter Beckmann noted that we have not
agreed because, perhaps, we have not agreed on goals.
Janet suggested we take a "systemwide" view, considering flows of
people, goods and energy without degrading quality of life. She made
reference to an Australian book whose author and name I failed to
record.
Peter Scott returned to "Gridlock" Sam's principle #1: Get people out
of their cars. He also made reference to a piece appearing recently
in the British press (the Sunday Times), referring to efforts by local
governments to eliminate automobiles from the urban scene. [see
appended article.]
Janet expressed a desire to have a county guideline in the form of a
long-range plan, and noted that analysis of "heavy commuter rail" in
our less densely populated county shows that it would not perform well
enough to qualify for federal funding.
Madeleine noted that the MTIS can be considered as one piece to be
inserted into an overall plan.
Jeff noted some similarities between the MTIS and a study undertaken
in northern California related to the effects of timber harvesting in
the Jackson State Forest (Casper Creek Watershed) lands: we may use
the information obtained for "whatever our purposes are". [A
conference on this subject about a year ago is described on a web
page: http://rsl.psw.fs.fed.us/projects/water/symposium.html. Logging
in Jackson State Forest is clearly controversial.]
We concluded our discussion by noting that we have a difficult problem
to grapple with, and that the SCCRTC meeting scheduled for June 3rd
has an agenda item in which commissioners may start to "winnow down"
the Commission's own "wish list" of alternatives. Several of us
expect to attend that meeting. [NOTE: the Commission did not have
the opportunity to make any decisions at that meeting, owing to the
volume of public testimony. A special meeting was scheduled for July 1,
at which time the SCCRTC members plan to set definite priorities.]
[The SCMTD Board also met on June 11 to make its recommendations,
passing a motion that urged (a) support for expanded public transit
alternatives, including soliciting funding, and (b) not to support
alternatives that would degrade the bus system, whose goal should be
350,000 hours by the year 2015. (The current service level is 219,000
hours.) This latter vote could have implications in that several of the
SCMTD Board members also sit on the SCCRTC. There was also sentiment
expressed by an apparent majority of the SCMTD Board members that they
did not want any rail proposal to compete for funds with bus system
improvements.]
We agreed to meet next on June 16 at the usual time and place to
continue our discussions regarding the MTIS issues. Hope to see you
there. Cafe Brasil at 5 pm.
-- Peter Scott, note-taker
====================================================================
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS EMAIL LIST, WRITE TO PETER ||
|| drip@cats.ucsc.edu WHO WILL TAKE YOU OFF ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
====================================================================
1. Rachel O'Malley wrote to us recently with some thoughts about the
Hwy 17 Express service:
---
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 15:39:48 PDT
From: "Rachel Emerson O'Malley" <rom@cats.UCSC.EDU>
To: Peter Scott <drip@cats.UCSC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Trans Think Tank notes for 5.5.99
One more vote for Hwy 17 bus going to the metro. I commute from near
downtown santa cruz to SJSU, the most obvious commute for the HWY 17 bus.
Before I started working, I thought I would take the bus daily. When I
was studying at UCSC I rode my bike daily.
As it now stands, I drive most days.
WHY?
Once I am in my car (driving to SV), I am much more likely to stay in it.
It's a psychological thing. Driving all the way in to Scott's Valley, or
even pasatiempo, and tying up the family vehicle sitting there all day is
not worth the inconveniences of taking the bus. If I could walk to the bus
station (e.g. downtown), and never change buses or get into the car, it
would be worth it for me.
A few other suggestions:
-- a phone number to call to get schedule information before 8:00 a.m and
after 5:00 p.m.
-- post schedule information on the bus stop poles
-- sell punchcards for multiple fares for occasional riders (no discount
needed, just to avoid the perennial correct change problem)
-- install work tables (like airplane seats) for computer work en route
-- run buses onthe weekend for the beach traffic
-- as ridership increases in response to all the other improvements,
increase frequency (particularly returning to santa cruz after 5:45 p.m.)
I, too have noticed that it is always the same crowd on the bus, when I do
take it. It is the individuals for whom the drawbacks are not too great
and who have worked out the kinks. I believe that there could be an even
larger pool of regular riders, as well as incidental riders, if the service
were more centrally located, connected with other buses from around town,
ran more frequently, and were advertised better.
Sorry for the long comment. Every time I ride this line I am inspired by
all the potential for improvement.
Rachel
====================================================================
2. Here is an article FROM the SUNDAY TIMES --- May 30 1999
Councils to push drivers off roads
by Stephen Bevan
HUNDREDS of miles of high streets and main roads are to be declared
car-free zones under radical green transport policies being drawn up by
local authorities.
Among the more radical measures aimed at making life difficult for the
motorist are "intelligent" traffic lights that detect pedestrians and hold
cars until they have crossed; pelican crossings that change as soon as a
button is pressed - ending the current wait - and "smart" bollards that
sink into the road to allow buses through, but that rise up to block
oncoming cars.
The aim of the policies is to make car use so expensive and journeys so
time-consuming that motorists will swap their vehicles for cycling,
walking or public transport.
Other measures are designed to hit Britain's 26m car owners where it
hurts, such as Wiltshire county council's proposal to abolish car park
season tickets and a plan by the seven West Midlands councils, including
Birmingham, to charge a £250 tax on company car spaces.
The measures emerged from a Sunday Times survey of local authorities--
the first attempt to draw a national picture of the changes and their
effects.
Stephen Joseph, of Transport 2000, a green lobby group, said the plans
signalled an end to the domination of the car. "A lot of people use cars
but they don't like them when they dominate towns and cities. This
represents a sea change where cars will be on tap but not on top."
Perhaps the most controversial plans are those to ban cars from many town
and city centres.
The trend is well advanced in most big cities. Birmingham has
pedestrianised a quarter of its city centre and plans to convert another
20%, while Liverpool is considering extending its scheme.
Smaller towns are following these examples. In Essex, the county council
plans to close 25 miles of road to motorists, banning cars from Brentwood
and Clacton town centres. Elsewhere, Dorset will be pedestrianising six
miles of roads and Durham city is planning more bus-only streets.
In areas where cars cannot be excluded they will be slowed to a crawl by
measures such as traffic lights that favour pedestrians and cyclists, road
humps and rough surfaces that give an uncomfortably bumpy ride except at
low speed, and increasingly tough parking rules.
Devon and Bedfordshire county councils are among the leaders in such
schemes with plans for traffic lights that not only change as soon as
pedestrians press a button but which also stay red for longer than a
pedestrian needs to cross. Bedford town centre has been pedestrianised
and further schemes in the region are being considered.
Many councils are combining a policy of persecuting the car with
encouragements for benign modes of transport. Bromley is proposing free
shower facilities for cyclists while Liverpool plans more free supervised
bike parks.
Some cities are, however, moderating their approach. In Manchester the
council is closing off a number of main streets to cars, but only during
the day. The council was concerned that deserted streets could be a
temptation to criminals at night. A spokeswoman said: "People feel safer
with cars passing by instead of it being purely pedestrianised."
Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said such local initiatives would
achieve only modest results. He said: "The government expects 25% more cars
on our roads in 10 years' time than now and we need a national target for
road traffic reduction."
====================================================================