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

TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #12: JULY 7, 1999

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

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY JULY 21, 1999 <>
<> STARTING at 5 pm, at APTOS FIRE HOUSE <>
<> 6934 SOQUEL DRIVE, APTOS <>
<> (NOTE THIS IS NOT OUR USUAL MEETING VENUE. <>
<> POSSIBLE SPECIAL GUEST: MARCELA TAVANTZIS FROM WATSONVILLE) <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

We began the meeting shortly after 5 pm. Attending were
Peter Beckmann, Bill Comfort, Bruce Gabriel, Fred Geiger,
Madeleine Hormann, Emily Reilly, Peter Scott, Janet Singer,
Michael Singer and David Walworth.

Emily agreed to facilitate the meeting. Peter Scott took notes as
usual.

Bill suggested that we might try our next meeting at the Aptos Fire
House in order to make our meeting more accessible for those from
Watsonville who might be interested. He said that he had arranged to
reserve this venue for us. It was agreed by those present that our
next meeting will take place at the Aptos Fire House. It is easily
accessible by bus. (He suggested the 69L, which transforms into the
54.)

Madeleine gave a brief synopsis of the meeting of the Regional
Transportation Commission that took place on July 1. The commission
voted each item on the 55-plus item wishlist. Six votes (there are
ten commissioners) were required to keep an item on the list. The
voting was done without debate or discussion, at least at first.
Among the items to be retained were Hwy 1 widening, including
auxiliary lanes, bike lanes throughout the county, purchase of the
rail right-of-way, and expanded bus service. None of the rail
alternatives received sufficient votes to be retained on the list.

[Madeleine also handed out copies of papers related to induced demand,
including one containing Peter Scott's graph showing peak-hour traffic
on Hwy 1 (between Soquel and Morrissey) between 1966 and 1995
(Caltrans data), and what happens when the road reaches capacity
(which it apparently did in 1986). There was also the STPP analysis of
the 15-year Texas Transportation Institute Study's data, concluding that
expanding road capacity does little to provide congestion relief, and
a brochure from AMTRAK providing information about how rail can
provide congestion relief but the financing is difficult.]

There was discussion about sources of funds. It is expected that from
various state and federal funding sources perhaps $192 million might
be available, plus $11 million from Prop 116, although it was not
clear how the latter could be used, since rail alternatives were not
supported. The current estimate for Hwy 1 widening is $245 million,
although it was suggested that Caltrans might re-estimate this price
tag.

Madeleine noted that it might be hard to find funding sources
("revenue streams") for "HOT" (High-occupancy free, Others Tolled)
lanes---an option supported by some of the commissioners.

Janet noted that HOT lanes would be ideally part of an "integrated"
system. It was noted that added HOV lanes were proposed for a section
of Hwy 101 in Sonoma County last year. This idea was apparently
supported by a popular vote in Sonoma County, although the needed
funding (1/2 percent sales tax increase) was not supported. [Did I
get this right? My understanding is that the vote took place in
November 1998.]

Emily asked whether at the August 5th meeting of the SCCRTC, would
testimony be limited to options that made the cut. None present knew
the answer to this question. Would the list be narrowed further?
Bill thought that there would probably be a "package" proposed, and
that it would be an iterative process.

Bruce noted that he was planning to meet with Jan Beautz and Jeff
Almquist to discuss such a "package". It was noted that a substantial
consensus would be needed to survive inevitable changes in the
political climate. Bruce commented on the need to investigate funding
sources.

Peter Beckmann offered that "low-key" options might result in high
consensus.

Peter Scott asked why the coastal trolley idea was eliminated.
Bill thought it was because it would not divert significant numbers of
travelers from the SOV mode of Hwy 1, and Janet thought it was because
it was not a well-enough defined proposal. Bill mentioned that when
he first heard of the proposal it was to be a private venture.

There was some discussion of PRT (personal rapid transit), with Peter
Beckmann noting that it had its drawbacks. Peter Scott wondered
whether it was a well-tested mode. Fred Geiger thought it might be a
good option for "feeders". Michael said he was neutral re PRT, but
that an example (1970) exists in Morgantown, West Virginia, where a PRT
connects the city with a university campus. Peter Beckmann noted that
there was a presentation at the City Transportation Commission.

Bruce noted that the SCMTD recently took first steps toward an
improved Hwy 17 express bus service. [applause.]

Dave asked what effect a widened Hwy 1 would have on air quality.
Janet displayed Fig. 6 from the MTIS study indicating that each of the
options (rail, road widening, etc) showed only small deviations (of
the order of a per cent or two) from the baseline air quality
projection, at least in terms of CO2 and NOX. She also felt that only
high gas tax or cashout measures showed promise for not degrading air
quality.

Peter Scott wondered what the comparison in air quality between
"baseline" (2015 if we do nothing) and "current", but no one knew the
answer to the question.

Speaking of safety issues, Bill noted that there is a natural trend
toward more massive autos---twice the mass means 10 times safer, he
said. Peter Scott suggested that safety could be improved by paying
attention to our mission statement---reduce dependence on the
automobile; regardless of the mass of the machine, if we don't use it
at all, it's safer.

Michael noted that the greatest societal cost relates to the safety
issue, and Bill alleged that in France, drunk drivers are required to
drive the smallest vehicle. Doing what we're now doing is not
effective.

Emily brought up the importance of marketing, a topic we have
discussed previously, and noted that on her recent trip to the east
coast there was considerable advertising for public transit. Peter
Beckmann noted that he saw no budget in the MTIS process for
marketing; the situation is unbalanced, in that there is lots of
advertising for private autos.

Madeleine noted the ironical situation that there are now ads for
autos on the sides of our buses!

Speaking of making buses attractive, Emily noted that she buys bus
passes for her employees, but that they often expire before they can
be used. She asked about "punch cards". They are available, but not
with any rate reduction factor. Maybe there should be some financial
incentive for buying punch cards.

We finished up with Janet distributing a draft of a list of "Induced"
travel links, still in process, with links collected from the Sierra
Club, Transact (STTP), Darin Burleigh, the Modern Transit Society and
others. Janet also passed on a short critique of the STTP's analysis of
the Texas Institute Study's data, pointing out a problem in her view
that population growth was not controlled for.

We adjourned about 6:30 pm. We'll meet next time in Aptos, as
described at the start of these notes.

-- Peter Scott, note-taker

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS EMAIL LIST, WRITE TO PETER ||
|| drip@cats.ucsc.edu WHO WILL TAKE YOU OFF ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||