Those who believe that we can somehow make transit work through SmartGrowth point to Europe and other countries as models. The reality is that those countries are also part of the global demographic movement favoring (you guessed it) the SOV. Despite vehicle sales taxes in excess of 100%, gas taxes raising prices to $5 per gallon, tolls, and dozens of other mechanisms that the US voter would never tolerate, the transit share is shrinking and the auto share is growing.......worldwide. You can put up "Keep off the grass" signs forever and people will ignore them. Or you can build the sidewalks where the grass is getting worn out. In a democracy, the latter is usually a better course of action. We've messed around putting megabucks into transit for 3 decades now, and it has continually lost market. Time to pave where the bare spots are. Let's get behind the transportation improvement initiative. Let's build some roads.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf Global Trends: Passenger Mobility and Freight Activity

Global Trends and Factors While the pace and extent of change vary, com-mon trends are underway worldwide. For both passenger and freight transportation, motor vehicles are gaining increasing modal shares, often at the expense of other modes. At the same time, many countries are also experiencing rapid growth in passenger and freight air transporta-tion, although it accounts for a relatively small modal share. In general, these changes are occur-ring faster in countries with rapidly developing economies than they are in already industrialized countries. Table 10-1 provides a snapshot of tran-sportation infrastructure in several countries. Passenger Mobility Passenger mobility, whether measured by pkt or vkt or the number of motor vehicles, has in-creased worldwide in the last 20 years. Growth in the use of passenger cars 4 and similar vehicles dominates all the statistics on increased mobility. In addition, air transportation is responsible for a small but rapidly growing part of domestic passenger travel worldwide. Domestic passenger air travel increased an average of 2.5 percent annually (measured in pkt) between 1985 and 1994 worldwide, although this growth was even more rapid in some countries and regions. (OECD 1997) Indeed, in many countries, air travel has been the fastest growing mode of pas-senger transportation in recent decades. (IEA 1996a, 47) Motor vehicles, particularly private passenger cars, are now dominant in most OECD countries and are gaining modal share elsewhere. In 1994, automobiles and similar passenger vehicles accounted for 86 percent of the pkt in the United States and 52 percent in Japan, while they accounted for 80 percent of pkt in Western Europe in 1993 (see figure 10-1). In China, pas-senger road transportation (buses and cars) edged out rail in 1992 to take 46 percent of all passenger-kilometers traveled. (World Bank 1994a) Data are not available for private cars in India, but road transportation accounts for an estimated 85 percent of passenger travel in 1992. (World Bank 1995b) Between 1970 and 1990, growth in both the number of cars and in highway travel was high-er in Europe and Japan than in the United States, as shown by figure 10-2. The United States, however, continues to have more auto-mobiles and more automobiles per capita than any other country. In 1991, the most recent year for which comparative data are available, the United States also led in overall mobility, with 24,331 pkt (15,119 pmt) per person. (As report-ed in chapter 1, the per capita U.S. figure for 1995 was 26,554 pkt (16,500 pmt) by motor vehicles and 27,681 pkt (17,200 pmt) by all forms of transportation.) Most Europeans trav-eled half as much; people in developing coun-tries traveled considerably less (see table 10-2). Non-OECD countries added cars at almost twice the rate as did OECD countries from 1970 to 1990, and accounted for 19 percent of the world
fs passenger cars in the early 1990s. (OECD 1995)

} Western Europe Surface passenger mobility increased an average of 3 percent annually in Western Europe 10 between 1970 and 1990
\from about 2,100 bil-lion pkt (1,300 billion pmt) to approximately 3,900 billion pkt (2,400 billion pmt). Modal shares shifted toward automobiles and airplanes away from railroads and buses. There are still marked differences, however, in car ownership rates among Western European countries (see table 10-5). During the 1980s, air travel grew faster (at 6 percent annually) than travel by pas-senger car (3.3 percent). (Banister and Berech-man 1993) For urban travel, the distance traveled in-creased by more than 50 percent, but the amount of time spent traveling (about one hour per day) and the average number of short journeys (three per day) remained constant. (ECMT 1996a) As shown in figure 10-3, passenger car pkt increased faster than that of rail and buses between 1970 and 1990. Despite their slower growth rate, buses and trains remain important forms of local and regional transportation in all Western European countries. Within urban areas, buses are the dominant public transit mode, but trams prevail in some medium-sized and large cities. In addition, many large cities
\ among them, London and Paris
\have under-ground transit systems. At 424 billion pkt (263 billion pmt) in 1990, buses accounted for more European travel than did trains. (ECMT 1995c) The importance of air transportation varies widely among European countries for economic and geographic reasons. Short intra-country dis- tances mean air travel is primarily international. Even then, surface travel is favored between adjacent European countries. For international trips, the people of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Greece, and Finland are more likely to use air than surface travel, mainly because of geography. Air transportation has been highly regulated in Europe. Reliance on national flag carriers has meant little domestic and reduced international competition, with market capacity and fares pre-determined among airlines and governments. Bilateral deregulation began in 1984 between Britain and the Netherlands, and gradual dereg-ulation under European Commission directives has been underway across Europe; the last phase began in 1997. Lower airline costs and fares are expected for scheduled services. While the fares of European scheduled carriers have been among the highest in the world, average passenger costs have been lower because charters have held a large market share. (Banister and Berechman 1993, 91) With fares about one-third those of scheduled carriers in the mid-1980s, charters annually carried 78 percent of the nearly 19 mil-lion people who flew from Britain to Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece. European governments, individually and col-lectively through the EU, acknowledge the con-gestion and environmental problems resulting from the growing dominance of the private auto-mobile. Many have used regulations, traffic management, and economic measures to hold down auto growth and modal share. Measures include vehicle taxes, fuel taxes, automobile exclusion zones in urban areas, and special road tolls during peak periods. France, for example, has raised tolls on motorways leading into Paris during the Sunday afternoon peak, as people return from weekend excursions. This has result-ed in a more even traffic flow spread out during the day. Zurich has parking constraints and traf-fic controls to limit vehicle entry when an auto-matic monitoring system indicates that con-gestion levels are too high. Other European mea-sures include improving and expanding public transit services and, in some countries, encour-aging bicycle use (see box 10-2). While many of these policies have been used in the United States, most have been applied more aggressively in Europe. Pedestrian-only zones are common in old, historic sections of European cities, and may be more applicable in those cities with their narrow streets than in American cities. Europeans are also more toler-ant of high gasoline taxes and automobile fees. The average price of gasoline ranged from 90
 to almost $1.40 per liter ($3.41 to $5.30 per gallon) in Western Europe and just over 30
 per liter ($1.14 per gallon) in the United States in mid-1996. 11 Figure 10-4 illustrates that the price dif-ference is primarily due to taxes, which can be more than four times greater than the price of gasoline in Europe. European research suggests that policies aimed at reducing automobile use may have had only limited impact. The reasons include: 1) the cost of buying and maintaining a car and pur-chasing gasoline has declined over the last 20 years, while public transit costs have risen; 2) high fuel taxes seem to have caused people to switch to more fuel-efficient cars rather than from car to transit; and 3) improvements in bus service have been too modest to stimulate much added demand. (Salomon et al 1993) One policy that seems to have had some success is high taxes on automobiles. Denmark has the highest auto-mobile tax and the lowest per capita ownership in Northern Europe. Cars are taxed twice: when initially registered (at 125 to 180 percent of the purchase price) and annually thereafter (based on the weight of the vehicle). A recent study con-cludes that no single measure
\improving alter-natives, awareness campaigns, parking fees, taxes, or urban planning
\is successful if used in isolation.

European railroads were originally built by entrepreneurs, as they were in the United States. As their dominant role in transportation gave way to roads, governments nationalized and subsidized rail networks, in part to preserve service. (ECMT 1995f) Today, subsidized European rail is confronted with economic, structural, and cultural changes, and European governments are again attempting to revive their railroads. (EC 1996) Returning rail operation to the private sector, as the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands are doing, is one option. In another effort to expand the role of railroads, Europe has been extending its network of high-speed trains (see box 10-3). } Japan As in Europe and the United States, automobile and air travel are increasing in Japan. In contrast, travel by bus and rail is growing much more slowly. Automobile use has grown 12 per-cent annually since 1960 while rail use grew 5.7 percent per year. (Japan Ministry of Transport 1996) Figure 10-1 shows modal shares for selected years. The first Japanese expressway was completed in 1969. During the next two decades, the Japanese built roads, added passenger cars, and increased their driving at annual rates exceeding those in the United States (see figure 10-2). Today, 80 percent of Japanese households have at least one passenger car, up from 67 percent a decade ago. Japanese commuters face particularly heavy congestion along expressways and arterial roads as they travel in Tokyo and its suburbs. The median Commute time for Tokyo is 43.5 minutes, com-pared With the national median of 27.3 minutes. (Statistics Bureau 1983
|93) The government has attempted to address congestion by adding road-ways, a policy that may help to explain the small change in median commute times between 1983 and 1993. Despite its slower growth rate, rail is still an extremely important mode of passenger trans-portation. In Japan, passenger rail has a higher modal share than in any other developed coun-try, and rail pkt per capita are much higher in Japan than elsewhere in the world (see table 10-6). While rail travel commands a 35 percent modal share nationally, it is concentrated in the Tokyo-Osaka corridor, which is home to almost half of all Japanese. In Nagoya, outside this cor-ridor, rail captures only about 10 percent of per-sonal travel and in Kumamoto, less than 1 percent. Rail and intercity and urban bus travel have suffered from competition with passenger cars. Most trams disappeared from Japanese cities in the 1960s, city buses felt the effects in the early 1970s, and in the late 1970s railways lost pas-sengers. In 1987, because of continuing losses, Japan National Railway was privatized and broken up into six regional lines. The intercity market has grown with improved services, cost reductions, and lower fares (in real terms). Provincial railways, however, still depend on national and provincial subsidies. Hanging over the entire rail system is a $250 billion debt accu-mulated during its nationalization period, for which the government has yet to devise an acceptable repayment plan. Air transportation has become increasingly important. From 1970 to 1990, domestic pkt grew 9 percent per year, gaining a 5 percent modal share. (Japan Ministry of Transport 1996) At about 490 pkt (304 pmt) per capita in 1994, Japanese travel domestically by air consid-erably less, on average, than Americans, who log approximately 2,400 pkt (1,500 pmt) per capita.

I realize pdf files are a pain on a modem, but the ENTIRE document (this website is just for chapter 10) is really worth reading.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999

Answers

Yes, and the demographics show, for the Puget Sound area during rush hour, ridesharing is not declining. I travel round-trip from Gig Harbor to Seattle every day during rush hour. And, I've seen no evidence that the carpool lane is being utilized less than it was 3 years ago. Furthermore, Pierce Transit publishes brochures showing the ridership of their express buses to Seattle has soared by over 30% in the last few years. Also, when I see a bus (during rush hour) on I-5 in the carpool lane, it is more likely to be full than empty. Again, the anecdotal evidence does not support your contention that ridesharing is on the decline.

Finally, Sound Transit has recently added more bus routes, which may take advantage of the carpool lanes. The routes include Tacoma to Sea-Tac, and Federal Way to Bellevue. It would be interesting to see how the ridership climbs on these.

When the facts in our own backyard support your theses, then we'll believe you. Until then, face reality, and support carpool lanes, when they are well-utilized.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 1999.

[I travel round-trip from Gig Harbor to Seattle every day during rush hour. And, I've seen no evidence that the carpool lane is being utilized less than it was 3 years ago.

Again, the anecdotal evidence does not support your contention that ridesharing is on the decline.]

Anecdotes, shmanecdotes. The megatrends are what matters, and the megatrends AS MONITORED BY THE USDOT NATIONALLY AND THE METROKC PLANNING PEOPLE LOCALLY DONT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

I would refer you to the King County Office of Regional Planning and Policy website: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/

Reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Maybe youre touching the trunk, but theres a lot more elephant out there than your anecdotes.

It's still the demographics!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.

The FACTS appear to support Craig. If you don't believe them, you probably ought to tell King County to stop collecting them. I'm sure that collecting them and posting them to the Web ain't cheap.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

It's still the demographics, domestically as well.

From the DOT Transportation Statistics annual report http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/TSAR97.PDF

Transit Ridership and Utilization Total urban transit passenger-miles remained constant between 1985 and 1995. Passenger-miles traveled increased for all rail transit modes, but declined for buses. Heavy rail increased slightly, from 10.4 billion pmt in 1984 to 10.6 billion in 1995. Commuter rail pmt increased about 26 percent, reaching 8.2 billion in 1995. Light rail grew the fastest, increasing from about 350 million pmt in 1985 to 860 million pmt in 1995. Bus pmt was about 17 billion in 1995, about 14 percent less than in 1985. Overall ridership in 1995 was about 11 percent less than in 1985. Some modes gained riders, while ridership on buses and older subways fell (see table 1-6). Increases in transit ridership between 1985 and 1995 were mainly in rail transit services that have opened since the 1970s. Ridership on all rail transit modes in the 14 metropolitan areas with new service 10 rose by 76 percent during this time, as the service provided by their expanding rail systems increased dramatically. At the same time, however, the number of bus riderswho accounted for more than 80 percent of all transit passengers in these cities during 1985fell by 16 percent, partly as a result of the replacement of bus routes by rail lines in many of the most heav-ily traveled corridors in these cities. THE NET RESULT WAS THAT TOTAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN CITIES WITH NEW RAIL SYSTEMS REMAINED NEARLY UNCHANGED OVER THE DECADE. TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IS MOST COMMONLY MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF PAS-SENGER BOARDINGS. BOARDING STATISTICS MAY OVER-STATE THE NUMBER OF TRANSIT TRIPS WHEN RAIL SERVICE REPLACES MAJOR BUS ROUTES FORMERLY SERVING THE SAME CORRIDORS, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE AN IN-CREASED FREQUENCY OF TRANSFERRING BETWEEN FEEDER BUSES AND RAIL VEHICLES. Ridership on the nations older subway systems, which serve Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and Philadelphia,11 declined 17 percent dur-ing this period, most likely in response to fare increases and a decline in downtown employment in some of these cities (see table 1-6). Con-sequently, by 1995 recently constructed systems carried nearly 19 percent of all heavy-rail passen-gers nationwide, up from 11 percent in 1985. Ridership on streetcar lines that serve several older U.S. cities remained unchanged between 1985 and 1995, reflecting the maturity of the older residential suburbs and downtown areas they typically serve (table 1-6). The opening of modern light-rail service in several U.S. cities during that decade produced a large addition to the ridership, ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THIS INCREASE RESULTED FROM THEIR SUBSTITUTION FOR MAJOR BUS ROUTES FORMERLY SERVING THE SAME CORRIDORS. Nevertheless, by 1995 these modern light-rail lines together carried well over half as many rid-ers as the older streetcar systems remaining in U.S. cities.

Table 1-6. Changes in Transit Ridership: 198595 Transit mode 1985 1995 198595 All modes 8,276 7,328 11 Heavy rail 2,296 2,083 9 Older subways 1 2,033 1,696 17 Modern systems 2 263 387 47 Light rail 131 204 56

<. Light rail grew the fastest, increasing from about 350 million pmt in 1985 to 860 million pmt in 1995. Bus pmt was about 17 billion in 1995, about 14 percent less than in 1985.>

For those without calculators, a 2.38 BILLION decrease in bus riders was accompanied by a half Billion increase in light rail riders.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.

Again, you choose to ignore the anecdotal evidence when it doesn't fit your meaningless model. The Puget Sound region must have the most success at faciliating ridesharing. For example, the region has over 1000 vanpool vans plying the highways. What data do yo have showing the number of vanpool vans is steadily decreasing? Likewise, what data do you have showing the express buses to Seattle from Pierce County are steadily declining in ridership? You have no such data, because it's not happening. Take those demographics and, if you don't know where to put them, ask me, I'll tell you! Just kidding. You've been fairly civil, and I should be the same.

But, you should give credit where credit is due. And, you should admit carpool lanes in South King County are working as intended during rush hour. I have no problem opening up the carpool lanes during off-peak hours.

I'm sorry for you that South King County doesn't fit your nice little model. But, those are the facts. Deal with them.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

These aren't exact figures, but in a recent Peter Callaghan column he mentioned that the park and ride that services the Tacoma Dome lot and the Sound Transit express bus service to Seattle fills up every morning by 8:30, and that every bus is filled to capacity (at peak hours it runs every 6 minutes).

If ridership is decreasing, that's only because people are fed up with having standing room only commutes. An issue that will change with the addition of the commuter rail line.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

Matthew-

"The Puget Sound region must have the most success at faciliating ridesharing. For example, the region has over 1000 vanpool vans plying the highways. What data do yo have showing the number of vanpool vans is steadily decreasing? Likewise, what data do you have showing the express buses to Seattle from Pierce County are steadily declining in ridership? You have no such data, because it's not happening."

Actually Matt, I never alleged such a thing. What I said was that the transit mode share is decreasing and the HOV mode share is decreasing, worldwide, and that this region mirrors that trend. That doesn't say that NO ONE uses transit or HOV, just that if that is perceived as the answer, it isn't working now, and it's working less well all the time.

Also, I long ago learned that unless you are willing to do some research, you shouldn't say that information doesn't exist. The most readily available local data on the web is at: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf

This is the King County 1998 benchmark report from the Office of Regional Planning and Policy. The pertinent indicators are Indicator 42, Transit trips per person, page 134 Indicator 43, mode split, page 136,

They show that a fewer percentage of people are using HOV all the time and that, despite all the billions put into Transit in the last decades in this area, there has been no growth in either transit mode share or transit trips per person per year.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

"If ridership is decreasing, that's only because people are fed up with having standing room only commutes. An issue that will change with the addition of the commuter rail line. "

While I don't agree with your first sentence, I am intrigued by your second sentence. What leads you to believe that?

I usually just post about LINK, because the problems with it are so self-apparent with minimal study. Sounder has serious problems too, but they are a little more subtle and require a little more work. But some of these really arent that hard to understand. 1. It is way behind schedule. It was supposed to have already started service by now. It has slipped again, despite a one-train PR ride for the Press and political hacks. 2. It lost $60 million under I-695. I KNOW, there isnt any state money in Sounder, only there really was. They were depending upon some state money that WA DOT has been quietly putting into passenger rail service with AMTRAK for years, ostensibly to satisfy a non- existent demand for passenger rail service between Oregon and BC. Heres a website if you want to learn about it. (http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/pacnwrail3.pdf) In any event, the money is gone and there chances of getting it back are low to non-existent post 695. And Sounder reps have frankly admitted that they dont have a clue how they can get Sounder on line without it. 3. BN/SF will lower the boom on use of the Seattle rail tunnel. They will say that their legal department will not permit them to run any passenger service through there, other than the AMTRAK trains that currently go through, because there is inadequate access in the event of a disaster. And they ARE right. But they wont announce this until all the other money has been spent, because BNSF is getting most of the money for track improvements, and they want to get all the money they can from the RTA before springing it on them. Then RTA either poneys up another $120 million or so (remember, tunnels are expensive. LINK is $100 million a mile because of tunneling, and this is a mile long tunnel that will have to be extensively modified WITHOUT interfering with the freight trains that are constantly using it.), or they just walk away from the quarter billion in improvements they will have already given BNSF by that time. 4. Except for the people that live and work within walking distance of the stations, you are going to need some way to get people to and from the stations. a. Since many of your stations are in city downtowns. Park n rides are probably going to have to be parking garages. These run about $22,000 a stall, plus maintenance. If you are building these in any number, youll dramatically increase the downtown congestion (sound familiar). I dont know if youve bummed around much in Puyallup, Kent, or Auburn, but their traffic is not trivial right now. How many people you planning for? b. As the number of people parking at a park and ride get greater, they get farther from the boarding area. This is particularly the case if you give the buses a close drop off area. Just geometry really. c. Now you can try to bus people to the stations, but US DOT has a number of studies (damned near infinite number, they really enjoy giving grants for studies) many of which indicate it is really hard to get transit riders to transfer, and intermodal transfers are particularly difficult. If you have idle time on your hands, read Transfer Penalties in Urban Mode Choice Modeling (http://www.bts.gov/tmip/papers/mode/transfer/ch5.htm) Not only does it really slow you down to make a transfer, but the perception of the time it takes is actually worse than the reality (which was bad enough to begin with). The fact is, its really difficult to get people to transfer once. Transferring twice is VERY rare. Transferring three times. Not sure its ever been recorded, or perhaps the stoic transit rider attempting it simply died of old age before he pulled it off. 5. Once again I think you are going to see that you have a Theory of Constraints problem here. You are expanding the capacity of one part of an assembly line. That will increase the throughput ONLY if that is the limiting factor and THEN only to the capacity of the NEXT rate limiting step. Put in the transit model, increasing the number of empty seats, once there is not anyone waiting to sit in them, does NOT INCREASE throughput. Thats why new light rail systems never approach their theoretical capacity, but it applies to commuter rail too. 6. There are a lot of people that are going to fight you on running trains through their town. But they run them through there now?, you say. Well, yes, but the deal with BNSF to be allowed to use THEIR tracks, is that the freights get to go 60 mph and the passenger trains are supposed to go 79 mph, to make up for the time they are taking when BNSF could otherwise run freight trains. Towns like Puyallup that had speed limits of 30 mph in the city, are fighting the higher speed limits, due to concern for their kids. Sooner or later a kid (or a car full of kids) will get killed, and you are going to have the whole town fighting you. Or more likely, BNSF will suddenly discover the problem, and extort more money from you to fence off or elevate the track. So tell me, what makes you think that you can pull this off?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.