Stupid No-Compete Fed Rule Hurts Schools

Garfield High School, the edifice that educated Jimi Hendrix and Quincy Jones
Garfield High School in Seattle, photo by flickr user Rutlo

This is old news, but the ridiculous Bush-era holdover rule that prohibits public transit agencies from competing with private coach operators for sporting events also applies to public school buses. Many school districts that have high schools well served by transit have stopped using dedicated school buses and instead give bus passes to students. This FTA ruling, which already has resulted in the cancelation of shuttle service to Mariner’s games, will now cost public schools across the state millions, not to mention the costs across the nation, and comes at a time when tax receipts have fallen so precipitously that public schools all over are laying off teachers, shuttering programmes and raising fees for extra curricular activities.

This rule is terrible and has to go. Come on LaHood!

H/T to Oran.

Volunteer for TCC On Opening Weekend!

A few people have emailed recently to ask what’s going on for opening weekend – and hopefully, the answer is you!

It sounds like Sound Transit’s entire staff will be spread among the stations to answer questions, but with the load expected on opening day, even that will be nowhere near enough. Separately, Transportation Choices Coalition is organizing as many volunteers as they possibly can – as many as 200 – to give out information and answer questions.

I can’t think of anyone better for this job than readers of this blog. I bet half the people riding the system on opening weekend won’t even know what ST2 contains, where U Link is going, or what ORCA is – and this is our chance to inform them. The easiest thing we can do to make people excited about transit is to let them know what’s already happening.

Can you do a four hour shift to help this run smoothly? I know I will be. Email Shefali@TransportationChoices.org if you think you can – or if you just want more information.

San Francisco Getting New, Free Bus Shetlers

San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency, the city’s bus and light rail operator, has unveiled new fancy bus shelters (H/T to Mike Fisher):

 

The panel powers the NextMuni display that tells people when their bus is coming, a Push-To-Talk system so blind people can hear the NextMuni information, and environmentally friendly light bulbs. Each new shelter will also include comfier seats and more maps and transit information. The city is also testing whether the new shelters can have WiFi connectivity after Newsom’s free citywide WiFi idea famously flopped.

Those sound awesome. Here’s a flickr set of the new structures, photos via the Richmond SF Blog. So where is San Francisco getting the money in the midst of the worst economy in generations? It’s something I’ve been talking about for a long time:

Clear Channel Outdoor is paying to create and maintain the shelters in exchange for the advertising space on the sides.

Metro needs to get on the advertising train, they’re leaving millions of dollars unclaimed.

Americans and Car Buying and Health

jeep dealership
Jeep Dealership in Florida, photo courtesy of the Consumerist

Something should be fairly obvious right now, Americans are buying a lot fewer new cars now compared to the peak of the bubble a year and a half ago. Sales have fallen 46%, and the auto-industry is understandably worried. The Treasury Department – the Federal Government will soon own 60% of GM and already owns nearly 10% of Chrysler – thinks cars sales will continue to slide for the next years and doesn’t expect car sales to return to the peak any time soon. It’s an interesting piece, but here’s my favorite paragraph:

“It just became too expensive to have a car,” Ms. Emminger said. Now, she volunteers at City CarShare, a nonprofit organization in San Francisco, in order to earn free use of its vehicles, which normally rent to members for $5 an hour plus 40 cents a mile. Otherwise, she takes public transit.

Lifestyles have changed, too. As many people move back to cities from suburbs, they are swapping three-car garages for a single parking space. Public transit use is up.

Apparently you need to walk 10,000 steps a day to stay fit, and driving keeps most people down to just 1,000. 10,000 is quite a bit of walking, you can see how far you’d walk based on your stride length here. Also, apparently living in a walkable neighborhood makes you 7% less likely to be obese (what’s my excuse?). For years now, experts have noted how car-oriented environments make us fat and how neighborhoods built before 1950 help you stay fit, and they’re even good for kids.

Maybe the combination of fewer cars and less driving will mean a fitter nation? Certainly we are watching a moment where the US is turning into Japan or France, but maybe something more along the lines of Canada or Australia. It’s going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

News Round Up: 46 Days

Hollywood Subway 1946
Hollywood Subway, 1946 photo by Army Arch

In 1946, the first passenger train public address system was unveiled in a New York City subway car. Link’s in-car public-address system has technology that will automatically adjust volume to take into account street noise. Also in 1946, Toronto voters approved a subway system by a nearly ten-to-one vote.

GM as Rail Manufacturer

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

JR-Maglev-MLX01-901_001.jpg

Mike Dukakis and Michael Moore both think GM should get into the rail business, a line of argument to which I’ve been sympathetic. Martin says it probably won’t work, and I think he’s probably right.

Building a efficient railcars means competing against manufacturers that have decades of experience, not to mention miles and miles of testing facilities. It”s a much more specialized field than it was, say, 30 years ago.

By the same token, one has to wonder why we need a domestic auto industry. Historically it was important so that we could re-tool the factories to build tanks and planes in the event of war. Is that even possible today? How many years would it take to re-tool an F-150 factory to start churning out F-35s, given the specialized computer systems and hardware found on each?

Photo of Japan Railway’s maglev test track via Wikipedia

Guest Post Series: In 1996, A Second Chance for Light Rail

by GREG NICKELS, Mayor of Seattle and Chair of the Sound Transit Board
rta01Following the defeat of the March 14, 1995 RTA proposition, things looked bleak for mass transit in Metro Seattle. Despite a relatively close outcome, the votes were not evenly distributed – Seattle, Lake Forest Park and Mercer Island were the only jurisdictions that passed the measure – the rest of King County and both Pierce and Snohomish Counties voted no. In Everett, Light Rail was slightly less popular than Prohibition! There was no requirement that the plan pass in each separate county (just the overall district), but politically it was necessary to show broad support, not just from a Seattle dominated electorate.

Given the math, how could a majority of the RTA Board be convinced to put the measure on the ballot? To make matters worse, the RTA, which had been given revenue from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax for planning, no longer had any income and no legislative support for additional dollars in Olympia. Could the agency even survive until the measure was resubmitted?

Critics often bemoan the absence of leadership in our civic affairs, but I would argue that our regional leaders responded to the defeat of the first RTA plan with creativity and courage. I was approached after the election by two respected political professionals: John Engber and Don McDonough. They quickly convinced me (and ultimately the rest of the Board) that the key to success was to place a revised plan on the Presidential ballot in 1996. The reason? Younger voters would be a much larger proportion of the electorate. Younger voters believe they will be around for a while and therefore are much more likely to vote for a transit plan that may take years to complete (the defeated RTA plan took twenty years to build out).

The problem with November of 1996 was the twenty-month wait. How could an agency with no assets and no revenue survive? And what would it do in the interim?

rta02It began with a listening tour, asking voters why they had rejected the plan. Was it opposition to the entire concept or to certain aspects of the specific plan they rejected? The Board laid off most of the staff, keeping just 22 folks to reduce expenses to a bare minimum. Operating funds were borrowed from King County. The original Executive Director, Tom Matoff, resigned to give the Board a clean slate moving forward (Tom was a light rail guy with little interest in express bus or HOV access). Planning director Bob White (one of the original Metro staff) replaced Matoff.

Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel took over as the Board Chair despite the terrible showing the proposition had in his county. Work soon focused on some basic concepts – a smaller initial phase (somewhat ironic given that this was the big reason for Everett’s opposition) with a shorter timeframe and more investments in express bus service and HOV access projects. This was an attempt to respond to concerns raised in our listening tour. Among the issues we heard were accountability for such a huge program from an agency with no track record and that there was nothing in the plan for many parts of the RTA district for many years (if ever).

In the end the phase one plan the Board put on the ballot, now called Sound Move, was reduced from $6.7 billion to $3.9 billion (1996 dollars) and Light Rail scaled back to a line from the UW to Sea-Tac (with a door open for Northgate if additional funds were secured). Added were park and ride lots, access ramps to HOV lanes and a concept called “sub-area equity”, the concept that funds should return to the county or sub-region in rough proportion to what they had paid. The time frame for completing phase one was pegged at 10 years. The election was set for November 5, 1996.

The campaign again was hard fought, but this time the proponents were less defensive. We focused more on grass roots support and less from “opinion leaders”. It worked, voters in all three counties approved the plan, 58.8% in King County, 54.4% in Snohomish and even Pierce voters gave a 50.1% nod to the yes side.

At last it looked like smooth sailing for a Metro Seattle mass transit system!

Sound Transit: Slower Bus Rollout, More Riders

The Prop. 1 package has suffered its first casualty as a result of the recession.  Thanks to lower sales tax collections, and a three-month delay in implementing the tax in the first place, there will not be 100,000 new service hours in 2009; instead, there will be 24,000 this year with the rest phased in by February 2011.  If you prefer to phrase it another way, there will be 48,000 additional service hours after the tax has been in effect for one year.

On May 26, the Sound Transit board  chose this staff option over an alternative that took until September 2011.  The difference in the slower plan was that ST would have delayed a September 2009 service increase.  A massive February 2010 service change occurred in either plan, but follow-on improvements would have slid back about 6 months.

A clear yet exhaustive comparison of the current plan and the rejected one is here (pdf).  An even more detailed staff report (pdf) is available as well.  The deferred plan was estimated to save about $10m.

UPDATE (2 Jun): The various Sound Transit 2 plan documents are careful to say “Express Bus improvements beginning in 2009.”  (emphasis mine).  The YES statement, in the King County Voter’s Pamphlet, suggests “100,000 hours of additional service in 2009.”  It may very well be that completion in 2009 was never feasible and it’s simply an error by the authors of the YES statement.

**********

ST also released its quarterly ridership report (pdf) last week.  Ridership rose in spite of the economy.  Although that’s partially due to increased service, bus boardings per revenue hour increased.  Although ridership is up, the productivity metrics for Sounder actually deteriorated because of sparsely utilized reverse-peak trips.  These cost virtually nothing to provide, because the train has to get back to Tacoma to do another run anyway.

I’m not really sure why ST doesn’t also track productivity per operating hour as well as revenue hour, since that would correct these kind of metric-related problems.