Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

urban mobility study

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Kennedy
    new report from texas transportation institute states 90 billion is lost due to the american commute. this is getting a ton of press and unfortunately, what
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      new report from texas transportation institute states 90 billion is lost due
      to the american commute. this is getting a ton of press and unfortunately,
      what was reported on the news, is that their suggestion is for 350 billion
      in "improved" highways (engineers term meaning widened and expanded).
      anybody know how to find the funding sources for this institute?? i've been
      searching their website to no avail. but i've got money that state and
      federal highway admins. are involved and perhaps some corporate dollars from
      sources like AAA, GM, exxon mobil, etc. etc.

      here is the link from texas transportation institute:

      New congestion study shows remedies working, but traffic jams still growing
      Traffic congestion nationwide continues to worsen, but the burden would be
      far greater without a handful of remedies already in place, according to the
      nation's longest running study of traffic jams.
      Researchers have spent years refining their understanding of America's
      traffic problem. This year, those same experts for the first time have a
      clearer understanding of the magnitude of the problem facing urban America,
      and what will fix it.

      The annual Urban Mobility Report, published by the Texas Transportation
      Institute, this year measures the effect of five congestion remedies in the
      cities where they are being used. Specifically, the study illustrates the
      effect of public transportation service and bus and carpool lanes, and three
      types of roadway operating efficiencies - traffic signal coordination,
      freeway incident management (clearing crashes and disabled vehicles) and the
      use of freeway entrance ramp meters (signals that regulate traffic flow onto
      the freeway). Estimates of the effect from those improvements are reflected
      in this year's study, which uses 2001 data, the most recent available.

      Learn more about the 2003 Urban Mobility Study
      <http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/>.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 8:04 AM
      To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [carfree_cities] Digest Number 1099


      To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      There are 12 messages in this issue.

      Topics in this digest:

      1. Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      2. Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      3. Re: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to
      Quit?
      From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
      4. Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      5. My plan for Houston.
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      6. Re: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to
      Quit?
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
      7. Re: statistical data of carfree households in US-cities
      From: "autofrei-wohnen.de" <info@...>
      8. Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      9. Limits to Renewable Conversion of Hydrogen
      From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
      10. Star Tribune Article
      From: Richard <rickrise@...>
      11. Articles from Sacramento, Houston
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
      12. Re: Star Tribune Article
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 1
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:00:09 -0000
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      Subject: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?

      Certainly we need to reduce the dependence on automobiles.
      But "the cat is out of the bag" in that people like the
      freedom and status of owning an automobile. I want to see
      automobile ownership as a luxury, not a necessity. In Houston,
      the way housing, shopping and work is spread out for miles,
      an automobile is a necessity for many. A hydrogen automobile
      is a small part of a bigger problem. It is fantasy to think
      the automobile is going to disappear. This Utopian nonsense.
      What I want is be able to work and live without owning an
      automobile. That is not possible in Houston. While 95% of the
      people who own a 4-wheel drive don't need it for off-road
      travel, there is still the the 5% who do. (Fictitious figures,
      of course.) Sure, some people may think that converting to
      all Hydrogen automobiles can keep things the same, but that
      is a fantasy as well. The fact is, we need BOTH mass transit
      and automobile travel. Most mass transit systems are powered
      by electricity, so are potentially environmentally safe. The
      automobile is just another part of the equation. I think
      making the automobile environmentally safe is a worth while
      effort.

      DLF

      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Richard Risemberg
      <rickrise@e...> wrote:
      > Maybe we should just stop trying to wedge cars into every corner of
      > our lives. As listmembers have pointed out many times, making
      > hydrogen or hybrid or zero-emissions cars solves only one problem
      > of the many cars cause.
      >
      > It's far more important to work on the real problem, which is making
      > cars irrelevant and unnecessary, by so constructing our cities and
      > towns that a great deal of travel is not needed in daily life, and
      > what travel is needed one can accomplish through efficient and
      > pelasureable methods, such as mass transit or simply walking, that
      > don't occupy 70% of our money, time, and land surface, to the
      > exclusion of far more productive activities such as working and
      > taking pleasure in nature, friends, etc.
      >
      > Who cares to sit in a traffic jam in a 14-lane bleakscape for 5 hours
      > each day in a hydrogen car? You won't solve the real problem with
      > hyrdogen--you'll actually extenuate it.




      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 2
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:38:22 -0000
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      Subject: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?

      Hydrogen is made from water, and turns into water
      when consumed. What other portable fuel has such
      a clean, closed loop? That's the important part.
      What other fuel can be used this way? Methane?
      If there is any, I would like to know about it.

      I hear Green Mountain Energy is expanding their
      wind farm here in Texas. The move to get electricity
      from sources other than fossil fuels is happening.

      DLF


      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "turpin" <turpin@y...> wrote:

      > No, I just don't see hydrogen cars
      > as an end in themselves. I fully
      > support shifting to alternatively
      > fueled power plants. I think it is
      > inevitable.
      >
      > But once it happens, what makes you
      > think that hydrogen will then be
      > the energy carrier of choice for
      > automobiles and other purposes?
      > There are lots of alternatives that
      > might then be clearly more
      > economical. My own suspicion is that
      > electric-gas hybrids will become
      > popular as fuel prices rise, and
      > that in their next logical evolution,
      > car manufacturers will build in a
      > recharger, so that fuel starts to be
      > seen as auxiliary. (Along the way, I
      > also think cars will get smaller and
      > more efficient, and that urban
      > architecture will shift to favoring
      > other modes of transport.)




      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 3
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
      From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
      Subject: Re: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to
      Quit?

      > Hydrogen is made from water, and turns into water
      > when consumed. What other portable fuel has such a
      > clean, closed loop?

      =v= Good grief, haven't we been over this a dozen times
      already?

      =v= Unless you've worked out a miraculous new fourth
      law of thermodynamics, this is not a closed loop. It
      takes energy to make hydrogen from water. The source
      of this energy is currently slated to be fossil fuels
      and nuclear power (see e.g. the Bush Administration's
      energy plan).

      =v= Of course, renewable energy sources do exist, and
      it's been argued that this could make the hydrogen for
      us. Unfortunately, even if we dedicated all of it to
      the unlaudable goal of moving people around in personal
      cars, there still wouldn't be enough. And everything
      else would have to run on "dirty" energy sources.

      =v= Which brings us right back to the imperative to
      design our cities' transportation infrastructure for
      modes that don't squander our precious and limited
      renewable energy sources.
      <_Jym_>

      P.S.: Take a peek at His Illegitude's energy budget
      some time. Notice how the high cost of decommissioning
      nuclear power plants takes up much of the "renewable
      energy" budget.

      Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q :::
      jym@... ::::::::::::::::: "My other car is :: ==`\(s_ ::
      http://www.things.org/~jym/ :::: also a bicycle." :: (_)/ (_) ::

      In the last fifty years, the US has used up more resources
      than all the rest of the world in all previous history.
      -- David Brower, 1996


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 4
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:08:43 -0000
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      Subject: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?

      Certainly, if we could magically replace all automobiles, fuel
      stations, etc.... to hydorgen, it would not solve all of the
      problems of the automobile. Another issue we face is the ever
      rising need for transportation. Unless we institute population
      control laws, such as in China, and we keep all immigrants out,
      our cities will always need to support an ever growing population
      with jobs, food, education and transportation.

      Yes, we need to do something about this SUV nonsense. But, even
      after we get rid of many of the automobiles, there will always
      be some left. And I would prefer that they be as enviromentally
      safe as possible. Hydrogen may be a good solution. (Certainly not
      the only solution.)

      DLF


      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, mtneuman@j... wrote:
      > I have to agree. It's not being defeatist to let the hydrogen curve
      > ball go by without swinging at it. It would not be the home run the
      > fossil fuel advocates say it would be anyway. So we should not be
      > planning on it. Not now at least.
      >
      > The fact of the matter is, we must begin to drive what we have on the
      > road now more responsibly; and that means everyone needs to drive
      > less, or not at all. Moreover, the auto companies need to stop
      > promoting big cars and Hummers that are gasoline hogs, while they
      > excusing themselves by saying those are the kind of vehicles the
      > public is asking for. To be sure, the public would not be asking for
      > those kind of vehicles if the auto sellers were not promoting them so
      > heavily with their rough and tuff advertisements.
      >
      > There is so much public deception going being done by the auto
      > companies (GM in particular), the oil industry (Exxon), and the
      > politicians (Bush supporters), who get rewards from the other two,
      > that it's threatening the future of the planet now. Yet they hire
      > their own scientists to mislead the public into thinking global
      > warming is not a problem and that, even if it were, burning oil
      > would not be the cause. It's sickening. They're throwing spitballs,
      > and the umps are being paid to let them get away with it. Worse than
      > Pete Rose, by a long shot.
      >
      > Mike




      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 5
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:31:10 -0000
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      Subject: My plan for Houston.

      This is how I would like to change Houston.

      Install a Monorail system that connects the major work and shopping
      locations. The Monorails would go from the Shopping Malls in the
      suburbs to the larger office parks. During the working day, most malls
      are vacant parking lots, let them serve as park-n-rides for the
      monorail. No need to mow down more trees for park-n-rides. Why not rip
      up the streets for Light Rail? Because we need those streets today.
      (Actually, one of many reasons.) Why not use the current railroad
      R.O.W. for commuter trains? Because they don't go to where people work
      or live.

      Let the housing developers build apartments around these malls. Then
      people can walk to the monorail to ride into work. Now you have a
      situation where people don't need to park, just to ride. As the need
      for the parking lot decreases, the developer can expand the mall or
      build other things on the land, such as office space or apartments.
      This will create a town where people can walk to most of the places
      they need to go, and ride the monorail to places farther away.

      Monorail can be built into existing road corridors with minimal
      disruption of existing traffic. They can be built to go into existing
      buildings so that fewer stations have be built. They can be designed
      to take you directly to where you need to go without employing the
      "slash and burn" building practices that are in use today.

      DLF



      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 6
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:39:30 -0500
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
      Subject: Re: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to
      Quit?

      Note also that half of the energy consumed by an automobile is in its
      manufacture. We'll have cheap energy for a few more years, and then
      production will never again be able to keep up with supply. The automobile
      will revert to what it was in the early twentieth century, an expensive toy
      that only the rich can afford.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jym Dyer" <jym@...>
      To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a
      Good Time to Quit?


      > > Hydrogen is made from water, and turns into water
      > > when consumed. What other portable fuel has such a
      > > clean, closed loop?
      >
      > =v= Good grief, haven't we been over this a dozen times
      > already?
      >
      > =v= Unless you've worked out a miraculous new fourth
      > law of thermodynamics, this is not a closed loop. It
      > takes energy to make hydrogen from water. The source
      > of this energy is currently slated to be fossil fuels
      > and nuclear power (see e.g. the Bush Administration's
      > energy plan).
      >
      > =v= Of course, renewable energy sources do exist, and
      > it's been argued that this could make the hydrogen for
      > us. Unfortunately, even if we dedicated all of it to
      > the unlaudable goal of moving people around in personal
      > cars, there still wouldn't be enough. And everything
      > else would have to run on "dirty" energy sources.
      >
      > =v= Which brings us right back to the imperative to
      > design our cities' transportation infrastructure for
      > modes that don't squander our precious and limited
      > renewable energy sources.
      > <_Jym_>
      >
      > P.S.: Take a peek at His Illegitude's energy budget
      > some time. Notice how the high cost of decommissioning
      > nuclear power plants takes up much of the "renewable
      > energy" budget.
      >
      > Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q :::
      > jym@... ::::::::::::::::: "My other car is :: ==`\(s_ ::
      > http://www.things.org/~jym/ :::: also a bicycle." :: (_)/ (_) ::
      >
      > In the last fifty years, the US has used up more resources
      > than all the rest of the world in all previous history.
      > -- David Brower, 1996
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >



      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 7
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:39:09 +0200
      From: "autofrei-wohnen.de" <info@...>
      Subject: Re: statistical data of carfree households in US-cities

      Hi David,

      Ecocity Builders, Berkeley/CA, gives somes statistical data about carfree
      households in US-Cities, unfortunately, they didn`t publish about Houston,
      but
      maybe they have about your town, too ?
      http://www.preservenet.com/carfreehousing/

      Contact them:
      http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/

      Markus Heller, Berlin
      www.autofrei-wohnen.de/homeEngl.html



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:00 PM
      Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good
      Time to Quit?


      (...)
      | automobile. That is not possible in Houston. While 95% of the
      | people who own a 4-wheel drive don't need it for off-road
      | travel, there is still the the 5% who do. (Fictitious figures,
      | of course.) Sure, some people may think that converting to
      (...)
      | DLF



      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 8
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:53:13 -0000
      From: "David Forbus" <forbus@...>
      Subject: Re: Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy: When's a Good Time to Quit?

      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Jym Dyer <jym@e...> wrote:
      > =v= Unless you've worked out a miraculous new fourth
      > law of thermodynamics, this is not a closed loop. It
      > takes energy to make hydrogen from water. The source
      > of this energy is currently slated to be fossil fuels
      > and nuclear power (see e.g. the Bush Administration's
      > energy plan).

      I don't care about what they have planned. Once the
      demand side of the situation in converted (automobiles
      running on Hydrogen) the we hijack the supply sied.
      (Hydrogen plants running off of wind and/or solar
      power.)

      > =v= Of course, renewable energy sources do exist, and
      > it's been argued that this could make the hydrogen for
      > us. Unfortunately, even if we dedicated all of it to
      > the unlaudable goal of moving people around in personal
      > cars, there still wouldn't be enough. And everything
      > else would have to run on "dirty" energy sources.

      Says who? Most of everything else runs on electricity.
      Converting automobiles to hydrogen is no excuse for not
      developing mass transit.

      > =v= Which brings us right back to the imperative to
      > design our cities' transportation infrastructure for
      > modes that don't squander our precious and limited
      > renewable energy sources.
      > <_Jym_>

      It isn't a baseball game that waits on the actions of
      one or two people to proceed. Many things are happening
      at once. Of course we should build cites that are not
      automobile dependant. But the autmobile will never
      completely disappear, and we need to make it as
      enviromentally friendly as possible.

      > P.S.: Take a peek at His Illegitude's energy budget
      > some time. Notice how the high cost of decommissioning
      > nuclear power plants takes up much of the "renewable
      > energy" budget.

      Yes, that is criminal.

      DLF



      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 9
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
      From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
      Subject: Limits to Renewable Conversion of Hydrogen

      >> Unfortunately, even if we dedicated all of it to the
      >> unlaudable goal of moving people around in personal cars,
      >> there still wouldn't be enough. And everything else would
      >> have to run on "dirty" energy sources.
      > Says who?

      =v= Lots of people. As I already said, this has come up a
      number of times on this list. Here's a pointer to a recent
      report by Malcolm Weiss that was all over the news earlier
      this year:

      http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/reports

      This is just one, recent report. Do a Google search and you
      will find more.

      > Most of everything else runs on electricity. Converting
      > automobiles to hydrogen is no excuse for not developing
      > mass transit.

      =v= It's not a "conversion," it's (1) an investment in the form
      of retooled factories, fueling infrastructure, etc. and (2) the
      perpetuated dedication of surface area to cars. These are too
      many resources to invest and perpetuate for far too little
      benefit. We'd be better off devoting these resources directly
      to mass transit.

      > But the autmobile will never completely disappear, and we
      > need to make it as enviromentally friendly as possible.

      =v= We tried that in the 1970s, when cars got more cleaner and
      fuel-efficient. The result was that people drove them more, and
      land use sprawled further, and the environmental impact was even
      worse. Let's not make the same stupid mistake yet again.
      <_Jym_>


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 10
      Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:46:34 -0500 (CDT)
      From: Richard <rickrise@...>
      Subject: Star Tribune Article


      This article from the Star Tribune has been sent to you by Richard.

      Richard wrote these comments: A Quote:
      "The bottom line is this: Only 24 percent of the cost of St. Paul's roads is
      borne by driver-generated taxes and fees. The other 76 percent is a subsidy
      from general revenues and property assessments. There's no reason to believe
      that St. Paul's situation is atypical for cities and older suburbs."

      BYLINE: Erik Hare
      CREDITLINE:
      HEADLINE: Erik Hare: Think drivers pay the cost of roads? It's a myth


      We tend to assume that driving pays entirely for itself, and that that's
      reason enough for government to favor roads over other transportation
      choices. Not only do drivers pay for their cars, we believe, but also for
      gasoline that is taxed enough to cover the construction and maintenance of
      all the roads we'll ever need.
      But this is a myth.
      Minnesota's 20-cent gasoline tax would have to rise by 39 cents to cover all
      of the state's current road-related expenses. To start building the roads we
      actually need in order to deal with congestion, the tax would have to rise
      42 cents beyond that, pushing the price of gasoline beyond $2.60 a gallon.
      Clearly, somebody besides the driver is paying for Minnesota's roads.
      Drivers -- through gasoline taxes, car registration fees and sales taxes on
      vehicles -- actually pay only 62 percent of the costs of roads. General
      taxpayers "subsidize" the rest, no matter how much or little they drive.
      Because of this arrangement, a good portion of Minnesota's demand for roads
      is forced to compete with the whole array of other pressing government
      needs. This competition now threatens the integrity of our road system,
      especially in busy urban areas. It also chokes off opportunities to provide
      other viable transportation choices, like transit.
      The problem's roots date back to Model T days. Dirt roads were fine for
      horses, but muddy roads were terrible for cars. The political cry to "Get
      the farmers out of the mud!" led to changing the state Constitution in 1920.
      A system of paved trunk highways, plus help for county and city roads, was
      to be funded by a gasoline tax and a vehicle registration fee. Thus pavement
      replaced dirt.
      Much has changed in 83 years, but the outline of that financing structure
      remains in place. A formula for the distribution of state gasoline tax
      revenues (62 percent to the state, 29 percent to counties and 9 percent to
      cities) took effect in 1956, but that hasn't changed either, even as the
      state has become considerably more urban and our economy more diverse and
      sophisticated. We still have a transportation financing scheme designed
      mostly to get farmers out of the mud.
      Thanks to this antiquated system, Minnesotans who tend to drive the least --
      urban residents -- tend to pay a disproportionate cost for roads. Not only
      is this unfair; a heavy reliance on property taxes leaves the entire road
      system vulnerable to other budget constraints.
      St. Paul offers a good case study. Public Works is the largest department in
      city government, accounting for more than a third of municipal operating
      costs. It spends most of its money on roads -- $67.3 million last year.
      But only about 30 percent of that comes from driver-generated income on
      parking, snow-plowing fees and so on. The other 70 percent comes from
      general revenues, assessments based on street frontage and type of property,
      and an infusion of $10.3 million from the city's general fund -- money that
      must compete with police and fire operations and other pressing needs.
      That's still not the whole picture. Debt service is a major part of city
      spending. This year, 36 percent of St. Paul's $78 million in bond repayment
      will go to cover road projects. That's an additional $19.9 million draw on
      the city's hard-pressed general fund.
      The bottom line is this: Only 24 percent of the cost of St. Paul's roads is
      borne by driver-generated taxes and fees. The other 76 percent is a subsidy
      from general revenues and property assessments. There's no reason to believe
      that St. Paul's situation is atypical for cities and older suburbs.
      This scenario is repeated in developing suburbs as well, where state-aid
      roads are only a part of the picture. Feeder streets that are not part of
      the antique aid system are also funded by local property taxes, and these
      costs have to compete with other brand-new infrastructure that has to be
      built daily.
      This pressure is worsened by the state's reluctance to keep up with
      transportation needs. The Transportation Policy Institute recently estimated
      Minnesota's unmet needs at $1.2 billion a year to prevent further
      congestion, bridge closures and so on. The current rate of spending doesn't
      even begin to meet our needs, says Anne Finn of the League of Minnesota
      Cities.
      "We're just not planning for the long-term viability of our paved streets,"
      said Don Sobania of the St. Paul Public Works Department. "My crystal ball
      doesn't show me where that money will come from." A lot of the blame for
      this situation belongs to a funding system that does not direct money to
      where more of it is spent -- the cities.
      We've been less than honest with ourselves about how transportation is paid
      for in Minnesota. We've heard a lot of misleading rhetoric in recent years
      about cars and roads being the superior choice because they are entirely
      paid for by users, while transit is heavily subsidized. But if you add up
      all the money spent in Minnesota on transportation, then subtract the money
      contributed directly by users -- at the gas pump, through registration fees,
      through sales taxes on new vehicles or at the transit fare box -- you'll
      find a leftover subsidy of $1.3 billion from general taxpayers. Of that
      total, 89 percent went to roads.
      Our transportation financing system is as outdated as the Model T it was
      meant to accommodate. Relying on a patchwork of local property taxes to
      shore up the road system obscures Minnesota's real transportation picture
      and crowds out the funding of transit and other alternate modes. It's time
      to stop pretending that driver-related taxes and fees pay the entire cost of
      building and maintaining our roads.

      Erik Hare is a research engineer living in St. Paul.



      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 11
      Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:14:20 -0500
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
      Subject: Articles from Sacramento, Houston

      From: "Nawdry" <nawdry@...>

      * Sacramento: 'New vista for light rail'
      Sacramento Bee Saturday, September 27, 2003

      * Houston: City planners seek 'walkability'
      Houston Chronicle Sept. 26, 2003

      * Houston: Metro wants transit plans put in MPO's plan
      Houston Chronicle Sept. 27, 2003


      =PTP=======================================

      http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7492010p-8434138c.html

      Sacramento Bee
      Saturday, September 27, 2003

      New vista for light rail

      1st new line in 16 years opens to fanfare

      By Tony Bizjak -- Bee Staff Writer


      <PHOTO>
      Riders disembark Friday from a train at the Meadowview end of light rail's
      latest expansion, from downtown to south Sacramento.
      Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro


      With hoopla and high hopes, Sacramento opened its first new light-rail
      line in 16 years Friday, launching a fleet of boxy blue-and-yellow trains
      between downtown and Meadowview Road.

      The $228 million system appeared to run smoothly from the get-go, even
      as politicians, transit officials, train fans and curious residents hopped
      aboard the first trains by the hundreds.

      Gevel Woods, a south Sacramento resident and student at Sacramento
      City College, currently carless, pronounced the ride enjoyable.

      "Darn skippy I'll use it!" he said. "This is much better than the bus."

      Midtown resident Tom Prittie, recalling Sacramento's trolley cars of old,
      wasn't as impressed.

      "It's basically what they ripped out in 1947 and should have kept," he said.
      He liked the roominess, but unlike others who found the ride smooth, he
      said that "we were sliding left to right."

      From its southern terminus at Meadowview Road, the new line follows the
      old Union Pacific right of way 6.3 miles for a 22-minute excursion into
      downtown, leapfrogging Florin Road on a bridge, stopping at Sacramento
      City College and five other new stations.

      It hooks up with the existing light-rail line at several midtown and
      downtown stations. Its turnaround point is on the K Street Mall.

      Sacramento Regional Transit officials project 8,100 weekday boardings by
      2005, many of them people headed to and from work downtown.

      In speeches that stretched through the morning Friday -- threatening to
      put the new line behind schedule on day one -- transit officials and
      politicians repeatedly encouraged people to give the system a try.

      At the same time, they promised to increase light rail's usefulness by
      turning the still-young, modern-day trolley system into a true regional web.
      That includes extending the original light-rail line from its Mather
      terminus
      into the city of Folsom by early 2005, officials said.

      RT also plans a line from the K Street Mall to the train depot in the
      downtown railyards.

      As well, officials plan to extend the south line to Elk Grove, build a new
      line from downtown to Sacramento International Airport, and are talking of
      running light rail into Yolo County and northeast to Antelope.

      Those ambitious plans remain largely unfunded. But RT General Manager
      Beverly Scott said the system must grow to more fully serve people who
      don't drive while getting others out of cars and off congested roadways.

      Speaking to about 500 people at the Florin Station, Assemblyman Darrell
      Steinberg, D-Sacramento, lauded light rail as an environmental plus.

      "Each person who rides the light-rail line represents one less internal
      combustion engine emitting pollutants into the air," he said.

      Even if the line is extended to Elk Grove, transit officials project
      congestion on Highway 99 and Interstate 5 still will reach "failure" level
      at
      times by 2015, meaning significant delays.

      To entice people who don't live near the line, RT built free parking lots at
      the Meadowview, Florin and 47th Avenue stations.

      RT officials this week installed elevated observation booths for security
      guards at the Meadowview and Florin parking lots -- painted beige and
      sporting plastic flowers in window boxes.

      "We're trying to soften the look," RT official Mike Mattos said. "It's to
      protect people; it's not to be Big Brother."

      RT is opening its entire light-rail and bus system for free rides today and
      Sunday.

      Ticketed rides on the new line start Monday. A one-way ticket costs $1.50.
      An all-day ticket is $3.50. A monthly pass is $60. People age 75 and older
      can obtain lifetime passes to ride free.

      Mayor Heather Fargo was among those exhorting residents to ride the rail
      line.

      "Light rail is not a system for your neighbors to use to leave you a parking
      space downtown," she said. "This is not for someone else; this is for us."

      Fargo said she was struck by the amount of developable land near light
      rail in south Sacramento.

      "When you pass the Sutterville railyards, you see this big empty site all
      the way to Curtis Park just waiting to become a neighborhood," she said.

      Although the line has a stop at Sacramento City College, officials said
      they do not know yet how many students will use it.

      College officials plan to negotiate with RT over reduced fares for students.
      Until then, students must pay regular fares.

      College student Sam Maciel, books in backpack and waiting for an
      afternoon train, said he will use light rail instead of the bus to get from
      his
      Rosement home to school and hopes to cut his hourlong transit commute
      in half.

      "This'll be easier," he said.

      Elizabeth Wagner, chairwoman of RT's disabled and elderly committee,
      said the new cars are an improvement because they have more
      wheelchair space.

      "With (older trains), if there are already three wheelchairs on the car, you
      have to wait 15 minutes for the next one," she said.

      But a train every 15 minutes apparently isn't often enough for some
      commuters-to-be.

      Ijanee Johnson, tucked in her aunt's arms at the Meadowview station and
      waiting to be possibly the first 3-year-old to ride the south line, focused
      her eyes intently up the tracks, fretting, "I can't see the train. I can't
      see
      the train."


      <PHOTO>
      Ijanee Johnson, 3, with aunt Jewelle Baker, watches as the light-rail train
      she had been awaiting pulls into the station.
      Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro



      <PHOTO>
      Don Nottoli, Regional Transit board chairman, talks to 5-year-old Aaron
      Wong as David Kennedy rides along with his bicycle.
      Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro



      <PHOTO>
      At the new Meadowview station, Sacramento City Councilwoman Bonnie
      Pannell is among those celebrating the first day of light-rail service to
      south Sacramento.
      Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro


      About the Writer
      ---------------------------

      The Bee's Tony Bizjak can be reached at (916) 321-1059 or
      tbizjak@....



      =PTP=============================================

      Houston Chronicle
      Sept. 26, 2003

      City on road to 'walkability'

      More development targets pedestrians

      By MIKE SNYDER


      The great messy spectacle of urban life washes over the pedestrian who
      strolls down a busy city street, relishing the sights, sounds and smells of
      its people and places.

      Music spills out of a nightclub's open door. Fashions beckon from a store
      window. Lovers stroll hand in hand beneath a corridor of trees. Shoulders
      are bumped, handbags jostled.

      And then there is Houston, where most everyone drives.

      In his assessment of the "walkability" of major U.S. cities, consultant Dan
      Burden ranks Houston second from last, surpassing only Las Vegas, in
      public spaces hospitable to people on foot. In a recent local survey, 87
      percent of the respondents supported efforts to make it easier to walk in
      Houston.

      Yet, however gradually, Houston is becoming more "pedestrian-friendly,"
      the term used by urban planners to describe developments that focus on
      people rather than automobiles.

      Fountains and other amenities are emerging downtown for the benefit of
      those who dare to tread, while support for pedestrian-friendly urban
      design increasingly is surfacing in local planning. It is the key element in
      a
      redesign of downtown streets and creation of a pedestrian plaza on Main
      Street, and the driving force behind a proposed city ordinance that would
      authorize creation of "area plans" with design guidelines.

      Pedestrian-focused development is tied to broader efforts to reduce
      suburban sprawl by building neighborhoods where people can live, work,
      shop and enjoy entertainment within walking distance, reducing the time
      they spend in their cars.

      Beyond such practical considerations, those who want to create more
      attractive places for pedestrians in Houston say there is something
      inherently valuable about vibrant urban street life.

      " `Friendly' is the operative word in `pedestrian-friendly,' " said Houston
      landscape architect Kevin Shanley. "People want to be in an interesting
      sensory environment, to see and hear and smell interesting things."

      In Houston, a city that developed largely during the age of the automobile
      and the air conditioner, walking generally is something one does on a
      track or a trail, or to get from the parking lot or the driveway to the
      door. It
      is not a vital part of daily life as it is in older cities such as New York,
      Boston or Chicago.

      Johanna Tchebull, who recently moved to Houston from Cambridge,
      Mass., to work for the Houston Ballet, said she was immediately struck by
      the absence of foot traffic on the streets of her new hometown.

      "Everything is so car-centered," Tchebull said. "The first week was a little
      hard because I felt like I wasn't going outside a lot. I was getting a
      little stir
      crazy."

      She and others who like to walk in an urban environment still find
      opportunities somewhat scarce. But increasing interest in pedestrian-
      friendly design in the Houston area is surfacing in a variety of forums:

      · In Sugar Land, workers are nearing completion of the first phase of a
      new "town center" project featuring a large central plaza, 17-foot-wide
      sidewalks and other features designed to attract pedestrian activity.

      · In near southwest Houston, residents are trying to persuade city officials
      to include a grassy median in the planned reconstruction of Kirby Drive so
      that people can walk from their homes to shops in the Rice Village. Village
      merchants want to retain a dedicated left-turn lane on that stretch of
      Kirby,
      setting up a conflict between the interests of pedestrians and motorists.

      · In downtown Houston, business leaders say completion of the Cotswold
      Project, a redesign of Houston's historic center, will rejuvenate street
      life
      in the central business district.

      · At City Hall, redevelopment plans for the Main Street corridor and the
      near northside include a strong focus on pedestrians, and supporters of
      these efforts say the new area plan ordinance is an essential tool in
      making them a reality.

      · Along Buffalo Bayou, planners hope to create a number of walkable new
      neighborhoods as part of the redevelopment of Houston's central
      waterway.

      Interest in this type of development in Houston is growing as the city
      matures, residents tire of long commutes from the suburbs and more
      people move here from cities with a walking culture, supporters of the
      concept say. Urban experts say walking creates the kind of human
      interaction that is a key reason cities exist.

      "In all great towns, villages and cities, human beings have sought to
      create places to be that put them in touch with other human beings for
      social or commercial reasons," said David Smith, the land planner for the
      Sugar Land Town Square project. "We think of these as integrated public
      spaces."

      The first phase of the 32-acre Sugar Land development, which will include
      office buildings, restaurants, shops, homes and the Sugar Land City Hall,
      is scheduled to open in October. Its design will include walkways with
      sufficient space for trees, cafe tables and four people walking comfortably
      abreast, Smith said.

      Trees, canopies and awnings will protect pedestrians from heat and rain,
      project designers said. Such design features, experts say, make it
      possible to create walking environments even in a region with cruel, five-
      month-long summers.

      "Barcelona and Madrid have the same climate," said Burden, the
      consultant, who promotes walkable urban environments in workshops and
      on his Web site, www.walkable.org. "They dealt with it with good building
      mass and good streetscaping."

      Pedestrians in downtown Houston, of course, famously escape the heat
      by slipping into the tunnel system, which started in the 1930s as a means
      of connecting two movie theaters and has grown to a six-mile labyrinth
      connecting dozens of shops, restaurants and other businesses.

      While the tunnel system was once an attractive novelty, its growth has
      choked off street-level retail business downtown, said Jodie Sinclair,
      spokeswoman for the Houston Downtown Management District.

      "It just sucks people right off the street like a giant vacuum," Sinclair
      said.

      Sinclair and other downtown boosters say the Cotswold project,
      scheduled for completion early next year, will get people out of the tunnels
      and back onto the streets. A key element will be the three-block Main
      Street Square, one block of which will be closed to vehicles.

      While no one expects pedestrian-friendly development to trigger a
      wholesale transformation of Houston's landscape, supporters say there is
      a strong market for dense, walkable spaces along major economic
      corridors inside Loop 610.

      Richard Everett, chairman and chief executive officer of Houston's
      Century Development Corp., said Houston's unregulated environment
      makes it more challenging to create such developments.

      "I can do a world-class job and all the people around me can put up junk,"
      Everett said. The proposed area plan ordinance would help to overcome
      this problem, he said.

      Supporters of pedestrian-friendly design often are frustrated by how
      slowly it is penetrating the Houston development culture. A frequently
      cited example is the relatively narrow sidewalks built by Metro along the
      route of the Main Street rail line in Midtown, which planners say is one of
      the most promising areas to create walkable environments.

      "It's coming, but it's real slow," said David Crossley, president of the
      Gulf
      Coast Institute, a nonprofit civic improvement group. He blamed Houston's
      lack of regulation and an entrenched community mindset that focuses on
      cars over pedestrians.

      Downtown -- however belatedly -- the concept is in full flower, and leaders
      of the Cotswold project promise spectacular results.

      "There will be a tremendous amount of activity," said architect Rey de la
      Reza, the project's lead designer. "The `infill' will come in where there
      are
      parking lots now. There will be a reason to come out of the tunnels, a
      reason to walk, shade from all the trees, fountains, something to look at.
      I'd venture to say after 10 years of economic prosperity, Houston will be
      dramatically different.

      "All of a sudden, it's going to feel like a city."


      Chronicle reporter Allan Turner contributed to this story.


      http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2122696



      =PTP============================================

      Houston Chronicle
      Sept. 27, 2003


      Council considers Metro plan

      Expansion may be part of transportation blueprint for region

      By LUCAS WALL


      Metro's transit-expansion plan took a baby step forward Friday when the
      region's Transportation Policy Council agreed to consider including it in a
      long-range planning blueprint.

      The Metropolitan Transit Authority must still win voter approval, and go
      through a public comment period and staff review by the Houston-
      Galveston Area Council, before it can be inserted into the 2025 Regional
      Transportation Plan.

      The HGAC handles transportation planning in the eight-county area. Its
      plan, required by Congress, outlines what projects Houston and its
      suburbs want to fund with federal money during the next 22 years. The
      HGAC plan covers all modes of surface transportation including freeways,
      local streets, mass transit, bicycle trails and pedestrian paths.

      Voters will decide Nov. 4 whether to endorse Metro's proposal for more
      light rail, bus service, HOV lanes, and road construction and maintenance.
      Even if Metro's referendum passes, the transit authority must still convince
      the Transportation Policy Council of the plan's merits. The council
      consists of elected officials and transportation executives in the Houston
      metropolitan area.

      Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, council chairman, remains skeptical
      of Metro's plan. Eckels said the transit-expansion proposal will not
      become part of the comprehensive regional plan until it undergoes critical
      scrutiny by voters and HGAC transportation planners.

      "We're not taking a position on it yet," Eckels said. "Metro has stated
      publicly its plan does nothing to relieve congestion in the region. The
      Transportation Policy Council and I -- our regional mobility plan -- are
      focused on congestion relief."

      Metro officials argue the transit plan will keep up with projected growth.
      Without more alternatives to driving alone, they say, traffic will only get
      worse.

      But Eckels said that's not good enough for him and other council
      members.

      "Metro has focused on transit, not regional mobility," he said. "We're
      trying
      to integrate all the plans to find the solutions that can deliver the most
      for
      the community for the least possible dollars."

      The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan will be released for public
      comment in November, and a final vote of the Transportation Policy
      Council is scheduled for December.

      http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2123780




      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 12
      Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:12:09 -0500
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
      Subject: Re: Star Tribune Article

      Articles like this are what Wendell Cox and the legion of road hogs hope you
      don't read. The highway advocates in Houston have come out with the
      ridiculous assertion that instead of building light rail lines, we could buy
      each of the passengers a Lexus. Since government subsidies to the so-called
      "private" automobile come from so many sources, highway lobbysists ignore
      most of them, vastly understating the cost of the automobile to the public
      sector while they hypocritically ridicule light rail. Instead of having
      user fees pay for the cost of highways, the US raids property, sales and
      income taxes to pay for the cost of the automobile, and conveniently
      ignoring this drain on public finances, the highway fools label automobiles
      as "private" transportation. It is truly cars on welfare, and the more
      miles someone drives, the more they are subsidized by local, state and
      national government, an ideal presecription for increasing energy waste. It
      isn't a good deal for consumers, either. An article in the Houston
      Chronicle last summer said that households in the Houston metro area were
      now paying close to $10,000 per year for the "privilege" of automobile
      ownership.

      You have to go back to the end of World War II when soldiers were returning
      to civilian life and defense industries were winding down to understand
      where this preposterous system came from. At the time, it was decided to
      embark full speed ahead on the motorization of North America to increase
      employment to ward off the very real threat in that day of socialism. The
      myth of the consumer-led economy worked for a while. Auto industry
      employment surged, and the country was engaged in building highways and the
      new type of development later called urban sprawl. People like my
      grandfather who never owned a car in their lives got one in the years
      following World War II, and Wally Cleaver ridiculed trolley cars on a
      popular sitcom.

      Fifty years ago, no one thought of pollution, road rage, grid lock and the
      pernicious effect that the insatiable appetite for fossil fuel would have on
      US foreign and domestic policy. By the 1950's when America started
      importing oil the system was already obsolescent. When America's oil
      production peaked in 1971, the system was obsolete, and the leadership of
      the continent has been in denial ever since. In other words, we have
      sacrificed our security and economic well-being to support a system that has
      been long obsolete, that was designed to deal with the specific circumstance
      of the 1945-50 period when Washington's greatest fear was a return of the
      Great Depression.

      Let's dump this relic of the twentieth century and reorient our
      transportation systems to collective transportation, walking and cycling.
      It's now too late for a soft landing, but the only moral thing to do is try
      to save as many people as possible.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Richard" <rickrise@...>
      To: <urban-ecology@yahoogroups.com>; <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>;
      <newcolonist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 8:46 PM
      Subject: [carfree_cities] Star Tribune Article


      >
      > This article from the Star Tribune has been sent to you by Richard.
      >
      > Richard wrote these comments: A Quote:
      > "The bottom line is this: Only 24 percent of the cost of St. Paul's roads
      is borne by driver-generated taxes and fees. The other 76 percent is a
      subsidy from general revenues and property assessments. There's no reason to
      believe that St. Paul's situation is atypical for cities and older suburbs."
      >



      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      __________________________________________________________________________
      The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
      privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the above named
      addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly
      prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way
      using any of the information contained within this communication. If you
      have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by
      telephone at (214) 871-8877 or by response via e-mail and permanently delete
      the original email and any copies.




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jym Dyer
      ... =v= And $87 billion more proposed to keep that very commute fueled!
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > new report from texas transportation institute states 90
        > billion is lost due to the american commute.

        =v= And $87 billion more proposed to keep that very commute
        fueled!
        <_Jym_>
      • Patrick J McDonough
        ... Their website is mobility.tamu.edu. I don t know about funding sources, but I m a big alternative modes advocate and TTI does, in my opinion, very
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Patrick Kennedy wrote:
          > anybody know how to find the funding sources for this institute?? i've been
          > searching their website to no avail. but i've got money that state and
          > federal highway admins. are involved and perhaps some corporate dollars from
          > sources like AAA, GM, exxon mobil, etc. etc.

          Their website is mobility.tamu.edu.

          I don't know about funding sources, but I'm a big alternative modes
          advocate and TTI does, in my opinion, very professional research. If you
          read their report, I think you'll find it is quite balanced in terms of
          what it focuses on, namely congestion and delay.

          I see these folks presenting at Transportation Research Board every year
          and their work is widely respected.

          I'd encourage you to take a look at the full report and check out the
          section comparing HOV and Public Transportation hours of delay reduced.
          Assuming one can put stock in their methodology, the argument to be made
          in favor of transit over HOV is quite compelling.

          Patrick McDonough
        • mtneuman@juno.com
          They should have measured the effect of Transportation Demand Management congestion remedies like mine. Pay people not to drive so much. That would encourage
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            They should have measured the effect of Transportation Demand Management
            congestion remedies like mine. Pay people not to drive so much. That
            would encourage them to use the other less polluting transportation
            options, and eventually move closer to where they like to spend the
            majority of their time.

            If they did that, they wouldn't have to spend the $350 billion on highway
            capacity expansion. And think of the reduction in motor fuel burning,
            especially from all those car sitting idle in traffic!

            Mike Neuman
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229
            http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/nov99/hiway30112999a.asp


            On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:20:22 -0500 Patrick Kennedy <pkennedy@...>
            writes:
            .......
            > The annual Urban Mobility Report, published by the Texas
            > Transportation
            > Institute, this year measures the effect of five congestion remedies
            > in the
            > cities where they are being used. Specifically, the study
            > illustrates the
            > effect of public transportation service and bus and carpool lanes,
            > and three
            > types of roadway operating efficiencies - traffic signal
            > coordination,
            > freeway incident management (clearing crashes and disabled vehicles)
            > and the
            > use of freeway entrance ramp meters (signals that regulate traffic
            > flow onto
            > the freeway). Estimates of the effect from those improvements are
            > reflected
            > in this year's study, which uses 2001 data, the most recent
            > available.
            >
            > Learn more about the 2003 Urban Mobility Study
            > <http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/>.

            ________________________________________________________________
            The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
            Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
            Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
          • Patrick McDonough
            TDM impacts are notoriously difficult to quantify. Much of TDM is behaviorally based and requires accurate reporting of people s individual behaviors.
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              TDM impacts are notoriously difficult to quantify. Much of TDM is
              behaviorally based and requires accurate reporting of people's individual
              behaviors. Tracking transit trips, which at least have ticket sales,
              monthly sales, and fareboxes, is somewhat easier. I recently completed my
              Master's Thesis on the effects and nature of employer-based transit pass
              programs. I built a website as a tool for employers to help demonstrate the
              quantitative and qualitative impacts. If any of you would like to promote
              transit subsidies to employers in your area, this may be a helpful tool.

              Check it out:
              http://www.path.berkeley.edu/itsdecision/tdmtool/

              Patrick McDonough

              -----Original Message-----
              From: mtneuman@... [mailto:mtneuman@...]
              Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:02 AM
              To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] urban mobility study



              They should have measured the effect of Transportation Demand Management
              congestion remedies like mine. Pay people not to drive so much. That would
              encourage them to use the other less polluting transportation options, and
              eventually move closer to where they like to spend the majority of their
              time.

              If they did that, they wouldn't have to spend the $350 billion on highway
              capacity expansion. And think of the reduction in motor fuel burning,
              especially from all those car sitting idle in traffic!

              Mike Neuman http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229
              http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/nov99/hiway30112999a.asp


              On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:20:22 -0500 Patrick Kennedy <pkennedy@...>
              writes:
              .......
              > The annual Urban Mobility Report, published by the Texas
              > Transportation
              > Institute, this year measures the effect of five congestion remedies
              > in the
              > cities where they are being used. Specifically, the study
              > illustrates the
              > effect of public transportation service and bus and carpool lanes,
              > and three
              > types of roadway operating efficiencies - traffic signal
              > coordination,
              > freeway incident management (clearing crashes and disabled vehicles)
              > and the
              > use of freeway entrance ramp meters (signals that regulate traffic
              > flow onto
              > the freeway). Estimates of the effect from those improvements are
              > reflected
              > in this year's study, which uses 2001 data, the most recent
              > available.
              >
              > Learn more about the 2003 Urban Mobility Study
              > <http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/>.

              ________________________________________________________________
              The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web
              up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up
              today!

              To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
              Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • mtneuman@juno.com
              Offering free transit passes is seldom enough to get a substantial number of people to leave their cars behind and take the bus to make a difference on the
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Offering free transit passes is seldom enough to get a substantial number
                of people to leave their cars behind and take the bus to make a
                difference on the road. I don't mean to comment negatively on it, but
                that seems to be the case at the UW-Madison here, where a bus pass is
                included as part of the student's tuition.

                Transit ticket giveaways are also unfair to those of us who choose
                alternative non-polluting modes of transportation, such as bicycling,
                walking, hitchhiking.

                [But your point is well taken -- thanks!]

                Mike

                "If you live within walking or bicycling distance of work, you can reduce
                the global warming impact of your commute to zero."
                Denis Hayes, http://www.rambles.net/hayes_earthday.html
                ___________

                On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:14:37 -0400 "Patrick McDonough"
                <patrick1@...> writes:
                > TDM impacts are notoriously difficult to quantify. Much of TDM is
                > behaviorally based and requires accurate reporting of people's
                > individual
                > behaviors. Tracking transit trips, which at least have ticket
                > sales,
                > monthly sales, and fareboxes, is somewhat easier. I recently
                > completed my
                > Master's Thesis on the effects and nature of employer-based transit
                > pass
                > programs. I built a website as a tool for employers to help
                > demonstrate the
                > quantitative and qualitative impacts. If any of you would like to
                > promote
                > transit subsidies to employers in your area, this may be a helpful
                > tool.
                >
                > Check it out:
                > http://www.path.berkeley.edu/itsdecision/tdmtool/
                >
                > Patrick McDonough
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: mtneuman@... [mailto:mtneuman@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:02 AM
                > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] urban mobility study
                >
                >
                >
                > They should have measured the effect of Transportation Demand
                > Management
                > congestion remedies like mine. Pay people not to drive so much.
                > That would
                > encourage them to use the other less polluting transportation
                > options, and
                > eventually move closer to where they like to spend the majority of
                > their
                > time.
                >
                > If they did that, they wouldn't have to spend the $350 billion on
                > highway
                > capacity expansion. And think of the reduction in motor fuel
                > burning,
                > especially from all those car sitting idle in traffic!
                >
                > Mike Neuman http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229
                > http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/nov99/hiway30112999a.asp

                ________________________________________________________________
                The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
              • Patrick McDonough
                Mike- There are ways transit subsidies can be directed at non-motorized modes. Check out this link: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm And do a FIND for the word
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike-

                  There are ways transit subsidies can be directed at non-motorized modes.
                  Check out this link:
                  http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm

                  And do a FIND for the word "hill"- it's part of the company name that
                  expanded transit subsidies to be a "non-drive alone" subsidy. The results
                  are pretty impressive- a 17% bike/walk mode split!

                  Also, remember- every transit trip begins and ends with walking.
                  Improvements to transit often extend the ability of citizens to walk, just
                  as improving pedestrian conditions extends the usefulness of transit.
                  Transit and walking have a strong, symbiotic relationship. If you take a
                  look at my website, you'll see that one of the crucial selections is
                  pedestrian environment. We did not have a single firm respond that rated
                  their pedestrian environment as the lowest grade.

                  Anyway- parking cash-out (what was done at CH2M Hill in the example above)
                  can level the playing field between transit riders and non-motorized modes.
                  You need good parking management though to ensure that the system is not
                  abused.

                  Cheers,
                  Patrick McDonough

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: mtneuman@... [mailto:mtneuman@...]
                  Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:51 AM
                  To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] urban mobility study


                  Offering free transit passes is seldom enough to get a substantial number of
                  people to leave their cars behind and take the bus to make a difference on
                  the road. I don't mean to comment negatively on it, but that seems to be
                  the case at the UW-Madison here, where a bus pass is included as part of the
                  student's tuition.

                  Transit ticket giveaways are also unfair to those of us who choose
                  alternative non-polluting modes of transportation, such as bicycling,
                  walking, hitchhiking.

                  [But your point is well taken -- thanks!]

                  Mike

                  "If you live within walking or bicycling distance of work, you can reduce
                  the global warming impact of your commute to zero." Denis Hayes,
                  http://www.rambles.net/hayes_earthday.html
                  ___________

                  On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:14:37 -0400 "Patrick McDonough"
                  <patrick1@...> writes:
                  > TDM impacts are notoriously difficult to quantify. Much of TDM is
                  > behaviorally based and requires accurate reporting of people's
                  > individual behaviors. Tracking transit trips, which at least have
                  > ticket sales,
                  > monthly sales, and fareboxes, is somewhat easier. I recently
                  > completed my
                  > Master's Thesis on the effects and nature of employer-based transit
                  > pass
                  > programs. I built a website as a tool for employers to help
                  > demonstrate the
                  > quantitative and qualitative impacts. If any of you would like to
                  > promote
                  > transit subsidies to employers in your area, this may be a helpful
                  > tool.
                  >
                  > Check it out: http://www.path.berkeley.edu/itsdecision/tdmtool/
                  >
                  > Patrick McDonough
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: mtneuman@... [mailto:mtneuman@...]
                  > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:02 AM
                  > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] urban mobility study
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > They should have measured the effect of Transportation Demand
                  > Management
                  > congestion remedies like mine. Pay people not to drive so much.
                  > That would
                  > encourage them to use the other less polluting transportation
                  > options, and
                  > eventually move closer to where they like to spend the majority of
                  > their
                  > time.
                  >
                  > If they did that, they wouldn't have to spend the $350 billion on
                  > highway
                  > capacity expansion. And think of the reduction in motor fuel
                  > burning,
                  > especially from all those car sitting idle in traffic!
                  >
                  > Mike Neuman http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229
                  > http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/nov99/hiway30112999a.asp

                  ________________________________________________________________
                  The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web
                  up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up
                  today!

                  To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                  To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                  Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • mtneuman@juno.com
                  Good stuff Pat. But it s mainly employee focused. That s fine, but it s not enough traffic reduction. My proposal would be available to even people who don t
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Good stuff Pat. But it's mainly employee focused. That's fine, but it's
                    not enough traffic reduction.

                    My proposal would be available to even people who don't have a job. In
                    that sense, it would be good for the poor. Give them some extra money.
                    Better than nothing.

                    But mostly it would be aimed at commuters who come from outside the city.
                    Those are the folks who are ruining the cities with all the extra
                    driving and pollution, and who contribute the most greenhouse gases that
                    are known now to be causing the warming. It is much more radical. It
                    would pay $2,800 for an individual to not drive at all. The money would
                    also come from raising fuel taxes by $.50 a gallon.

                    When someone question the sanity of it, just ask them if they would
                    preferred global warming to go out of control. Then ask them who's
                    sensible and who isn't.

                    Mike Neuman
                    http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/nov99/hiway30112999a.asp
                    http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw_letter.pdf
                    http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/trans/neuman_vmt.html
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229



                    On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:08:08 -0400 "Patrick McDonough"
                    <patrick1@...> writes:
                    > Mike-
                    >
                    > There are ways transit subsidies can be directed at non-motorized
                    > modes.
                    > Check out this link:
                    > http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm
                    >
                    > And do a FIND for the word "hill"- it's part of the company name
                    > that
                    > expanded transit subsidies to be a "non-drive alone" subsidy. T

                    ________________________________________________________________
                    The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                    Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                    Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.