MoveNews #101 for the week of May 16, 2010

Events

May 26: Move SD Members Only Urban Area Transit Strategy Intro

Come learn what SANDAG has in store as they reveal new plans about where to make transit investments for the San Diego region over the next 40 years. Co-hosted by the ULI Young Leaders. Must be a current Move SD member. Not sure if your membership is current or want to join so you can attend?

Join online at http://www.movesandiego.org/join.html

It's $100 for individuals, and $500 for small businesses. Every bit is tax deductible and goes to support Move SD in our work to help improve the regions sustainable transportation options.

May 21: BIKE TO WORK DAY, this Friday!

Move SD is co-hosting with the San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership a Bike to Work Day pit stop in Hillcrest. Ride to work and stop by our pit stop at 5th and University in the heart of Hillcrest, from 6am-9am this Friday, May 21. Be sure to register in advance!

For more info check out: http://www.icommutesd.com/bike/BTWDRegistration.aspx

Regional

This is the first of an occasional series on transportation issues in San Diego. This column sets the stage. I will not detail all that is planned. Instead, I will attempt to outline what really matters. ... When it comes to transportation programs, the solutions I fear the most are those that cost the estimated $41 billion to $57 billion (2030 Regional Transportation Plan) and don't get us anywhere. ...

I also believe that many of the region's transportation issues, at least during the next two or three decades, are solvable through relatively cheap changes in behavior, not in giant, costly infrastructure. ... Try these on: Live Close to Work ... Tolling ... Technology ... Bus Expansion.

... Many tout fixed-rail transit as a big part of our transportation future. Yet, nothing could be more 19th century than trains, at least in spread out, relatively low-density cities like San Diego. ... Its all about speed, efficiency and experience. It is not an accident why the auto has captured the bulk of our commutes for about a century now. The problem is that the auto, as we know it, is in jeopardy as a commuter carrier, regardless of whether it is large or small, gas or hybrid. The region needs to go multi-modal. The only real issue is, what is the wisest approach?

If we REALLY care about public transit, we should be pushing for shifting SANDAG policy (and funding) emphasis from light rail to far lower cost, more efficient, far more utilized and far more flexible buses.

National

$3.5 million grant for bus rapid transit awarded
MIT News, April 28, 2010

A consortium including MIT-Portugal Program Transportation Systems collaborators at MIT and IST-Lisbon has been awarded a $3.5 million, five-year grant from the Volvo Research and Education Foundation (VREF) for a Center of Excellence on Bus Rapid Transit. This is the eighth such center funded by VREF. The impetus for their efforts is the promise of public transport investment as a springboard for a sustainable future, especially in large metropolitan areas with growing populations. While rail systems loom large in many strategic statements on urban reform, bus rapid transit has attracted increasing attention in the past several years because of dramatic improvements achieved in a growing number of cities around the world.

Background

Defining Success: The Case against Rail Transit
Cato Institute, March 24, 2010

Over the past four decades, American cities have spent close to $100 billion constructing rail transit systems, and many billions more operating those systems. The agencies that spend taxpayer dollars building these lines almost invariably call them successful even when they go an average of 40 percent over budget and, in many cases, carry an insignificant number of riders. The people who rarely or never ride these lines but still have to pay for them should ask, "How do you define success?"

This Policy Analysis uses the latest government data on scores of rail transit systems to evaluate the systems' value and usefulness to the public using six different tests:

• Profitability: Do rail fares cover operating costs?
• Ridership: Do new rail lines significantly increase transit ridership?
• Cost-Effectiveness: Are new rail lines less expensive to operate than buses providing service at similar frequencies and speeds?
• The "Cable Car" Test: Do rail lines perform as well as or better than cable cars, the oldest and most expensive form of mechanized land-based transportation?
• The Economic Development Test: Do new rail lines truly stimulate economic development?
• The Transportation Network Test: Do rail lines add to or place stresses upon existing transportation networks?

No system passes all of these tests, and in fact few of them pass any of the tests at all. ...

No automated guideway, heavy-rail, light-rail, or streetcar line is more efficient than buses offering equivalent service. Many of these lines do not even offer any operational saving to offset rail's greater capital costs. ... When quantifiable service characteristics such as travel time and cost are eaual, say a paper in Transport Policy Journal, there is no evident preference for rail travel over bus."

Most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets...

Technical alternatives to rail transit can do far more to reduce energy use and CO2 outputs than rail transit, at a far lower cost. Such alternatives include the following:

Powering buses with hybrid-electric motors, biofuels, and-where it comes from nonfossil fuel sources-electricity;

Concentrating bus service on heavily used routes and using smaller buses during offpeak periods and in areas with low demand for transit service;

Building new roads, using variable toll systems, and coordinating traffic signals to relieve the highway congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year;

Encouraging people to purchase more fuel-efficient cars. Getting 1 percent of commuters to switch to hybrid-electric cars will cost less and do more to save energy than getting 1 percent to switch to public transit.

Fast Facts

Getting 1 percent of commuters to switch to hybrid-electric cars will cost less and do more to save energy than getting 1 percent to switch to public transit.
      Source: Cato Institute

NOTE: if there is no link provided to an item, then there is no additional content on that item. All links were current as of the date of publication.