Double-tall buses: sitting pretty

From Crosscut: http://crosscut.com/2011/10/12/transportation/21405/Double-tall-buses:-sitting-pretty/?utm_source=Crosscut+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0aefb48e56-crosscut_daily_newsletter_10_12_201110_12_2011&utm_medium=email

Community Transit, serving north of Seattle, has made the smart move of buying sleek double-decker commuter buses. The ride is thrilling, and the views are stunning.

By Mark Hinshaw

By now, most people who have spent time in rush hour within downtown Seattle or on I-5 have noticed the big new double-decker buses lumbering along. Streamlined and gloss white, they are a recent addition to the fleet of Community Transit. Over a year ago, CT bought a couple of dozen of these big behemoths. But it took a while in order to comply with newly adopted federal funding requirements of “Buy America.”

The stylish, vehicles formally called Enviro500’s are 14 feet high and 42 feet long; they seat 49 on the upper level and 28 downstairs, with more room for standees. They are built by Alexander Dennis Ltd, based in the United Kingdom. Alexander Dennis is a bus manufacturing company that has been in business for many decades, albeit under other names. We are one of only a handful of places in the U.S. with these unusual vehicles, but the company’s North American market is growing.

For a few hours each day, downtown Seattle resembles bigger cities like Hong Kong or London  where many different types of public transport jostle about, disgorging or accepting passengers. CT has given the unique buses the clever name of “Double Talls,” after one of our most popular caffeinated regional drinks.

I was determined to experience riding the Euro-styled bus, but alas they are now mainly for express routes serving locations further north. (Community Transit serves the Seattle/Shoreline/Everett corridor.) A visit to a friend who lives across the Snohomish County line finally provided the chance. It took a little doing to find the correct stops as they only pull up to a handful of locations on Second and Fourth Avenues. And they are only used on certain routes and at certain times. But with some CT website research and a little luck I found myself stepping onto Route 413.

I must confess a childlike glee in being one of the first to board and making a dash up the narrow staircase to nab the very front seat on the upper level. There I found reclining seats facing a huge wrap-around window, giving an illusion of sitting in a raised sedan chair above the fray of the bustling crowds and cars below.  What a vantage point! I’m not sure any other moving seat traveling on city streets quite matches the airy height and sweeping view. Even the cabs of semi truck trailers are not so highly elevated. Streaking down Second Avenue on such a perch was quite the visual thrill.

The route took us to a downtown street I have rarely ever been on — the one-block-long Terrace Street, next to an elegant wedge-shaped building that was shoehorned a century ago into a triangular parcel along Yesler Street.  After picking up a few more passengers there, the bus turned onto Fifth where an exclusive “contra flow” bus lane leads to the I-5 tunnel entrance under the Municipal Tower.

Normally, trees along bus routes have been trimmed to allow the unimpeded passage of buses. But the trees on Fifth have not yet been “topiaried” into overhanging canopies. So every few yards, another clump of branches and leaves would smack into the glass and scrape down the length of the bus. Other regular commuters barely noticed; this being my first time the sight of tree branches heading towards my face at high speed was a tad disconcerting.

But that was nothing once the bus dove into the express lanes. The concrete ceiling above loomed a mere few inches above my head; dark, heavy concrete rushed by at a fast clip. Just when I was thinking they surely must have followed some exacting specifications for clearance, up ahead was an even lower ceiling. For a second, I recalled the hapless bus driver who followed GPS instructions right into the low stone bridge at the Arboretum a few years ago. Yikes!

I’ve been in double-decker buses before, mainly the cousins of these that ply various cities, giving commercial tours, some without tops. But those amble along slowly, meandering along streets at a leisurely pace. By contrast, in the northbound express lanes, it felt like the driver was trying out for the annual race at Monte Carlo. But inside a hallway.

The elevated seat afforded views off the I-5 bridge over the ship canal the likes of which I had never seen. Adjoining neighborhoods and the waterway all were visible. The scenery zipped by so quickly it was not unlike the rapidly moving “rush” that is induced by the Thalys trains in Europe. There is certainly some entertainment value to well-designed modes of transportation.

One interesting thing about these “Double Tall” buses is, like the articulated buses that Metro operates, they carry a much greater occupancy with little added operating costs. But the long, bending buses so fluid on suburban routes often cause traffic bottlenecks in downtown as their rear ends can stick out into the intersection during congested periods of the day. I’ve noticed this occurring with increasing frequency on Second Ave. as buses try to cross at Columbia and get stopped by the queue ahead. In contrast, the double-deckers take up no more length than a typical coach.

Community Transit was smart enough to test rider behavior in advance of making a big commitment to purchase more. They were concerned that people would take longer boarding, given the stair case and larger capacity, thereby slowing down all traffic. But that concern was not borne out. Passengers figured it out quite quickly.

While riding the 413 a question occurred to me. Why doesn’t one of our fine, well-established companies here add a line of buses to its products? I’m not referring to Boeing, but rather the Bellevue-based PACCAR. The company puts out several brands of expertly crafted trucks in both the U.S. and Europe. It built tanks during World War II. Originally, it manufactured railroad cars in an expansive plant in Renton. Surely, its creative engineering and marketing divisions could design and fabricate state-of-the-art buses right here. That would employ U.S. citizens and help re-start the economy. Until someone like PACCAR gets with it, transit agencies throughout the country have no choice but to send purchase orders overseas — despite federal law.

For now, only a few hundred people living in Snohomish County are fortunate enough to ride these stylish vehicles. But perhaps Metro will note their advantages and we will see more locally. Their height might pose issues with routes in Seattle that are electrified. But suburban routes should be a piece of cake. Or rather, a buss on the cheek.    

Mark Hinshaw, FAIA, is an architect and urban planner at a Seattle architecture firm. He was an architecture critic for “The Seattle Times” and is the author of many articles and books, including “Citistate Seattle” (1999). He can be reached at editor@crosscut.com.

 

If trust requires speed, no wonder Seattle has a trust deficit

The infamous “Seattle process” has developed out of, and caused, a big gap in trust here. In the case of the viaduct, voters seemed to scream out their dissatisfaction with the slow, painful cycle of distrust and debate.

From Crosscut: http://crosscut.com/2011/10/06/politics-government/21370/If-trust-requires-speed%2C-no-wonder-Seattle-has-a-trust-deficit/print/

By Anthony B. Robinson

October 06, 2011.

What’s the speed of trust? Many people associate developing trust with things moving slowly. Stephen M. R. Covey argues otherwise in his book, The Speed of Trust.

The core of the argument from Covey (the son of Stephen R. “Seven Habits” Covey) is that when trust is high, things happen more quickly. Moreover, with trust high and things moving more rapidly, costs go down. However, when trust is low, everything takes a lot longer and costs go up.

Covey’s point came to mind recently as I listened to Bruce Agnew of the Cascadia Center at Seattle’s Discovery Institute addressing Crosscut writers on one of his favorite topics, regional thinking and planning.

As one example, Agnew noted that an important, and one would think relatively simple matter, would be to get traffic signals synchronized so that traffic flow would be improved. But it doesn’t happen. Why? Because continguous jurisdictions, such as Tukwila, Seattle, Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Everett won’t share their logarithms for traffic signal operation with others. So traffic moves slower with higher costs.

Synchronized traffic lights are one example. Another would be getting on an airplane. With trust down and suspicion up we spend a lot more time at airports being screened, scanned and scrutinized. Where you used to be able to arrive at an airport 30 minutes before your flight and get on board, now the minimum is two hours. When trust goes down, says Covey, things take lots more time. Even if such time-consuming scrutiny cannot be avoided in air travel these days, his point remains.

Another larger illustration, cited by Agnew, is the failure of the Puget Sound Region to develop a coordinated transportation strategy led and administered by one integrated body that has some actual clout. Local districts and municipalities don’t much trust one another and so even getting something like the Orca card operational is a mind-numbingly slow and costly process.

Does this shed a different light on the famous, or infamous, “Seattle process?”

People note the importance of process in Seattle. To be sure, there’s much to be said for decision-making that is open and deliberative. But is “Seattle process” really a expression of our commitment to openness and democracy or is it a sign of a trust deficit?

The August tunnel vote would suggest the latter. Prior to the vote, one might have thought that there was nothing remotely close to consensus so conflictual was the debate. But in August a surprisingly large majority said, “Get on with it already,” voting to move ahead with the deep-bore tunnel that had been being researched and discussed for more than a decade. After the vote, it looked more like a noisy minority had been holding the process, and the community, hostage.

In some organizations an over-commitment to process empowers malcontents and nay-sayers at the expense of making decisions and the participation of reasonable people. Many lament “Seattle’s addiction to process” but maybe process isn’t the problem at all? Maybe process is what you get when there is suspicion surplus and a trust deficit?

Covey’s argument might also suggest that job one for leaders is building trust. Here, leaders like mayors, City Council members, school superintendents and board members, heads of not-for-profits as well as businesses all set the tone and the standard.

Covey contrasts “myths” about trust with “reality.” One myth is that “Trust is slow.” In reality, he says, “Nothing is as fast as the speed of trust.” Another myth, “You either have trust or you don’t.” The reality, Covey maintains, is that, “Trust can be both created and destroyed.” He continues in this vein. Myth: “Once lost, trust cannot be restored.” Reality: “Though difficult, in most cases trust can be restored.” Myth: “Trusting people is too risky.” Reality: “Not trusting people is a greater risk.”

The point is that you don’t get far, nor do you get there in a timely fashion, without trust. If all sorts of institutions seem dysfunctional these days, the problem may not be a lack of process but a lack of trust.

The balance of Covey’s book is about how to build trust. If having high levels of trust does make it possible to move more quickly, to make decisions and get things done, building trust takes time. Time and skill and integrity.

Locally, some of Covey’s trust building strategies are evident in the work of Interim Superintendent of Seattle Schools Susan Enfield. Among the 13 behaviors that Covey commends are “Listen First,” “Talk Straight,” and “Get Better.” While her record isn’t perfect, Enfield has made progress by demonstrating all of these.

One might add another to Covey’s myth/reality list of ideas to compare and contrast. Myth: trust is dangerous. Reality: the absence of trust is what’s truly dangerous.

Anthony B. (Tony) Robinson is President of Seattle-based Congregational Leadership Northwest. He speaks and writes, nationally and internationally, on religious life and leadership. He is the author of 10 books. Crosscut readers may particularly enjoy Common Grace (Sasquatch Books). His blog, “What’s Tony Thinking?”, is at his website, www.anthonybrobinson.com.

The Cascadia conundrum: Balkanized transportation

Puget Sound is a poster child for the problems of regional transportation planning. One big roadblock: long-standing distrust of Seattle.

From Crosscut: http://crosscut.com/2011/10/04/mossback/21366/The-Cascadia-conundrum:-Balkanized-transportation/one_page/

By Knute Berger

The Cascadia Center has been affiliated with the Discovery Institute, known for its advocacy of “intelligent design.” Cascadia has balanced Discovery’s charter because its expertise is “unintelligent design,” namely regional transportation. Everyone agrees those problems are man-made.

Cascadia was founded in the 1990s to push a regional agenda aimed at infrastructure and economics in the larger region, and especially focusing on the Vancouver-to-Eugene corridor. They urge high-speed rail, freight mobility, they even helped cook up the downtown tunnel as an Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement option. Bruce Agnew, a former staffer for onetime Republican Congressman and Seattle City Councilman John Miller, runs Cascadia, and the group has been partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They’re now looking at a more distant relationship with Discovery, which will likely make some potential funders more comfortable, especially greens for whom anti-science conservatism is anathema.

The bigger picture is that the Cascadia Center has been a less airy-fairy advocate of regional coordination and cooperation. It emphasizes Cascadia’s joint economic clout as opposed to its green-corner-of-the-world feel. Cascadia as an economic zone, not an isolated Ecotopian Alamo. The center has been concerned with how to get people and goods, and ideas, back and forth across the Canadian border, for example. 

Agnew, at a recent meeting with Crosscut staff, talked at length about lessons that can be imported from British Columbia, where public-private partnerships (P3’s in transpo jargon) have helped build highways, bridges, hospitals, and schools. This in “socialist” Canada. There are opportunities here too, especially if banks and investment funds get more active and the gap between public funding and infrastructure appetites continues to grow. The 520 bridge is a couple billion dollars short: Could the private sector step in and win a contract to manage it, with the inevitable tolls, to the benefit of both public and private interests? Could public employee or union pension funds invest in such projects to make a reasonable return and keep their people in jobs? Cascadia originally envisioned the downtown tunnel as a P3.

There are plenty of other, smaller opportunities for P3s as well, including some kind of multi-use redevelopment of Colman Dock on the Seattle waterfront. The ferry system  might be an ideal agency to experiment with them, matching need (new docks and terminals) with amenities for tourists, commuters, maybe even housing. Why not?

One of the biggest barriers to progress in transportation is balkanization, and Puget Sound is a poster child. It’s tough, says Agnew, to do even simple stuff that can make a difference. The ORCA card? That no-brainier took only took eight years and $35 million, Agnew said. There are plenty of arbitrary boundaries here that impact our ability to move broadly and nimbly. It’s an old complaint, but it’s a real one: we have too many cooks in the kitchen; our process fetish leaves many opportunities for parochial monkey-wrenching. He points to the example that along Highway 99, each city has a separate contract with different companies to manage the traffic lights. Instead of having synchronized traffic signals along its length, let alone smart lights that read and adjust lights in real time to traffic levels, the corridor is more of a bottleneck than need be. Imagine the savings in time, congestion, and pollution if it something as simple as traffic lights were coordinated?

Creating a new regional governance system for Puget Sound always raises big fears and suspicions. Back in the 1950s and ’60s when Metro was formed, it was portrayed a kind of spider at the center of a Big Government web. Many suburban cities opted out, and the water cleanup was eventually limited mostly too Lake Washington, but the larger plan, which would have included lakes and sewage systems throughout the region, was whittled down. Local opt-outs and funding based on location rather than need are also problems. Regional government and planning reform are shot down by local interests, fear of big government, and distrust of Seattle.

The latter is important. The creature at the center of the web is often identified as the region’s biggest city, widely regarded by the communities around it with the kind regard one would have, if we mix animal metaphors a bit, for a badly behaved 900-pound gorilla. (Bobo, Woddland Park’s fabled ape, was fun to look at in his cage, but he treated female companion Fifi miserably and loved throwing his weight around and hogging all the cake.) 

No one trusts Seattle with power because it is believed the city will always exercise it to its own advantage, and/or that it will pursue a screwball agenda with no basis in reality for other municipalities. The fact that the Eastside end of 520 is underway while the Seattle side is still embroiled in (some legitimate) design issues is but the latest example. People fear that Seattle-style dysfunction will swallow them — or they’ll catch it like a case of civic cooties. Nor is Seattle regarded as a particularly inspiring role model, as the hubbub over then-Bremerton Mayor Cary Bozeman’s critique of Seattle’s treatment of its own waterfront and Pioneer Square revealed. Seattle isn’t the paragon of urban design it pretends to be.

Seattle is the dominant center of Pugetopolis, but has embraced a central-city growth ethic that puts it in competition with its neighbors. And Bellevue, which was barely even visible from Seattle 40 years ago, has literally grown up as a kind of rebuke to Seattle’s dominance and self-regard. Other communities are competing for growth and population and power, too. All those urban growth nodes in the suburbs want their share. It was ever thus on the Sound, where regional rivalries have been intense at least since Seattle and Tacoma tried to kill each other off over the railroad.

Instead of being bossed around by Seattle, many suburbs have simply been turning into Seattle, becoming more dense, more diverse, and better places for starving artists to find vital immigrant communities, cheap housing, and work space. The Seattleizing (or Brooklynizing) of the suburbs has been going on a while — Starbucks helped lead the charge in the ’90s by colonizing regional shopping centers; the job is being extended by strip mall ethnic eateries. The Eastside, as it has become more dense and more populated by Microsofters, has also trended bluer politically, turning more purple than the reliable red that it used to be. The days when the old Bellevue American was the most John Birch Society-friendly weekly in the state seem faraway and long ago.

One battle to watch is the fight over light rail in Bellevue. The rail effort could be sabotaged by a Tim Eyman initiative and Bellevue’s retail Robert Moses, Kemper Freeman, Jr. is a mighty opponent of Sound Transit and proponent of his own interests. Freeman does not want to see Seattle values dominate on the Eastside, which is still car-oriented and rich with development potential. (Back in the ’90s, the late Eastsideweek ran a spoof campaign for Eastside secession and it was very popular with readers.)

While Freeman has been a huge booster of urban-style development in downtown Bellevue, it’s not necessarily in his interest to see the city’s center of gravity shift to other corridors. Sound Transit’s Eastside rail poses both the threat of big, spendy government, a big-city culture and political shift, and a redrawing of the real estate chessboard. (Freeman is a big funder of Tim Eyman’s new anti-toll, anti-Eastside-rail initiative.) Another way to view light rail is as a potential boon for the suburbs, just as the building of floating bridges was. But the very concept of regional rail carries the baggage of Seattle hegemony.

It will be very tough to rewrite regional governance without getting over some of these old barriers. Seattle’s recent behavior hasn’t done its image any good. The fight over the downtown tunnel, the broken promises and costs of light rail, the bike-centric philosophy of the mayor and his brain-trust, the sense that Seattle isn’t a team player, never will be. Greg Nickels, who had a can-do orientation in terms of big projects, was seen as too Seattle-centric. So, too, Schell, Rice, and Royer before him. Nickels once raised the idea of Seattle secession to express his frustration with the rest of the region, and Olympia, for not bending to local will. Part of the problem lies in the Seattle utopian attitude that wraps its ideas in moral superiority. Seattle mayors are out to save the world. The mayor of Federal Way or Renton — they just want to get stuff done. It doesn’t help that Nickels posed in Vanity Fair and Mike McGinn is the cover-boy for Dope.

So, Cascadia still looks best from 10,000 feet, where the political and jurisdictional borders disappear, geography seems to have more logic, neighbors are much closer, the problems shrunk to invisibility. We can all feel like Paul Bunyan at that altitude, ready to reshape the region with the swing of an axe and the horns of an ox.

Agnew has said he is fascinated by the concept of the Salish Sea, which is another approach to a Cascadia-like concept. It defines a geographic entity. It speaks to having a shared stake in something bigger and border-bridging. it reflects the heritage of native tribes that traded and cooperated (and still do), share a common language, and had a common sense of place. Is there a way to shape a broader civic and commercial Cascadian — or Salishan — tribal council? That might be a way to bring some intelligent design to the workaday challenges of our region.

An investment in transportation is an investment in jobs and growth

 

By Paul Roberts

 

Transportation is the lifeblood of Washington state’s economy. Washington is the most trade-dependent state in the nation. Almost everything we make or do, from airplanes to agriculture to Pacific Rim trade, depends on transportation infrastructure to move people and goods. Likewise, our lives are tethered to our transportation system for all manner of personal, recreation and business activities.

As our state grapples with economic recovery, we face a dilemma: Our economy is dependent on transportation, our transportation system is not keeping pace with maintenance needs or growing demands, and financial capacity and political will to invest in transportation are arguably at an all-time low.

What is more, the primary financing tool (gasoline tax) we have relied upon to build our transportation system is not sufficient to maintain the system we have, let alone meet new demands.

It is hard to imagine a more difficult economic time to consider a transportation investment package. However, as an investment in economic development and job creation, there may not be a better time.

Managing a complex system

The state’s transportation system is complex. It is an integrated system including roads along with marine, aviation, transit and non-motorized modes. Multiple jurisdictions are responsible for the system, including the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT), cities, counties, ports, railroads, airports, transit agencies, federal agencies and private service providers. Different regions within the state are more or less dependent on different transportation modes. However, the state’s economic fabric — the whole cloth — is dependent on all of them.

Understanding the scope of the state’s transportation system, the basic principles of managing the assets, and the issues associated with finance will help in understanding why we need to consider a new investment package. It will also help focus attention on what such a package might include and where strategic investments are most likely to improve economic competitiveness and job creation.

Asset management and life-cycle costs

Discussions about transportation frequently include questions such as: “Haven’t I already paid for that road or bridge with my taxes?” The answer is: “No, not entirely.” All capital assets, including transportation, have a life cycle that includes five distinct elements: construction, operations, maintenance, repair and replacement.

Most of the time we speak of capital assets in terms of construction costs. However, the other four life-cycle elements (operations, maintenance, repair and replacement) influence the life of the asset. If managed properly, asset life can be extended. If managed poorly, asset life is diminished and maintenance costs increase. How well or poorly the asset is initially designed and constructed also affects its useful life and maintenance costs.

To put this in perspective, when we purchase a car we also consider the cost of maintaining it. Some cars are better built, some are more expensive to maintain. The purchase price does not include operation costs such as fuel, tires or wiper blades. Maintenance costs such as fluids, lubrication and tune-ups are not likely part of the purchase price unless covered by a separate agreement or imbedded in the purchase price. Repairs are unpredictable and often require immediate attention. Replacement costs are what we consider when we have gotten our expected mileage out of the vehicle and our maintenance costs are beginning to meet or exceed the monthly payment. The useful life of the car will depend on how well, or poorly, we address these issues.

Our transportation system is falling behind in maintenance. As a result, assets are depreciating more rapidly or are not being replaced in a timely manner. Life-cycle costs will increase if we fail to maintain the system. It is a “pay now or pay more later” proposition.

Businesses will invest where transportation infrastructure is being maintained, where they can get their employees to work and products to market. They will invest somewhere else when the system is not being maintained. As a side note, maintaining transportation infrastructure presents an opportunity for immediate job creation in the hard-hit construction sector.

Planning for growth

Even in difficult economic times, we need to plan for population and employment growth. We are all painfully aware of brutal economic realities since mid-2007. However, we are not building a transportation system for the past four years. We are building and maintaining a system for the next 20 years and beyond.

According to the state Office of Financial Management, Washington’s population is expected to grow 28 percent and employment 24.7 percent between 2010 and 2020. Transportation forecasts from WSDOT project vehicle miles traveled to grow from 56 billion in 2010 to 60 billion in 2020. Transit ridership is expected to grow rapidly in urban areas as energy prices increase, and freight is predicted to grow by 5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035. The next set of investments needs to be carefully crafted to meet essential needs and we need to plan and finance them now so they will be in place as we need them.

The transportation financial structure is broke

Both the Washington state and federal transportation funding structures are upside down financially. According to WSDOT, 76 percent of all state transportation investments are financed by the gas tax. The 5-cent increase passed in 2003 and the 9 1/2-cent hike passed in 2005 resulted in 421 projects being built. Almost all of these projects, including improvements on I-5 in Everett and Highway 9, are now complete or under construction, with the revenue dedicated to paying the bonds. The rest of the gas tax is divided to support basic services, cities and counties, debt service, maintenance, operations and safety.

Moreover, gas tax revenue is falling relative to miles traveled as more fuel-efficient vehicles reduce gas consumption. In short, we are traveling more miles on less fuel and revenues are not keeping pace with maintenance requirements, let alone new projects. Every year the financial hole is getting deeper.

The next set of transportation investments must consider sources in addition to the gas tax, and that will probably include some user fee or tolling structure. It will need to be carefully crafted to meet essential strategic needs, and respect the fragile nature of our economy and the voters’ willingness to carry additional financial burden.

Cities, counties, ports and freight mobility

Like the state of Washington, cities, counties, ports and transit agencies are facing declining revenues and increasing service demands. Many of these improvements are essential to economic development and job creation. For example, 90 percent of the gross state economic output takes place in cities. Freight mobility is an essential component of economic development and, depending upon the industry, cities, counties and ports are directly involved in some aspect of transportation related to economic development, job retention and job creation. Transit agencies, too, help workers get to and from their jobs with less impact on roads, particularly during peak travel periods.

Next steps

Creating jobs and putting our economy back on track will require strategic transportation investments. Failing to make these investments will result in both slower recovery and loss of competitive trade advantage.

To help in this effort, Gov. Chris Gregoire has called together a 29-member Connecting Washington Task Force charged with developing recommendations for a 10-year investment and funding plan to present to the 2012 Legislature, and, if passed, to the voters. I am honored to be a member of this task force, along with representatives of business, government, labor, tribes and the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate transportation committees.

Our task force has important work ahead of it. If we do our job well, we will craft a set of recommendations to maintain our existing transportation system, and strategically invest in transportation improvements, creating jobs and enhancing Washington’s competitiveness worldwide. Persuading voters that these are the right transportation investments for these times will require education and outreach.

Paul Roberts, an Everett City Council member, works for BERK — a consulting firm specializing in economic analysis and policy development. He also serves as a Sound Transit Board member, and is a member of the Connecting Washington Task Force. The views expressed here are his own.

© 2011 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA

http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110917/OPINION03/709189968/1122/SPORTS09&template=PrinterFriendly

A message from Secretary Hammond: Federal Surface Transportation Extension

Dear Transportation Stakeholders:

As you know, Congress must pass a bill to extend federal surface transportation programs and the federal gas tax by September 30th.  The Senate has indicated they are working on a four-month extension that will continue current program funding levels.  While we have not seen any extension proposals from the House, it is expected that a House extension could significantly cut funding levels.  In fact, the House-passed Budget Resolution for FY2012 calls for a 37 percent cut to federal highway, bridge and transit programs.  A cut of that magnitude would not be sustainable for Washington State so we have created the two attached documents to help educate our congressional delegation on what a 37 percent cut would mean statewide.  The first attachment documents the impact to the state highway system, the local system, and to the transit and ferry systems.  The second attachment is a map that shows examples of state highway projects that may be impacted by a 37 percent cut.

WSDOT has shared these documents with our congressional delegation and I encourage you to use them when communicating with the delegation about the need for a surface transportation extension that continues current levels of funding in FY2012.  If you have any questions or would like additional information please contact me directly or our Federal Relations Manager, Allison Camden, at (360) 705-7507.

Sincerely,

Paula

Supporting Documents:
Impact of a Transportation Cut on WA State
Projects Impacted by Reduced Federal Investment

Small Business Transportation Resource Center hosts USDOT event in Seattle August 23

Safety is No Accident: Transportation Safety Days to Kick-Off in August to Reduce Number of Workplace Incidents and Improve Small Business Efficiency

10 Cities Nationwide will Participate

WASHINGTON – Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) Director Brandon Neal today announced that the Department will hold a series of events during August and September in order to draw attention to how small businesses can improve safety and efficiency in their operations.  The half day events will carry the theme: Safety is No Accident.

The events will be hosted by DOT/OSDBU’s Small Business Transportation Resource Centers (SBTRC) around the county.

Safety Days will take place, beginning August 4^th  and concluding September 14^th, in Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Greensboro (NC), Atlanta, New York, Seattle, Sacramento, and Kansas City.

Seattle Event info:

Tuesday, August 23
8:30 – 1:00 p.m.
Sound Transit
Ruth Fisher Boardroom
401 S. Jackson St.
Seattle, WA 98104
Admission is FREE

“Secretary LaHood has made safety the number-one priority at DOT, and our network of SBTRCs are carrying out that mission in their local communities.  We want to make sure that safety is also the number one priority for all small businesses working on transportation projects,” remarked Director Neal.

Safety Days will consist of:

• Showcase of safety supplies, equipment, materials and resources from leading manufactures
• Learn more about construction safety, from OSHA compliance
• Learn what major contractors are doing to make their job sites safer
• Hear about what you don’t know that could cost you your contract
• Gain knowledge of “Best in Class” safety measures
• Find out how to use safety measures to drive project outcome

These half day programs will provide information on how businesses can improve safety throughout their operations to decrease injuries and increase productivity.  Participants can learn hands-on how to improve safety on jobsites and work areas through model demonstrations and expert panels.  In addition, exhibits will feature DOT’s campaign to stop distracted driving. 

The SBTRC program provides financial, procurement, and technical assistance to small and disadvantaged businesses seeking to perform on transportation related projects.  For more information about each SBTRC’s Safety Day, as well as OSDBU, please visit www.osdbu.dot.gov.

Report: Tunnel linking US to Russia gains support

Report: Tunnel linking US to Russia gains support.

If this project was to ever move forward, what would it mean for ports along the west coast?

Hong Kong’s formula for transit that makes money

In Seattle and other cities, transit is struggling for funding. In Hong Kong, the system is allowed to develop some property near stations, so it is flush with profits to plow into the rail lines. Also: a Koolhaas connection.

http://crosscut.com/2011/08/07/transportation/21181/Hong-Kong-s-formula-for-transit-that-makes-money/print/

By Alex Marshall

August 07, 2011.

There is really no denying that transportation makes money. Just consider the huge shopping malls perched around interstate off-ramps, the office parks positioned close to airports, the skyscrapers next to subway stations. But transportation itself is usually a money loser. We pour billions of public dollars into highways, airports and transit systems, while others, the home builders, the department store mavens, make the money that comes slows from those public investments.

Hong Kong’s metro system, MTR, has changed this equation, and that is why it’s worth looking at.

If you are ever lucky enough to visit Hong Kong, which is Manhattan-like with its narrow streets lined with high rises, you will see that the MTR’s services are excellent. You may ride the gleaming new high-speed rail line from the new airport that takes you into the new central rail station. Or one of the nine rail and subway lines, including the special train that goes to Disneyland Hong Kong.

What’s amazing about the agency that runs these lines, MTR, is that it actually makes money. So much money that it’s listed on the stock exchange, although the government still owns a majority share. The Hong Kong’s metro system has been in the news in the New York city region because the chief of New York City’s transit agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, shocked the region by announcing his departure to lead Hong Kong’s system for a million-dollar plus annual salary. He left at a particularly bad time, breaking a seven-year contract just as the MTA was facing yet another round of funding gaps and necessary cuts.

Given the perennial money-losing nature of most transportation departments, from highways to rail, it bears asking: how does Hong Kong do it?

The answer is that Hong Kong’s MTR doesn’t let private developers be the only ones that perch lucratively next to its stations. It builds its own homes, offices, and stores. In short, MTR acts as a real estate developer and business company, as well as a train operator. It owns, among other things, 12 shopping malls built around its stations. These properties and businesses produce substantial cash, which keep the transit agency as a whole in the black.

Hong Kong’s MTR is unusual in also actually making money from its fares as well. How it can do this relates in part the uniqueness of running trains on an intense few strips of land filled with development. But for our purposes it’s worth looking at its actions as a developer, and that as a model for transportation agencies and departments in this country.

By many standards, MTR is an unusual company. The MTR only began service in 1979. But once cash was flowing (through development around stations), the government “graduated” MTR to become a private company, still majority-owned by government, so that it could raise funding through capital markets and more nimbly enter into joint ventures with private investors.

In 2000, the Hong Kong government converted the public MTRC into the private MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), although the government maintains a majority stake. Shares are traded on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Wikipedia reports that MTR also invests in railways in different parts in the world, and has obtained contracts to operate rapid-transit systems in London, Stockholm, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Melbourne.

[Editor’s insert: Recently, Rem Koolhaas, the designer of the Seattle downtown Library, won a contract to do an overhaul of the MTRC design strategy and branding, as well as to design two new transit stations as prototypes. According to one article, “OMA’s design for the two stations will … include a rethinking of all the elements of a station: its engagement with the street level, its connections, concourses, and platforms, station furniture, circulation and way-finding, and MTR’s visual identity.” Koolhaas has an office in Hong Kong and is also working on a culture project in West Kowloon.]

Could transit and highway departments in the United States ever do something equally innovative? Why shouldn’t a highway department make money on the shopping malls built around its exits? Shouldn’t it at least get a cut?

While it may seem extraordinary to have a transit company operating like a profit-making company, it’s not novel. A century ago private streetcar lines made money more on the homes and shops built around their tracks, on company-owned land, than the nickel fares they received.

While retaining public control of vital infrastructure systems — a crucial point — governments can facilitate new versions of these old arrangements.

Let me be clear here. I don’t want the transit agencies or highway departments to be only concerned with making a profit for their shareholders, which is how private businesses act. I want them to make a profit for the public, so that roads can be maintained well, taxes and fares kept down.

It’s a long way from anywhere in the United States to Hong Kong, but there’s no reason we can’t learn from it.

This article is reprinted from Citiwire, a news service about innovative ideas for metropolitan regions. 

Alex Marshall is a New York City-based journalist, speaker, and author. He wrote this article for Citiwire.net. He can be reached at alexmarshall@alexmarshall.org

Unhelpful to focus on a single mode

The Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation (SCCIT) has been a public/private partnership of transportation interests since 1983. Our mission is to ensure that all of the various forms of transportation investment come together economically and efficiently to support our Snohomish County quality of life, including its economy.

The Washington Policy Center’s July 23 Viewpoints commentary, “Let’s get out of this jam” contains some valid points but a number of inaccuracies. It is not helpful to our economic future to pit one mode (WPC favors roads) against transit, rail, bike, etc. They all must be blended if we are going to serve the travel, employment, freight, environmental and recreational needs of our 2050 Snohomish County world. Our 2011 world cannot afford one mode exclusive of all others.

We have an excellent growth management law in Washington to help organize future development as Snohomish County grows toward the 1 million population mark over the coming decade. Transportation’s role in all this is obvious. The consequence of not integrating all of our transportation needs should be apparent to all.

SCCIT will continue to work with public, private and citizen interests to ensure a balance of what the community needs and the taxpayers can afford. We welcome participation by WPC and other groups in this effort.

Reid H. Shockey
President, SCCIT
Everett

Letter to the Editor published July 31, 2011 in The Herald: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110731/OPINION02/707319971/-1/OPINION