So How About Public Transit?

[marmar]

From the Seattle Times, via CommonDreams:

Published on Monday, December 4, 2006 by the Seattle Times (Washington)
So How about Public Transit?
by Neal Peirce

Where's our mobility scenario? As the country adds its next 100 million people by 2042, what's to save us from massive roadway congestion, incredibly long commutes and a degraded environment?

Increasingly, we resist new gas taxes and vote down referendums for more roads; instead, many people insist, "fix it first." Privately financed toll roads? We react skeptically.

So how about public transit — new streetcar lines, regional heavy- and light-rail commuter lines? Polls show people strongly in favor — to get to work or to reach entertainment and stadiums — at least to ease other drivers off the roads. More than two-thirds of transit-related measures were approved by voters in last month's elections. Kansas City suggested the shifting public sentiment — after earlier rejections, voters approved a ballot measure authorizing a three-eighths of a cent sales tax for a 27-mile light-rail system.

Just since June, St. Louis has opened a $678 million, eight-mile expansion of its existing, previously one-route MetroLink light-rail transit line. Inaugural commuter rail lines have opened to serve Nashville and Albuquerque. Two weeks ago, Denver's 14 miles of light rail suddenly expanded to 33 as an $879 million southeastern extension opened to much fanfare. New highways have fueled the American economy by staggering sums since World War II. But the new Denver line suggests transit can be economically potent too: Even before the extension opened, a stunning $4.25 billion in new residential or commercial development was either under way or planned near the new line's 13 station locations.

Add in the highly successful regional rail lines built or being built in such regions as Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas and Minneapolis, and a new American transit future emerges. Since 1995, public transit ridership has expanded 25 percent (to 9.7 billion trips in 2005). From 25 in 2000, the country's fixed-guideway (rail or bus) transit systems are likely to grow to 42 by 2030, adding 720 stations to today's total of 3,349.

Yet, as expensive as new and expanded transit may be, the ultimate question isn't money (indeed the federal government's "New Starts" fund is swamped with 200 applications and shrinking dollars). Rather, it's whether we have the will to reshape urban America in more compact, livable, energy-conscious ways. That means organizing regionally on multiple fronts:

• Champion transit-oriented development — new or expanded town centers and housing near transit stops, aggressively planned and zoned for high densities. No more stations sitting alone in the midst of vast commuter parking lots. The Chicago-based Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) even recommends recycling existing station parking lots — 23 million square feet in the Chicago area alone — for more-intense business/residential development, shifting parking to smaller, scattered lots or multistory garages.

• Make transit stops beacons of living for America's new millions. Already, the CNT reports, areas around stations support more race and income diversity, city and suburban, than the average neighborhood. But for new suburban stops, it is critical to assure moderate-income housing opportunities (employing devices such as inclusionary zoning).

• Inventory our millions of acres of "fallow" sites — brownfields, abandoned railyards, failed shopping-center sites. Then create strong incentives for owners to combine, recycle, redevelop them. And work up the political courage to say "no" to NIMBY groups trying to block reasonably denser housing and development in their communities.

Do away with mandatory parking slots for new buildings — let the market decide. Discover transit opportunities in all sorts of settings. Along with rail or bus rapid transit at development nodes, encourage linear development along streetcar lines — a historic formula several cities are now reinventing. And work to convert auto-only, low-grade retail strips into tree-lined, transit-served boulevards.

Focus on reducing auto trips for errands — they're much more numerous than commute trips, studies show. To keep the cars parked, make "erranding" by foot or cycling much easier.

Finally, and critically, we need fresh vision to associate compactness with lively and resilient towns, combating climate change and making us less dependent on foreign oil. We owe it to ourselves and our children — a new, highly relevant 21st century patriotism.

Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1204-23.htm

[jpak]

1. Heresy!!!

n/t

[depakid]

2. Seattle is screwed

they're about 30 years too late to be considering this. How they could even get the rights of way for decent light rail lines and build the rest of the infrastructure is beyond me.

Contrast that with their poorer neighbor to the south, Portland, that committed to a successful rapid transit system and has attempted to plan much of its growth around it.

I wish Seattle luck, but after so many years of mindless wrangling, I'm not optimistic about their chances.

[BeliQueen]

3. Read my mind

As a confirmed pedestrian, all of these ideas sound fantastic to me.

[Union Thug]

4. Having lived in or near Seattle my whole life,

it is my opinion that we need MASSIVE investment in public transportation just to make it possible for people to get to work on time! About two weeks ago, I tried navigating rush hour traffic into Seattle from my workplace on the eastside of lake washington and it took me a full thirty minutes to get from the start of the 405 onramp onto 520 (if the highways were empty it would take 10 seconds)- absolute, grinding gridlock.

Anyone who opposes expanding putlic transporation in the seattle area is living in a fantasy world. From Olympia to Everett, the entire I-5 corridor is jammed. It's a disaster. There should be major disincentives for driving private vehicles. Public transporation is the only thing that can help this area.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. here is an idea...

Make public transit usable for those who actually have to get from one place to another in less than two and a half hours!

I hate driving, but I would hate being out the door at 5:30 in the morning even more.

[Union Thug]

6. That's the problem..

We need to bolster existing transport - busses and ferries, and look at rail and other options for the increasingly long commutes that we are expected to make. From where I live (Covington) it takes 3.5 hours to get to work on the busses that are currently available. However, if we had some express busses set up from Kent to Redmond, I would be on the bus every single day.

[Captain Hilts]

7. In Europe, public transit is a right, here it's a privilege. nt

[marmar]

8. So true....

From the time I left the immigration/baggage claim area at Amsterdam Schiphol, took an express train into the city and a tram to my hotel, NO MORE than 30 minutes passed. It was seamless. Same in Paris and Frankfurt. Our transit infrastructure, save for a few cities, is an embarassment.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

9. As a user of public transportation

and a person who does not own a car, I couldn't agree more with the article. The situation is atrocious and not getting any better. I am fortunate to be able to walk to where I work and use the bus to go out at work if I have to. However, the bus has it's limitations. Can't control who gets on, inconsiderate fellow passengers, if the bus is late getting to my stop and the like. Be that as it may, it is very nice to be able to get around the town for about $2 a day! My choice to be car-less was not entirely voluntary, but now, after a year and a half it's not so bad. I do have to think about how I shop, because even though I have a bike, I can't carry that much. The biggest problem is making the bus, or train schedules 'go faster'. That won't happen until there are enough riders to make it so..........