San Francisco, Nov. 29-Dec. 2, 2001

A Report and Comments by Bert Melcher

 Denver, Colorado

How does one report on a three-and-half day conference with over a hundred

separate sessions and with several hundreds true experts in their fields

involved in presentations, with field trips as well as "classroom"

sessions, and covering just about every relevant aspect of public

transportation and urbanization that can be covered?  Indeed, one does not

truly report or even summarize; one conveys impressionistic tidbits and

snippets and hopefully some revelations.  Perhaps twenty rapporteurs,

scheduled in advance to attend each and every session, and to obtain and

summarize all of the spoken, written and graphic material into a ponderous

tome, could do justice to this stimulating and exciting conference.  

There was subject matter for almost every interest: operators, urban

designers, modelers, engineers, politicians, activists.  I chose to focus

on the urbanization, design and planning aspects of the Conference, as I

subscribe to a simple statement of principle: "Cities are for People" (Jane

Jacobs).  Hence, this limited report will convey only a few impressions

about this specialized subject matter.  

The theme of the Conference was "Building Livable Communities with

Transit."  (Can one envision a conference with the theme of "Building

Livable Communities with Urban Freeways"?)  In addressing this, the

Conference was highly successful, and the organizers and presenters deserve

the highest plaudits.  It had originally been scheduled for September, but

was rescheduled after the tragedy of 9-11.  Interestingly, more people

attended the late November rescheduled Conference than had signed up for

the original one.  There were fifty-three Colorado attendees in the

approximately 1,100 registrants.  CDOT, our State multimodal transportation

agency, had no representative, and DRCOG had only one junior employee in

attendance.  

The first day of the Conference was primarily field trips to transit

facilities and transit-related neighborhood developments.  I attended a

classroom session by the Congress on New Urbanism, which is dedicated to

creating development that is at people scale, is people oriented and is

more compact than the customary suburban sprawl.  Several key points from

various presenters:

· New Urbanism design processes in actual practice are successful in

creating communities consistent with the aspirations of the Congress 

· Retrofitting New Urbanism into existing communities is difficult.

· There has been a 37% increase nationally in New Urbanism projects in the

past year as more and more developers become aware of it.

· Zoning reform is needed.

· Real estate lenders are financing New Urbanism developers, but the

commercial lenders who finance small businesses in such developments are

not on the same page.

· Conventional neighborhoods in suburbs lack choice and are "car

monocultures", as are many auto-oriented corridors.

The Plenary Session on Friday had outstanding speakers; some tidbits.

· Bill Millar, President of American Public Transportation Association

("APTA"):

o In 2000, passenger growth was 7.5% for heavy rail, 5.2%for light rail,

and 5.2% for commuter rail.

o The critics of public transportation "know the price of everything and

the value of nothing."

· Jennifer Dorn, FTA Administrator:

o "We must think in different terms" from the past.

o The public wants a sense of community.

o Transit investment is falling behind the need, and this trend must be

reversed.

· Phillip Angelides, California State Treasurer:

o We must develop smart and sustainable growth, with a vision extending 50

years or more into the future.

o California is using public retirement reserves for strategic

infrastructure investments, including transit, affordable housing,

assisting struggling communities, and stimulating infill development; low

interest loans are made.

The Surface Transportation Policy Project and Reauthorization of TEA-21:

· Local leaders have an inadequate voice in transportation decisions and

this must be rectified.

· "New Starts" funds must be kept at the 80-20 split, not reduced to 60-40

as some are proposing.

· There needs to be a monetary connection between where the people are, and

not where the people are not.

· Maintaining the TEA-21 structure will not be adequate, and spending for

transit must be increased.

New Starts and Environmental Justice:

· Not putting transit into low-income neighborhoods deprives citizens of

mobility, contrary to the principles and regulations of Environmental

Justice. 

· A Washington D.C., EIS for a transit extension found that the "do

nothing" alternative had the highest negative impact because it deprived

the community of adequate transportation.

· Rail investments must not deprive neighborhoods of adequate bus and

appropriate affordable public transportation, local bus service must be

maintained.

· Tax Increment Financing can be used for affordable housing near transit

stations.

Re-Railing America: High Speed Rail investments:

· 20% to 40% of all 100 to 400 mile trips that are made by air could be

made economically by rail and with greater convenience to travelers.

· Amtrak ridership and revenue have been growing steadily, but the critical

need is permanent long-term capital funding, because rail is a

capital-intensive industry.

· A major challenge for Amtrak is providing adequate services with

inadequate resources.

· The US is the only major industrialized country without high speed rail.

· High speed rail is the only transportation form globally that makes a

profit.

· Polls indicate that 2/3 of Californians will approve a   cent State sales

tax to fund high speed rail from San Francisco to San Diego.

Traffic Congestion: "Easing the Burden":

· In San Francisco, BART created office floor space that could never be

served by roads, with 130,000 jobs added as a result.

· "Induced Travel": a 1993 study (Hansen) found that 90% of added capacity

of a highway is absorbed by new or diverted traffic, but newer and more

sophisticated analyses indicated that a more reliable predictor of induced

demand is that about 77% of added capacity would be taken by new or

diverted traffic.

o High growth regions (as Colorado is) will be severe victims of induced

travel demand phenomena; low growth or static areas will not be severely

affected.

· Transit "induced demand" is also development-related: near one BART

station, 48% of residential purchasers bought because of transit access,

and Location Efficient Mortgages were successfully employed (these are

mortgages giving better rates/terms where owners can avoid auto expenses

due to transit access and hence can spend more of their income on the

mortgage.) 

· Congestion analysis should look at the "Congestion Burden Index" as

percentage of travelers not traveling by car (a higher percentage gives a

lower Burden index.")

o (See www.transact.org, Surface Transportation Policy Project, for

details.)

· San Mateo:

o "If fiscal considerations enter into land use decisions, then can a

financial incentive be used to provide a better transportation and land use

link?"

(A rhetorical question: land use, especially sprawl, invariably affects

governmental fiscal considerations.)

o San Mateo uses transportation funds to help finance more compact

development within 1/3 of a mile of a transit station.

· Transportation Modeling is a weakness that prevents us from getting the

best "bang for the buck" in transportation demand management.

o Models do not deal with "induced demand."

San Francisco City Councilman Charles Hales:

· "Our job is not to support one mode over the other: it is to help create

livable cities."

· "We are place makers, not flow makers."

Washington D.C.: MetroRail avoided the construction of 26 lanes of

highways, generated $26 billion of economic activity, and provided a 19.2%

annual rate of return on investment from development and economic activity.

The "Great Debate": Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon versus Wendell

Cox 

· Cox is involved with Libertarian "Think Tanks" (if such an appellation is

not an oxymoron, and as usual, these give merit to the validity of the book

"How to Lie with Statistics".)  

· The debate produced a lot of sound bites but not much heat or light,

although Congressman Blumenauer is an eloquent and persuasive voice of

reason for transit.

Traffic Demand Modeling, Prof. Robert Johnson. University of California -

Davis:

· Metropolitan regions are Federally required to run a Travel Demand Model

but no specific model is mandated.

· The 1960's models are still used but are obsolete.

o We now need to include a lot more on land use, Environmental Justice,

induced travel demand, and other factors of concern.  

· A combined lane-widening and transit corridor project (such as I-25

Southeast) does not work to solve congestion and mobility due to induced

traffic. 

· Prof. Johnson walked through the steps of modeling, identified some

models that are inferior or superior and some improvements that should be

made in modeling processes, some of which should be made for compliance

with NEPA and Environmental Justice mandates; NEPA says to use "all

available models."  

· Proper "validation tests" require a sensitivity analysis to see if

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) elasticity is in a range proven from

historical studies; the tests, if properly run, will usually show that

"build" scenarios are not good at relieving congestion.

· The mobile emission "Mobile 6" model developed by EPA to replace the

older and less realistic "Mobile 5" model will indicate that prior

"conformities" with air quality standards may not be valid. 

· As one example of an abuse of modeling, in Seattle, where it is proposed

to widen I-405 from 6 to 12 lanes, WDOT found that there were "no land use

impacts" (this beggars the imagination and seems a transparent attempt to

justify a pre-determined result.)

· An MPO should have an outside expert group validate the entire modeling

process.

· A Model is only a tool and is not an end in itself; models must to be

used in the context of larger goals and future visions.

Changing Demographics and Growth Patterns:

· Philadelphia planners noted how transportation decisions have adversely

impacted minorities, employment opportunities for minority employment, and

an increasing disparity of wealth.

· Increasing aging of urban residents will increase demand and need for

non-auto transportation.

· Chicago transit has lead to in-filling; within 2-mile radii of stations,

47% of the 1990-2000 growth has occurred, and 81% of the regional

employment is found.  Chicago transit ridership is growing.

Making Communities Livable - - The Long View

· "Build for Children".

· Vancouver: its Vision and envisioning process has led to a sustainable

city, eliminating the need for a lot of transportation and highway expenses

by maintaining a "car-and-trolley" grid.

o Car trips are down, walking trips are up.

· Charlottesville, SC, Planning Steps and Features:

o Community Participation

o Quality of Life goals and Sustainability objectives

o Create Alternative Futures

o Create Alternative Land use/Transportation Scenarios, modeling land use

and travel demand 

o Implementation Strategies are developed

o A 50-year Vision is the basis 

o There is an underlying element of planning in identifying "What makes a

place a place?"

CONCLUSION:  

· "What makes a place a place?": what a great question upon which to base

ALL transportation and highway planning and decisions!  What makes Colorado

Colorado?  What is our 50-year Vision?  

· There ARE ways to "Build Livable Cities with Transit" - - there are

techniques, processes, financial tools, data and examples of stuff that

works.  In Colorado, we must bring these to bear in creating a better

future.

Bert Melcher

Albert G. Melcher 

7504 East Jefferson Drive, Denver CO 80237

303-770-3683   FAX 303-770-3241