-
Soapbox: Hear the train coming (SacBee 2016-10-01)
- Editorials: Bite the bullet for Measure B sales tax (SacBee 2016-09-27)
- Back-Seat Driver: How will disabled people, bicyclists, arena workers get to Golden 1 Center? (SacBee 2016-09-26)
News summary 2016-09-25
- Yolo, Roseville, Sacramento transit agencies offer special service to downtown arena (SacBee 2016-09-22)
- Public transit champion tapped to lead transportation planning in region (SacBee 2016-09-21)
- New light-rail app allows you to photograph, report suspicious behavior (SacBee 2016-09-21)
- Want to avoid drunk drivers? Here’s where they get into the most accidents in Sacramento County (SacBee 2016-09-20)
- Steinberg spending leftover money from mayor’s race to push transportation tax (SacBee 2016-09-19)
News summary 2016-09-18
- Streets to close around Golden 1 Center before, after arena events (SacBee 2016-09-16)
- Say no to sprawl (Sacamento News & Review 2016-09-15)
- Trains a treasured part of Sacramento – until they snarl traffic (SacBee 2016-09-14)
- Shuttle will ferry Roseville fans to Sacramento Kings games at new arena (SacBee 2016-09-13)
- Back-Seat Driver: City tightening parking restrictions in residential zones surrounding Sacramento’s new arena (SacBee 2016-09-12)
Park(ing) Day September 16
Park(ing) Day is this Friday, September 16. Though there do not seem to be any formal events or locations this year in the Sacramento region, I would imagine some will pop up (Park(ing) parks are pop-up parks). So keep your eyes open, and if you come across one, please post a photo with location to your favorite social media. For more information about the worldwide event, check http://parkingday.org.
News summary 2016-09-11
- Transit agency launches ‘how to’ website for arena light-rail riders (SacBee 2016-09-09)
- McKinley Village set for big ‘reveal’ this weekend (SacBee 2016-09-09)
- Bait bike arrest downtown marks 41st such case of the year (SacBee 2016-09-06)
- Back-Seat Driver: City creates new entrance to Old Sacramento (SacBee 2016-09-05)
News summary 2016-09-04
- An invitation to ride Sacramento’s ‘new’ RT (SacBee 2016-09-04)
- Tougher enforcement leads to fewer fare cheats on Sacramento’s light rail (SacBee 2016-09-01)
- New entrance/exit to Old Sacramento debuts Thursday (Sacramento Business Journal 2016-09-01)
- Sorry Sacramento, it’s time to start feeding the meter at night (SacBee 2016-08-31)
- City to UP: We’ll trade you C Street for Ramona Avenue (SacBee 2016-08-29)
- September issue of Inside… has articles by Craig Powell, Eye on Sacramento, who signed argument against Measure B, and Walt Siefert, who signed rebuttal to argument for Measure B; links are apparently not available online so you will have to read on paper
News summary 2016-08-28
- Sacramento RT offers help to homeless light rail passengers (SacBee 2016-08-26)
- Bill to install breathalyzers in DUI offenders’ cars goes to Jerry Brown (SacBee 2016-08-25)
- City Council approves downtown parking rate hike (Sacramento Business Journal 2016-08-24)
- Back-Seat Driver: Sacramento light rail agency wants to make station ‘naming rights’ deals (SacBee 2016-08-22)
Myth?: transit takes longer
“But, what is more important is that only a small portion of jobs, and other destinations can be accessed through transit in any reasonable time and the travel time for transit is far higher than for driving.”
Well, this one is much more true that the myths I addressed (Myth: housing more expensive in dense areas, Myth: driving is supported by user fees). But it is worthwhile analyzing why this is so.
There are four employment centers in our region: downtown Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, and Roseville. However, downtown is by far the most important. Check yesterday’s post (SacRT and employment) to see what a remarkable concentration of jobs there is, and how much of the county is essentially empty of jobs. Downtown is easily accessible by transit, the other three have much more limited options. So, how about time? Yes, there is a big time difference.
Three examples of morning commutes:
- Greenback/Sunrise to downtown: 78 minutes by transit (bus route 21 and Gold Line) while Google reports driving is typically 35 minutes but can be 70 minutes. So on a bad traffic day, the two modes are comparable, but on a good traffic day driving is more than twice as fast.
- Zinfandel/Sunrise to downtown: 61 minutes by transit (Gold Line and some walking) while Google reports driving as typically 22 minutes but can be 45 minutes. Again, driving is more than twice as fast.
- Florin/Greenhaven to downtown: 30 minutes by transit (route 6), while Google reports driving as typically 10-16 minutes. Again, driving is more than twice as fast.
So, back to why. The nature of buses is that they have frequent stops, and spend a significant portion of their time in dwell, not moving. Light rail has fewer stops, so spends less time in dwell. There are express buses, of which SacRT has a few that run very limited schedules. It is also possible to create Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes with few stops, and travel times close to light rail. The commuter buses operated into downtown by Placer County, El Dorado County, Elk Grove, Roseville and others have only a few stops at each end, with long runs in between, and so have travel times as good as or better than light rail and BRT. However, these commuter buses serve a much smaller number of riders than any of the other options, and are also quite a bit more expensive than SacRT fares.
A second big difference it that you don’t have to wait for the next bus or light rail. You jump in your car and go. Of course there is time parking at the destination (an urban area typically sees about one-third of traffic is circling for parking, and my observation says Sacramento is similar. I live very near the CDPH buildings, and when I’m home during the day, I see a lot of employees walking to their cars to pay more or move them. More time time lost to the driving habit.
Perhaps the biggest difference is the amount of money we spend on driving, both individually and as a society. A transit pass costs $120 per month. Commuting can cost many times that much (before you say but… realize that almost all drivers underestimate what their vehicle really costs them). As a society, we spend incredible amounts of money on highways, far, far more than we spend on transit. One data point is the $133 million “80 Across the Top” project which is adding just a single travel lane in each direction for about 10 miles. $133 million for a lane. Wow! I have previously estimated the cost of the freeway system in Sacramento county as about $1 trillion. I don’t have a cost estimate for the light rail system, but it is a tiny fraction of this. What if we had spent the money on transit instead of privately owned vehicles? How would travel times compare then? We have created a transportation system whose primary purpose is to move a lot of cars at high speed. We have not created a transit system move a lot of people at a reasonable speed.
SacRT and employment
I earlier produced maps showing how SacRT routes related to population density and income (SacRT with income and population). I also wanted to present a map on employment or jobs – where people are going to on the transit system. It took much longer to track down that data, and I needed help from SACOG’s GIS staff. The employment data is from the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics (LEHD). The data is normalized over area. The map is below, with the SacRT_employment pdf also available.
Myth: driving is supported by user fees
Another myth promulgated by people who support roads over transit is that transit has to be subsidized while motor vehicles pay their way. “Transit, particularly rail transit, is very expensive to build, operate, and maintain. While driving is pretty much self-supporting through user fees, transit must be heavily subsidized by taxpayers.”
Roads for motor vehicles are anything but self supporting. For the state and federal highway system (from the interstates all the way down to some arterial streets that many people don’t realize are designated highways), gas taxes pay for roughly half of constructing those roads. Where does the other half come from? Out of our pockets, from the general fund, through income taxes and other fees. You may have heard that the federal highway trust fund is out of money, but highways are still being built. How is that possible? Well, money keeps getting dumped into transportation to make up for the lack of gas tax income. Though it is now down to 50%, if the gas tax is not raised, it will be a continually declining percentage until nearly all of our transportation funds come out of the general fund.
So if the gas tax doesn’t pay for maintaining roads, what does? Nothing! Very little money is being spent on maintenance, and our roads have deteriorated in a way that is obvious to anyone who drives, or rides a bike, or even walks. Politicians give lip service to fixing roads, but when it comes to spending money, it is all about big new roads and ribbon-cutting opportunities. Or even big new transit projects and ribbon-cutting opportunities.
For local roads, those paid for by counties and cities, very little comes from the gas tax. Counties and cities in California do not have gas taxes nor income taxes (though they do in some other states). So where does the money come from? Sales tax, and out of the general fund, which is mostly property tax. Self supporting? Hardly. Counties and cities do get some state and federal funds, some of which comes from gas taxes, but it usually is only for new construction (not that it has to be, but that is what is asked for and given), and it is a small part of what it takes to build and maintain local roads.
And then there are the externalties of a car-centric transportation system. Climate change, air pollution, sprawl, unemployment or underemployment for people who can’t afford to get to jobs, death and severe injury on our roads ($80 billion per year, for just injuries, not including fatalities), high portions of both family income and family wealth devoted to just one purpose, the car, deteriorating infrastructure, foreign wars for oil (if you think the war in Iraq was about freedom rather than oil and profit for Halliburton and Dick Cheney, you haven’t been paying attention).
All forms of transportation get some subsidy. Motor vehicles, bicycles, buses, trains, airplanes (the subsidy here is probably the highest percentage of any), all get subsidized. Though rail freight is subsidized far less than other modes, which is why it seems to not be competetive with road and air, when it would be if the playing field were level. The real question is whether the subsidies result in a transportation system that serves all citizens, and not just those who choose to drive or are forced to drive by a lack of choice. My opinion is that we have our priorities all wrong.
So why do we still keep spending money we don’t have on highways and roads, rather than a rational transportation system? The “asphalt lobby” as it is called. This is a network of engineers, construction companies, government workers, and politicians who profit incredibly from continuing to spend our money on their pet projects. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) are probaby the most prominent proponents, but there are organizations and lobbyists too numerous to list. OK, I can’t resist: the Asphalt Paving Alliance, the Asphalt Institute, the National Asphalt Paving Association. Not to mention: the American Concrete Pavement Association, the American Concrete Institute.
Time to stop!