From: Martin Engel <martinengel_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Sun Mar 09 2008 - 20:50:11 PST

Honorable Mayor and members of the Menlo Park City Council:

Here is an interesting article about a new document from CALPIRG and its over-eagerness to make urban transit points. One of the claims frequently bandied about is the huge savings in energy through the use of transit. Cars and their carbon footprints are carefully measured and accounted for. However, the presumption is that all those people, by using transit, are therefore not using their cars for the equivalent trip. That may be not quite accurate. There are many people who don't own cars (VTA/SamTrans suggest about 40% of all their passengers) and are totally dependent upon urban transit for their work and shopping commutes. There needs to be independent (not by transit operator paid) data collection on various transit modalities (rail, light rail, buses) regarding car ownership for a more reliable picture of GHG trade-offs. Benefit hyping does us no service.

However, the article author is quite correct in quoting Emily Rush's insight about the need for expanded urban transit that meets a number of criteria. We have been saying for some time in our emails that in order to become effective and begin to carry more than the modest fraction of all travellers in the Bay Area, including the Peninsula, urban mass transit must be, to use the article's words, reliable, safe and comfortable. The term I prefer to sum it all up is "convenient," as in, more convenient than driving. Also, more convenient in getting us from point A to point B, or "to get people closer to where they live, work and go to school." All the pro-transit advocacy in the world won't get us out of our cars to take public transportation unless its as fast or faster than driving from door to door. And, it has to attract us out of our cars with safety, comfort and accessibility from front door to office door.

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the rigid anti-automobile position of the new CALPIRG document, "A Better Way to Go", (see: http://links.sfgate.com/ZCQY ) is counter-productive. In America's car culture, simply rejecting cars is mindless. Cars (personal transport) will be an integral part of the transit system forever. To be sure, cars should be far more energy efficient, and they probably will be. Systems like transportation are incredibly complex politically, economically and culturally. Ideological absolutism is anathema to rational solutions.

Respectfully,
Martin

---

Published Friday, March 7, 2008, by the San Francisco Chronicle

Transit spares air, saves money

By Rachel Gordon
Chronicle Staff Writer

The Bay Area's top seven transit agencies help prevent more than 2 million metric tons (2.2m US short tons) of greenhouse gases and save 251 million gallons of oil each year, according to a new report by a consumer-rights group.

The California Public Interest Research Group, or CalPIRG, said its report -- along with news Thursday that the cost of oil hit a record high of nearly $106 a barrel -- should encourage more people to park their cars and hop on a bus or train.

Activists also called on government officials to pump more money into transit projects to pay for expanded and enhanced service to lure even more people out of their private automobiles.

"The recent spike in gas prices is just one of many compelling reasons why convenient, fast and reliable bus and rail service needs to be expanded throughout the Bay Area," said Emily Rusch, a CalPIRG transportation advocate.

The nonprofit group's findings were based on several calculated assumptions, among them that cars carry an average of 1.5 passengers per mile driven, that gas mileage for private automobiles averages slightly more than 20 mpg, and that 1 gallon of gasoline produces 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide.

BART, the second-largest transit system in the Bay Area after San Francisco's Municipal Railway, came out on top in the state and third nationally when it comes to potential oil savings among transit agencies, the report found.

The seven Bay Area transit agencies CalPIRG analyzed were BART, Muni, Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit and SamTrans.

It is unclear at this point what effect, if any, rising gas prices will have on transit use.

Luna Salaver, a spokeswoman for BART, noted that ridership on the regional rail system has increased over the past two years along with higher pump prices.

But other factors, such as population growth and worsening traffic congestion on Bay Area roadways, also can contribute to more people opting for alternatives to the car.

Rusch said that before transit ridership increases significantly, however, the network of routes will have to be expanded to get people closer to where they live, work and go to school.

Reliability, safety and comfort also serve as key lures. And all of those take money, which may be hard to come by as the state and most local governments face major budget shortfalls this year. Transportation expenses -- such as maintenance of roads as well as investment in transit -- are almost certain to be looked at for cuts.

Online resource
Read the report at http://links.sfgate.com/ZCQY

E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@...

-- 








**********************

Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net


**********************


-- 








**********************

Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net


**********************

Received on Sun Mar 9 19:51:35 2008