Comprehensive Transportation

The Viaduct in a Tunnel, I-5 in a Tunnel

2009-01-19T22:55:00.000-08:00

To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The decision is made: A tunnel will replace the Viaduct. The waterfront eyesore will be gone. The plan could even be called visionary.

I propose we further expand our vision and eliminate an even greater eyesore. While we are boring a big tunnel, we might as well bore an even bigger one, a tunnel big enough not only for SR 99 but also for Interstate 5.

In one bold stroke we could reclaim not only the waterfront but also central Seattle, 40 city blocks, all the way from Yesler to Mercer.

We could reunite the Downtown that was bisected fifty years ago. There are a lot of people born before 1960 who can remember what Seattle was like before its face was scarred by I-5. The Post-Intelligencer should interview them.

Where there is now a noisy freeway barrier, there would be acres of new parks and high rise residential and commercial buildings.

What about the cost? The cost is the best part. The lease and sale of development rights for those 40 city blocks would probably produce enough revenues to pay for the entire project. We could get both tunnels for free.

There is more to my proposal. It is lengthy so I have posted it at: http://comprehensive-transportation.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html.

(Click here to read the April, 2008, blog discussing a combined SR 99 and I-5 tunnel, plus other issues relating to comprehensive transportation planning.)

SEATTLE BUSES ARE OVERFLOWING: BUT THERE IS A SOLUTION

2008-09-30T23:34:00.000-07:00

James Robert Deal
September 30, 2008

Seattle buses are jam packed, and we need to expand the fleet. (See Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Region’s Buses Overflow,” September 7.) To do that Metro proposes to raise fares and sales tax, and Sound Transit wants to raise sales tax to build more light rail, all of which will hurt the people we want to help. To find a solution we should look outside the box, in this case, outside the bus. Look at all those mostly empty cars driving by. We need to make use of their spare capacity.

I would propose a ride sharing plan in which we would use our computers, cell phones, and pagers to connect those needing rides with those offering rides. Such a plan could be implemented in a few months and at low cost. A ride sharing program could easily get a quarter of the vehicles off the roads and freeways. We could increase average occupancy levels, currently at a paltry 1.31 persons per vehicle. We could reduce total fuel consumption and meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocols.

Congestion pricing might perhaps also be utilized in conjunction with ride sharing, however, the rising cost of fuel is acting as a form of congestion pricing and so too would an increase in fuel taxes, which I advocate, and so congestion pricing by the mile might not be necessary.

Ride share riders would take an orientation class on proper behavior, pass a written test and a criminal background check, and be issued a ride share ID badge with their photo on it. Ride share drivers too would be trained and licensed and get a badge too. Their vehicles would exhibit ride share medallions and might have dashboard GPS computers which would tell them where to make pickups and deliveries consistent with the drivers’ intended routes. Some kind of sign would be posted in or on their vehicle to indicate where drivers are going. Part-time drivers might start their trips to work early to allow time for pick-ups and drop-offs. Taxi drivers and others needing work might work full time as ride share drivers.

We already have excellent ride share programs, but they run fixed routes at fixed times and carry the same riders every day. My proposal is flexible: It would give us door-to-door service, from wherever we are to wherever we need to go—from home-to-transit center—from transit center-to-office, from office-to-lunch, from lunch-to-office, from office-to-gym, from gym-to-grocery, and from grocery-to-home. Our children could get rides to and from school, daycare, and the ex-spouse. A person needing a ride could hold up his or her ID badge and waive down a ride share driver.

My theory is that if public transportation would deliver a better service, more people would ride it. I certainly would.

Riders would pay a reasonable monthly fee, perhaps based on passenger-miles used, more than for a standard bus pass, but definitely cheaper than riding solo in a single occupancy vehicle. Ride share drivers would get credits and be paid at the end of each month for each passenger-mile they deliver. No money would change hands during trips.

To go to Bellevue for a seminar, I would ride to the Lynnwood Park & Ride in a public van or private vehicle carrying two or six others. There I would pick up a fast bus to Bellevue Park & Ride, and from there I would pick up a ride share which would carry me and two or six others to our ultimate destinations, all in the same quadrant of Bellevue. The two or six cars my fellow passengers and I would normally be driving would stay at home burning no fuel and taking up no space on the roads. We would all get to our destinations a lot faster than we would if we drove alone or took buses and made transfers in the conventional way.

To hold a job it is usually necessary to drive a car, a heavy financial burden for some. Those without vehicles are handicapped by immobility. If we had the kind of ride sharing program I am proposing, families could sell some or all of their vehicles, which would raise their effective standard of living. We could take a nap on the way to work or listen to music or maybe work on our laptops. Our general anxiety level would drop and our quality of life would rise.

Underused bus routes could be replaced with door-to-door ride share service. Bus drivers would double as ride share drivers. They might drive Metro vans and serve major venues, running flexible routes, taking people and their shopping bags all the way home. At night, drivers would wait until riders are safely inside. Riders would feel more secure and so more of us would use the system. Most ride share drivers would be private citizens driving their own vehicles. At night most buses would be parked, and smaller vans and ordinary cars would provide customized, door-to-door transit service.

Buses are packed in Seattle but not elsewhere. Ride sharing is not less but more important in smaller towns, suburbs, and rural areas where densities are low and fixed route bus schedules do not work well. Ride sharing should be implemented on a state-wide basis. People should be able to share rides over long distances. Traffic congestion and comprehensive transit solutions are not just local issues.

Here in Lynnwood it is embarrassing to see so many buses driving by mostly empty. In large part we have a “pretend” bus system with drivers putting in their time burning diesel fuel, driving around in 30,000 pound buses carrying almost no one.

The only full buses I see in Lynnwood are the express commuter buses. Those who ride them generally drive solo to the Park & Ride and fill up a parking lot the size of a subdivision. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have ride share drivers bring commuters in groups of two or six to the Park & Ride?

We accept our traffic jams, our prodigious fuel consumption, our acres of parking, and the doubling and tripling of our population, perhaps because it is all we have known. We cling to the belief that we have to build something expensive to solve our traffic congestion problem—light rail, monorail or more freeway lanes. No, we can solve our problems before we build any of these things, simply by utilizing our road and vehicle capacity more efficiently.

Sound Transit proposes that we tax ourselves to extend light rail north, south, and east. Building out a complete light rail system might be a good thing to do some day, but it is certainly not a quick fix and certainly not the first thing we should do. Moreover, if we fail to implement a ride sharing program first, perhaps along with congestion pricing to encourage and subsidize it, light rail will never make a significant dent in the problem. The expensive solution is not always the best solution.

My full proposal is lengthy, so I have posted it for your further consideration at: http://www.comprehensive-transportation.blogspot.com/.

Ridesharing Article Published in The Herald of Everett, 7-20-8

2008-07-26T17:10:00.000-07:00

Door-to-door transit: Cut fuel cost by sharing rides
The Herald of Everett
July 20, 2008

By James Robert Deal, Guest Editorialist

Every day there is another piece on television or in the papers about soaring fuel prices. No solutions are offered, only complaints and laments. There is no sure way to stop the price of fuel from rising, but we could spend a lot less on it than we do now by driving together and thus burning less of it.

I am proposing a ride sharing plan in which we would use our computers, cell phones and pagers to link those needing rides with those offering rides. Such a plan could be implemented in a few months at low cost. A ride sharing program working in conjunction with congestion pricing could take a quarter to a half of single occupancy vehicles off the roads and freeways. We could increase average occupancy levels, reduce total fuel consumption, and meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocols.

Ride share riders would take an orientation class on proper behavior, pass a written test and a criminal background check, and be issued a ride share ID card. Ride share drivers would do the same and get a chauffeur's license.

Their vehicles would be equipped with dashboard GPS computers, the kind taxis have, which would illustrate the best routes to follow to pick up and drop off riders. Drivers might use their own vehicles or be assigned a transit vehicle.

Riders would pay a flat monthly fee. Drivers would get credits and be paid at the end of each month for each passenger-mile they deliver. No money would change hands during trips.

Riders would get door-to-door service, from wherever they are to wherever they need to go--home-to-office, office-to-lunch, lunch-to-office, office-to-gym, gym-to-grocery, grocery-to-home. Our children could get rides to and from school, daycare, and the ex-spouse. A person needing a ride could hold up his card and waive down a door-to-door vehicle. It might bear some distinctive, lighted medallion. If we deliver comprehensive service, the riders will climb aboard. I would.

But can we afford such personalized transit? Large numbers of cars would be left at home. Buses would be better utilized. Freeways would not need to be widened. Park & Ride lots would not have to be expanded. We would get to work more quickly, so we will be more efficient. We would save countless gallons of fuel. Yes, we can afford it. My mother advised: Sometimes it's worth spending a little more to get something worth having.

Ride sharing is not less but more important in the suburbs and rural areas where densities are low and fixed route bus schedules do not work well.

Tolls would be set at a level sufficient to discourage enough people from driving alone so that at all times roads would flow freely and fast. However, tolls would be unfair to middle and lower classes unless some better, cheaper and faster way of getting around were offered. Thus, congestion pricing and ride sharing are best implemented jointly.

With ride sharing available, a family could sell one or more cars and save on car payments, insurance and repairs, which would raise its effective standard of living.

Buses would continue to roll on heavily traveled routes -- on freeways, highways and major thoroughfares. But on underused routes, buses would be replaced with door-to-door service. A hub-and-spoke system might be used: We would travel freeways, highways and major thoroughfares on fast buses running in HOV lanes. At Park & Ride stations we would switch to vans.

Average vehicle occupancy for ordinary vehicles is around 1.35. Except for express buses, most of the buses I see here in Lynnwood drive around mostly empty. That's a lot of unused and wasted capacity.

The fixed route bus system is too rigid. We need a mix of large and smaller vehicles delivering flexible and personalized transportation of higher quality and which in turn would be heavily used.

We cling to the myth that we must build something to solve our traffic congestion problem -- light rail, monorail, more freeway lanes, wider bridges. Without door-to-door transit, none of these construction projects will be effectual. Construction projects are the last thing, not the first, we should be doing with our limited transit money.

No one else has, so I have presumed to come up with a theory of what might get us out of our traffic jams. This short article is only a partial summary of my full proposal which is available at: www.Comprehensive-Transportation.Blogspot.com.

If you disagree with me, make a counter-proposal. Don't just say "it won't work" or "nothing will work." That is what most of us believe right now, that it will take decades for us to get us out of traffic jams -- if we ever get out.

James Robert Deal is a real estate attorney and mortgage broker in Lynnwood who has a deep interest in transit and transportation issues.

We Can Cut Fuel Cost By Sharing Rides

2008-07-01T00:45:00.000-07:00

by James Robert Deal

July 1, 2008

Every day there is another piece on television or in the papers about soaring fuel prices. No solutions are offered, only complaints and laments. Apparently nothing can stop the price of fuel from rising. But we could spend a lot less on fuel than we do now by driving together.

I am proposing a ride sharing plan in which we would use our computers, cell phones, and pagers to connect those needing rides with those offering rides. Such a plan could be implemented in a few months at low cost. A ride sharing program working in conjunction with congestion pricing could easily get a quarter to a half of single occupancy vehicles off the roads and freeways. We could increase average occupancy levels, reduce total fuel consumption, and meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocols.

Ride share riders would take an orientation class on proper behavior, pass a written test and a criminal background check, and be issued a ride share ID card. Ride share drivers would do the same; in addition they would prove themselves sober and responsible and get a chauffeur’s license. Their vehicles would be equipped with dashboard GPS computers, the kind taxis have, which would illustrate the best routes to follow to pick up and drop off riders.

Riders would pay a flat monthly fee, which would cost less than driving alone and buying gasoline. Ride share drivers would get credits and be paid at the end of each month for each passenger-mile they deliver. No money would change hands during trips.

Riders would get door-to-door service, from wherever they are to wherever they need to go—home-to-office, office-to-lunch, lunch-to-office, office-to-gym, gym-to-grocery, grocery-to-home. Our children could get rides to and from school, daycare, and the ex-spouse. A person needing a ride could hold up his card and waive down a jitney. We need to deliver comprehensive service to get riders to participate.

To go to Bellevue for a seminar, I would ride in a jitney carrying maybe two or six others to the Lynnwood Park & Ride, where I would pick up a fast bus to Bellevue Park & Ride. From there I would pick up a jitney which would carry me and maybe two or six others to our ultimate destinations, all in the same quadrant of Bellevue. Two to six cars would not be on the roads.

Would this be affordable? Large numbers of cars would be left at home. Buses would be better utilized. Freeways would not need to be widened. Park & Ride lots would not have to be expanded. We would get to work more quickly, so we will be more efficient. We would save countless gallons of fuel. Yes, it would be affordable.

Ride sharing is not less but more important in the suburbs and rural areas where densities are low and fixed route bus schedules do not work at all. Ride sharing should be implemented on a multi-county and state-wide basis.

Those driving solo would pay a per-mile congestion pricing toll. This would encourage them to leave the gas guzzler at home and ride a jitney. Toll levels would be adjusted during the day to whatever level necessary to discourage enough people from driving so that at all times roads would flow freely and fast.

During World War II we rationed fuel. Instead, we would be rationing space on our too full roads. Our president says this is a national emergency. Shouldn’t we then take emergency measures?

Roads have become so packed with mostly empty vehicles that the vehicles can no longer move efficiently. The space on the roads is valuable public property. We own it and can legitimately charge rent for it to ration its overuse. Otherwise it becomes less useful. We should treat transportation as a unique public necessity, one which requires organization and cooperation for it to work effectively, and one which must be delivered reliably and affordably for us to live quality lives and compete economically. It is not communistic to apply a more cooperative and less individualistic model to transit and transportation.

However, it would be an unfair burden on the poor and the middle class to implement congestion pricing without at the same time implementing a better, cheaper, and faster way for people to get around. The ride sharing program I propose would do that.

To hold a job it is usually necessary to drive a car, a heavy burden for some. With ride sharing people could sell one or more cars and save on car payments, insurance, and repairs. Families could sell some or all of their vehicles, which would lower their cost of living and raise their effective standard of living. With fewer cars on the roads we would move at higher speeds and with few delays. We could take a nap on the way to work or listen to music or maybe work on our laptops. Our general anxiety level would drop and our quality of life would rise.

Heavily traveled bus routes on freeways, highways, and major thoroughfares would be maintained, but underused bus routes would be replaced with door-to-door jitney service. A hub and spoke system might be used: We would travel freeways, highways, and major thoroughfares on buses running in HOV lanes, but at the Park & Ride stations we would switch to vans for delivery to our final destinations, whether it be the grocery or our front door step. Bus drivers would double as jitney drivers. They might drive Metro owned vans and serve major venues. Many jitney drivers would be private citizens driving fuel efficient vehicles.

To highlight the absurdity of our current system, look inside cars as they go by. Note the typical 120 pound woman or 160 pound man riding alone in the typical 4,000 pound car. Look inside buses. Here in Lynnwood it is embarrassing to see so many buses driving by mostly empty. In large part we have a “pretend” bus system with drivers putting in their time burning diesel fuel, driving around in 30,000 pound buses carrying almost no one.

Generally those who can afford cars do not ride the buses. We do not like to stand in the rain in the dark and have strangers leer at us as they drive by. We do not like to study schedules and then walk some distance to a bus stop and then wait for a bus that might not arrive on time and might not take us where we want to go without transfers and more waiting. The fixed route bus system is too rigid. We need smaller vehicles delivering flexible and personalized transportation. With computers, cell phones, and pagers, we now have the technology to make such a system work.

The only full buses I see in Lynnwood are the express commuter buses. Those who ride them generally drive solo to the Park & Ride and fill up a parking lot the size of a subdivision. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have jitneys bring commuters in groups of two or six to the Park & Ride instead?

We accept our traffic jams, our prodigious fuel consumption, and our acres of parking, perhaps because it is all we have known. We cling to the belief that we have to build something to solve our traffic congestion problem—light rail, monorail or more freeway lanes. No, we can solve our problems before we build any of them, simply by utilizing our road capacity more efficiently.

I have come up with a theory of what might work. This article is just the beginning. My full proposal is lengthy, so I have posted it for your further consideration at: Comprehensive-Transportation.Blogspot.com.

If you disagree with me, come up with a counter-proposal. Don’t just say “it won’t work” or “nothing will work.” That is what most of us believe right now, that it will take decades to get us out of traffic jams—if we ever get out.

***
TRANSIT

Read my Theories About a Comprehensive Approach to Transit and Transportation http://comprehensive-transportation.blogspot.com/

Fuel Tax, Not Sales Tax, Should Fund Roads
October 26, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/337040_ltrs28.html

Alaskan Way Viaduct
February 23, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/304766_webltrs23.html

Don't Destroy One Monorail to Build Another
July 12, 2002
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/78191_alweg12.shtml

How Would You Spend A Billion Dollars?
October 15, 2000
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001015&slug=TTDC1TM32

Highway 520 Congestion -- Solution To Traffic Jams Requires Big- Picture Analysis And Light Rail On I-90
March 23, 1997
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970323&slug=2530141

***
FLUORIDATION

To get caught up on what is happening in the anti-fluoridation effort go to http://www.DealMortgage.net/Fluoride-Class-Action/Fluoride-Class-Action.htm.

It is amazing that something as absurd as adding fluoride to drinking water has not been outlawed. It is amazing the tenacity with which people cling to this completely unscientific custom, like those who believe that the earth is flat.

To read my recent Post-Intelligencer Letter to the Editor about fluoridation click here:
Too Much Fluoride in City Water
May 14, 2008
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/362935_ltrs14.html

My anti-fluoridation partner Dr. Osmunson, Bellevue dentist, has been working with Seattle Public Utilities to get them to set up a taskforce on the fluoridation question.
Click here to read his letter.
http://www.dealmortgage.net/Fluoride-Class-Action/Osmunson%20Water%20District%20Challenge%205-10-8.pdf

See and hear Dr. Bill Osmundson, Bellevue dentist, on fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds5G0XasTHM

Read what Dr. Rubin, Seattle dentist, has to say about fluoridation. http://www.dentalwellness4u.com/layperson/fluoridefacts1.html

See the Safe Drinking Water slideshow on fluoridation http://www.greenfrogcreative.com/presentation.pdf

***
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT AND DIET
http://www.amazon.com/What-Serve-Goddess-Comes-Dinner/dp/1884949118/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211933082&sr=8-1

***

Mail a letter about fluoridation to the Governor
Governor Christine Gregoire
Office of the Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002
Fax: 360-753-4110
Send an e-mail to the Governor
http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/

***

Would you like to know more about how to get your 30-year mortgage paid off in 25 years? Or maybe as little as 10 years?

The first hurdle to get over is your scepticism. There are techniques for doing this, and they work.

Click here to read An Overview of Mortgage Acceleration.
http://dealmortgage.net/Mortgage-Acceleration.htm

***

Click here to read about improving your credit score.
http://dealmortgage.net/CreditScore.htm

***

At Deal Mortgage we offer transparent, flat fee mortgage pricing. http://dealmortgage.net/TransparentPricing.htm

***

I am also an attorney. I write and review purchase and sale agreements. http://jamesrobertdeal.com/.

A Comprehensive Approach To Transit, Transportation, and Land Use

2008-04-13T20:00:00.000-07:00

A Proposal

By
James Robert Deal

(This article was written about Seattle and the state of Washington, but it would apply as well to any other city or region.)

In the Fall of 2007 voters in the Sound Transit District around Seattle voted down Proposition 1-RTID. It would have increased sales tax and car tab tax to widen the freeways and extend light rail north and east. The results of my own personal survey say that voters just couldn’t see that it would do much in any reasonable time frame to lessen their ordeal as they fight traffic to get around and about.

Efforts like Proposition 1-RTID are doomed to fail because they are piecemeal. They are incremental. They lack any big picture vision of how any specific proposed building project will dovetail with the whole or how much the whole will cost and can be financed. They are underfunded and presume tax increases later. They lack a 50 or 100-year plan. They are band aids on a broken limb.

Transportation and transit are not issues that can be addressed one piece at a time or one city or district or county at a time. Even if you complete all the pieces one at a time, all of them jury rigged political compromises, when you are done, they will not necessarily work well together. We must write a comprehensive, state-wide master plan looking forward to what we can have in place a year from now, a decade from now and at mid-century.

I know of no one else who has proposed a comprehensive, long-term plan. Despite the fact that I have no college degree in traffic engineering, I am presuming to take a first stab at it. I will not be offended if you disagree with my approach. However, if you do disagree, I only ask that you come up with a counter-proposal. Use mine as a starting point. Don’t just say “it won’t work” or “nothing will work.” That is what I think most of us believe right now, that it will take decades to get us out of traffic jams—if we ever get out.

I propose a plan for mid-century. More importantly I also propose a plan for what we could accomplish within one year: implement door-to-door transit from anywhere you are to anywhere you would want to go for a monthly fee. Implement congestion pricing. Half of all drivers will voluntarily and joyfully leave their cars at home. We could cut in half the number of cars on the roads. People will sell some of their cars and save money on fuel, insurance, and car payments. We could eliminate traffic jams, get people around much faster than we do now, and eliminate the tension and frustration we now experience in traffic. And we could greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I could start with a discussion of new bridges, new tunnels, new trains, new ferries, new trains on floating bridges, new monorails, new light rail, new maglev, or new bike trails. I will touch on all these subjects—later. I choose to start with congestion pricing and door-to-door service. Both are crucial, and neither have been included in any plans I have seen.

King County Executive Ron Sims hit the nail on the head when he sad that congestion pricing would have to be integral to any plan and it was a mistake to leave it out of Proposition 1-RTID. That was his reason for coming out against Proposition 1. His opposition probably caused the defeat of that measure. We have to thank Ron for exercising what I would call “political courage.” Other politicians doubted Proposition 1, but they were afraid to speak out against it. Ron doubted it and spoke out.

Congestion pricing has to be a part of the first steps we take to increase mobility and relieve gridlock. It should not be something we think about adding later. Congestion pricing has been tested and proven in several cities. New York will implement it soon and will plow the money collected into rapid transit, including bus rapid transit and a master bicycle plan. http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/sensible/congestion/.

Congestion pricing could be implemented here in a year. The cost of implementation would be low. Congestion pricing combined with my proposed door-to-door Comprehensive Transit Pass system, which I will describe below, alternatives transit modes could be set up that would get us around cheaper and faster than anything we have now. It would be very green. And it would work quickly.

The following is a big point with me: We do not have to “build something” to solve our traffic and transit problems. The freeways and highways are already built. We just have to use them more efficiently than we do now. We jam them up with too many SOVs (single occupancy vehicles) and we max them out to the point where they do not function efficiently. Afflicted by a destructive growth mentality, we challenge the system more and more by making more people and more cars to max out the system. In my book What to Serve a Goddess When She Comes for Dinner (available through Amazon), I discuss our unconscious but so far unstoppable urge to develop every developable square foot of the planet with 9.5 billion people by the end of the 21st Century. We are sleepwalking blindly towards ecological catastrophe. We will kill off 75% of the species in the world by simply denying them a place to exist. Our highway expansion program is a tool for furthering the Great Die Off.

And most people assume this is fairly inevitable.

Individual by individual, some humans are sublime in their beauty and wisdom. As a group we humans are more destructive than any invader from outer space. To the animals and plants, we are the invaders from inner space. We invade all the wild areas of the planet and turn them into suburbs, deserts, corn rows, and feedlots.

Kyoto Protocols were just a starting point. We much decrease greenhouse gas emissions much more than what Kyoto called for in order to prevent arctic mentdowns. Are we serious about global warming? Are we serious about solving traffic congestion? Are we ready to change how we behave as a group? Those who would widen the freeways are going in exactly the wrong direction.

The permafrost in the Arctic is thawing and it will release enormous amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 24 times more potent than CO2. It is possible that our children will live to see Puget Sound rise to the point where the Sculpture Park becomes the Scuba Sculpture Park. This is serious.

Any plan that does not include congestion pricing is a defective plan. A plan like Proposition 1-RTID, would use up our limited opportunity capital without getting us closer to our destination—unless congestion pricing is implemented later. Well, then why didn’t the creators of Proposition 1 make congestion pricing a part of the RTID plan from the start? Did the people who designed Proposition 1 discuss adding congestion pricing to the proposal? Did they vote it down? Did they even think of it?

There has to be a mechanism that can communicate to drivers that at certain places and at certain times of the day there is limited space available on freeways and highways and that can prod people to leave their SOVs at home and take the bus, carpool, or jitney. More about jitneys below.

Proposition 1-RTID was a political compromise: It had something for highway lovers and something for transit lovers. But ironically it would have not done anything for highway lovers to make their driving any more pleasant or effectual. Nor would it have done anything for transit lovers to make their use of transit any more pleasant or effectual. There was insufficient money allocated to make a significant dent in the problem—using the technologies being proposed.
At some point we should complete the HOV lane system, particularly through the heart of Seattle. Other than that we do not need to build more freeway miles. And there are things we can do, including congestion pricing, which should be done even before we complete the HOV system. We have enough freeways. Our freeways are long, wide, and massive. We have Cadillac freeways. We have freeways such as the I-90 bridge that can even be called beautiful. But we have built enough freeways for a while. It’s time to do something else.

Humans have an instinct to follow convention. We use our big brains to rationalize the status quo. We often do what we do because everyone else does things that way or because people we otherwise respect do things that way or because we have always seen things done as they are done now. Given this weakness, we must try to become aware of the conformist absurdity of the current system, in which we move people who take up a relatively small space and who weigh on average 160 pounds in vehicles that take up a full lane on a freeway and average 4,000 pounds in weight.

I suggest that we think outside the box. Let’s deliver something that people cannot now obtain, no matter how much horsepower their cars have, fast, relaxing, door-to-door transportation, with no traffic jams to endure. Lets charge people a monthly fee for the service. Let’s hire FedEx as consultant and general administrator. Let’s charge drivers by the mile when they drive SOV on the freeways and highways and at certain congested times. Let’s do that as a way to raise money and to communicate to drivers that they should take the jitney instead of the SOV. I would propose to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads by 50 to 75% or even more.
Congestion pricing would cost more per mile but reduce people’s total transit cost and get them around much faster and easier. Only if congestion pricing and door-to-door service are implanted jointly will be possible to get majority backing for it.

This is an important point: We must bear in mind that if we raise the cost of getting to work but provide no economical alternative, congestion pricing will only hurt the poor and the middle class. Only the rich who have excess money will be able to afford the freely flowing freeways—not a bad alliteration. Congestion pricing has to be part of a larger plan. Congestion pricing is most likely to be approved by voters and most likely to work best if we implement it alongside other measures which will give us alternative methods for getting where we need to go, preferably methods that will be faster and cheaper than taking our own cars.

Most people writing about transit talk about how transit can be made to work for OTHER people, usually poor people. I want to talk about a plan that I too would use and which the rich would even prefer. I would like to be able to leave my car at home in the garage, and maybe even downsize to a one-car family. I call my plan the Comprehensive Transportation Pass System.

In developing my plan, I first conducted my own informal survey of people who do not regularly use the bus system. Here are some typical objections to using the bus system as it now exists:

It is slower to take the bus. If I drive my own car, I can leave right now. I can get there quicker. Transit is not as convenient. I cannot get from my home to the bus stop either quickly or conveniently. Sometimes it is rainy and windy and cold. My car is dry and even warm after a few minutes. The Park & Ride is usually already filled by the time I get there. If I use transit, I have to look up the times and plan ahead. If I use transit, I have to stand in the public places for long periods of time with strangers driving by and leering at me and wondering why I am too poor to be able to afford a car. The bus doesn’t go to the places where I need to go. Before and after work, I have to make several stops, so going by bus just would not work. I often have to go shopping, and riding the bus is impractical when I have groceries to carry home. I sometimes work odd hours, when few buses are running. There are often weird people riding the buses.

I believe my door-to-door solution would address these issues. I sometimes call it the last mile solution. It’s a comprehensive transit package good for any reasonable time of day or night from any place where I am to any place I want to go, to work or to shop, including both local and regional destinations. It is my theory that if we try to do anything less, we will stay stuck in our traffic jams and will not do enough to reduce carbon emissions.

Under the plan I propose, Sound Transit would sell a Comprehensive Transit Pass available just like the regular bus passes it sells, but this one would provide door-to-door service. It would cost more than the current passes good only for riding buses, but less than the cost of paying for congestion pricing.

How will it work? What happens one year from now when this new service is implemented? I will get up that morning at 7:30 and decide that after I go jogging I will want to head for the office at 9:00. I have a standing order for a pickup at 9:00. I can go online or use my cell phone and change the pick up time. Jitneys would be orbiting my neighborhood in north Lynnwood. In 3 or 5 minutes, a jitney would drive up, and I would climb aboard. The jitney would take me all the way to my office, a trip of about three miles. BTW, for me to take the bus to work I would have to take a ten minute hike to the nearest bus stop, ride one bus to the Lynnwood Park and Ride, and then take a second bus to the office.

When I go to lunch, I would request a ride the same way I did in the morning. After lunch I realize I have forgotten my cell phone, so I pick up a payphone and dial an 800 number, and line up a ride back to my office. I punch in a code for my location and general destination.
The jitney might be empty when it arrives. Along the way the jitney driver might get a message on his dashboard computer telling him of one or two passengers to be picked up along the way who are going in the same general direction.

If it will be a short trip, the jitney, carrying one to five riders, will take us all to our local destinations. If it is a trip to Bellevue, the jitney will take me to the Lynnwood Park & Ride, where I will pick up a fast bus to the Bellevue Park & Ride, where I will jump into another jitney which will take me right to my seminar. Others going in the same general direction would come along in the same jitney.

This is not an outlandish idea. We already have it working, at least in part. Metro has the most successful Van Pool program in the country. Van poolers pay monthly fees which make the project self-supporting. The Van Pool program carries riders from their homes all the way to work and then back home after work. Vans are owned by Metro. The driver gets to use the van for commuting to work with passengers and for a reasonable amount of personal use. The Van Pool program would become even more popular if we implemented congestion pricing.
Metro also has a Van Share program which carries riders from home or from the ferry terminal to the Park and Ride or to Boeing in the morning and back home or back to the ferry terminal in the evening. With both of these programs, riders sign up in advance and ride the same vans with the same riders at the same time each day.

What I am suggesting is that the Van Share program be expanded into a more flexible jitney program that would not only drive people from home to Park & Ride or Boeing but also to doctor or local job or the Mall, and operate on a flexible, impromptu, fuzzy logic basis. A person could call for a ride from anywhere and get one in a short time. Jitneys would be waiting at Park & Ride stations, ferry terminals, and other busy hubs, where lots of people generally need rides. Jitneys would have reader boards showing the general direction in which they will go. And as the jitney is driving along, people can waive it down.

I would suggest that the Van Share program be expanded to allow owners of fuel efficient private vehicles to be licensed to give rides on a planned or impromptu basis. Passengers would be required to have pre-paid monthly Comprehensive Transit Passes to participate.
Drivers would have to pass background checks and demonstrate personal responsibility. They would wear their ID while working. It might make sense to encourage drivers to be trained as medical technicians so they could be first on the scene when necessary and deliver CPR. One way to save money is to combine roles: Drivers could also be medics and firemen, ready to be first responders as they orbit their assigned neighborhoods. They could subcontract for FedEx and do pickup and delivery of parcels.

To buy a Comprehensive Transit Pass, a rider also would have to be registered and pass a background check. When picking up a jitney ride, he would have to show his ID to the driver. Both driver and passenger would log in through their dashboard computer or cell phones or pagers, thus minimizing the possibility of foul play. Drivers and riders would be invited to evaluate each other’s behavior.

For drivers and passengers, there would be a code of behavior to be followed while riding in a jitney, and to be licensed or enrolled, drivers and passengers would have to pass a quiz on the subject.

It would be informal ride sharing with compensation to the driver in the form of congestion pricing credits or the free or subsidized use of a vehicle or money.
Buses, vans, jitneys, and carpools would all be equipped with transponders, so the central computer would know where they were. There would be two-way text and voice messaging through dashboard computers, like the ones installed in some taxis, including TomTom type GPS mapping to show the driver the route he is to follow to pick up and deliver his passengers, the lane the jitney is to drive in, and the speed at which it is to travel.

All vehicles equipped with transponders would pay tolls electronically as they pass certain points in the freeway or highway or avenue. Some cities photograph license plates and send out bills to those who are not equipped with transponders. Private vehicles wanting to pay the lowest tolls and ride in the best lanes would at least have transponders and be set up to receive voice messages by cell phone, assigning them to a certain lane and a certain speed. Perhaps all vehicles should eventually be equipped onboard computers.

SOVs would pay the largest fee. A car with 2, 3, 4, and more passengers would pay progressively less. Tolls would be assessed on a sliding scale. Perhaps the driver would plug the number of passengers into the onboard computer or into his cell phone or pager.

Tolls would be charged at toll points on freeways and highways and even avenues. The higher the number of passengers on board, the lower the toll that would be charged at toll points and the higher preference the vehicle would receive for riding in a faster lane. Fuel efficient vehicles would also have priority.

What about privacy? If this kind of log-in congestion pricing is implemented, Big Brother would know more about where we are and where we are going. And having driven us home, Big Brother will know the hours we are at home. My response would be to say that actual names would be encrypted on the system so that the identity of drivers and passengers could only be obtained with a warrant. Perhaps drivers and riders would adopt “handles,” as people do on the Internet to maintain anonymity. I would also respond that people could always travel anonymously on regular buses, especially if they walked or rode their bikes to the stations instead of taking a jitney. I must admit this is an issue I have not completely worked out. Privacy is not to be compromised. A lot depends on just how far you need to take the application of this system, based on how far you want to lessen carbon emissions.

To communicate more easily with drivers as to which lanes they should drive in, letters and numbers should be painted right onto the lane surface. For example, starting at my home base in Lynnwood and headed south, the right lane would be lettered “L-1”.

The second lane from the right would be lettered “M-2”. The third “N-3”. The HOV lane would be lettered “O-4.” Maybe it would have the HOV symbol in it, or maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe most lanes will be high occupancy.

Why not start naming the lanes from the right starting with “A” instead of “L”? I suggest working from the middle of the alphabet because the freeway might expand on the right side, with new lanes added on the right. If the first lane in Lynnwood were lettered “A”, and if a new lane were added on the right, then what would that lane be called? “A-Minus?”

The “L” lane would remain the “L” lane until that lane exited the freeway. For example, when you head south on I-5 and get to 85th Ave in Seattle, “L-1” will terminate into a must-exit lane. At that point “M-2” would change its name to “M-1”. It would retain its letter, but it would be in a different position from left to right and so would change its number.
At Mercer another right-hand lane becomes a must-exit lane. “N-3” in Lynnwood became “N-2” at Roosevelt and becomes “N-1” just past Mercer.

Painting letters and lane numbers on the lanes would serve a second purpose, and that is to create reserved corridors, like flight corridors for aircraft. Van 1457 carrying eight people and headed from Lynnwood to the Southcenter area would login its number of passengers and its destination. Headquarters would assign it to Lane N-3, with instructions to stay in Lane N (which would keep its letter but change its lane number several times) until exiting in Renton. A space on the freeway would be allocated to Van No. 1457 all the way to its destination. Van 1457 would probably travel at 70 mph with no slowdowns from Lynnwood to Southcenter at rush hour.

New rules of the road would be developed One would be that drivers would be prohibited from tailgating. Drivers would be required to leave more than enough distance between their vehicle and the vehicle in front to allow other vehicles to change lanes and merge into the space ahead.
Another new rule of the road: The driver to your right or left, provided he were ahead of you, would have the right of way over you, meaning the right to change lanes by pulling into the space in front of you. This would reverse the current rule, which apparently is that no driver can merge into the space in front of you unless you arbitrarily choose to allow him to do so.
On the other hand, one changing lanes should have a good reason for doing so. Because vehicles would be assigned lanes to use for the duration of the trip, the only reason for changing lanes would be to exit the freeway or to make a change as instructed via radio or cell phone or dashboard device, for example, if there were a slowdown ahead.

And if there were a slowdown ahead, vehicles approaching the area would be instructed through onboard computer to slow to some specific, lesser speed sufficient enough to give time for the problem ahead to be corrected and avoid having traffic come to a complete halt.

Another reason for assigning letters and numbers to lanes would be to be able to give more accurate instructions to drivers. Take for example, the signs above the I-5 lanes as they pass under the Convention Center heading south. Because I-5 is going through a curve at that point, it is not easy to tell which lanes the arrows point down to. If lane numbers were painted on the lane surface, everyone would know which lane would go where.

Moreover, the signs above the lanes do not give full or accurate information about which lanes go to Tacoma and which go to Bellevue. Several of the lanes go to both, and several of those lanes that go to both have signs above them which say erroneously that they go only to one or the other. The signs should say: Lanes P, Q, & S to Bellevue. Lanes P, S, & T to Tacoma.
My point is that signs should accurately communicate information to drivers; our current system does not. There has always been discussion about why traffic slows down under the Convention Center. The reason usually given is that it is dark thereunder. No, I think it is because people are struggling to change lanes unnecessarily.

Under my plan, the emphasis would be on viewing transportation and transit as a public utility. The emphasis would be on adopting a cooperative model of transit and transportation. The emphasis would be on people getting together and giving each other rides and setting up the rules and customs to make the transit and transportation venture work. The current individualist model is a failure. We the people paid vast sums in taxes to finance these freeways. They are ours, and we can regulate them as we see fit to accomplish a greater good.
It is my hypothesis that we could implement congestion pricing and a door-to-door jitney rapid transit service within a year, and perhaps without even raising taxes. I would propose that we halt and delay all new concrete laying projects and train building projects until this new plan is implemented. We should finish Link in Downtown Seattle, but build no more light rail until we have formulated a comprehensive plan.

To encourage people to cooperate in this venture, I would suggest we appeal to their feeling of civic duty. The globe is warming and the seas are rising, so if you care about your grandchildren, leave your car at home. But that may not be enough. We would have to charge tolls to SOV drivers, lesser tolls to 2-person car pools, lesser tolls to 3-person car pools, and so on.

Car manufacturers, oil companies, tire companies, and highway construction companies would oppose congestion pricing because people will use private vehicles less and buy fewer of them. These companies are all smart enough to figure out something else they could do with their talented work force to make just as much money, but the problem is that greed knows no limits and does not care about ethics. The corporation exists not only to shield individuals from liability but also to insulate them from ethical responsibility. Corporations will do things that we as individuals would not do. Corporations are devices programmed to increase profits continuously while obeying the law well enough to stay out of trouble. They have no responsibility to go further, as we do as individuals, and adopt ethical standards more stringent than what the law requires. Corporations are not required to behave ethically, only to behave legally. They are subject to no requirement that they restrain their behavior for the good of the planet nor do unsolicited good deeds. And that is one of the causes of our self-destructive growth mania. There is never enough profit for these corporations, and they will oppose any program that might lessen sales of the cars, oil, or the concrete they sell. So know who your enemy is and get outraged when politicians take contributions from them.

What about taxis and taxi drivers? They would immediately be a part of the program, although they would be encouraged to switch gradually to more fuel efficient vehicles. All taxis would be licensed to carry more than one customer. They already have onboard computers. Some people would still want to ride privately, and I would think taxis for private occupancy would continue to be available, although perhaps they should be required to pay sizeable congestion fees, depending on the number of passengers aboard. I would suggest that incentives might be set to encourage taxi drivers to carry more riders by paying bonuses according to the number of person they carry for the most number of miles.

Driving a jitney would not necessarily be a full time job. A driver with a fuel efficient car or van might take the test and become an authorized part-time jitney driver. He might carry a regular group of passengers or a group that might vary. He would log in through his onboard computer or by cell phone. Messages would tell him where to go to find the number of passengers he might want to carry, and then where he would go to drop them off.

Jitneys would orbit neighborhoods, picking up riders calling for rides, and take them directly to their local destinations or to bus stations or other transfer points where they would transfer to high speed buses. Jitneys would go wherever the riders were and pick them up and take them wherever they might need to go. It would be a comprehensive service.

Particularly if it is dark, cold, and rainy, jitneys would pick up those on the side of the road flagging for a pickup. Let’s call them flaggers. Flaggers might be equipped with a distinctive blinking flashlight that drivers could spot easily. The jitney would pick them up even if it were going in the wrong direction. The passenger’s first goal is to get out of the cold, wind, and rain and get to a transfer point, where the rider can catch a jitney going in the right direction.

But what about the additional cost for labor to pay drivers to pick people up whereever they are and take them wherever they want to go? Right now SOVs provide their own free driving labor and their own vehicles. Will the price people pay for Comprehensive Transit Passes cover the cost of transit services delivered?

How many passengers must a carpool or jitney carry for the extra cost of paying a driver and maintaining the jitney to offset the number of gallons of fuel not burned, the amount of greenhouse gasses not released, and the billions of dollars not spent on armies to guard Middle East oil?

There are mathematicians who can assign values to such factors and make the calculation. My approximation would be that if the jitney were carrying only one passenger, there would be the same number of vehicles in use and therefore the same amount of greenhouse gasses released, while the only extra cost would be paying the driver and financing the additional vehicle. With my vehicle left at home, there would be the same number of vehicles on the road and no reduction in congestion. If I sell one of my cars, then as a group we would be financing fewer total vehicles, so as a group the only extra cost would be the cost of paying the driver.

If the jitney were carrying four passengers, one quarter as much greenhouse gasses would be released and there would be three fewer vehicle on the road and therefore a potential 75 percent reduction in congestion in areas where the jitney program were implemented. Four drivers might each sell one car, and therefore as a society, we would be avoiding the costs of supporting four vehicles—insurance, financing, repairs, fuel, and storage space. Auto accidents would be less frequent, resulting in a reduction in property and personal injury damage. The only added cost, again, would be the cost of paying the jitney driver, but in this case the cost would pay for the transportation of four and not just one passenger.

There would be a tradeoff between maximizing these savings and picking up and delivering riders as quickly as possible. As the average number of riders being picked up and delivered increases, the amount of time it would take to get each rider to his destination would be increased. On the other hand, as the total number of vehicles on the road is radically reduced, congestion would be reduced, and delivery times would be shortened.

In creating a mathematical model, we should also factor in the increase in personal efficiency. Workers would get to work more quickly and waste less time on the road. Workers riding as passengers might be able to work instead of pay attention to the bumper ahead, again increasing productivity. Or they might get a little extra sleep. Or listen to music or news on their iPod. Getting to work more quickly would mean that passengers would either have more time to devote to work or more time to devote to their families and their personal callings. Workers would arrive more rested and therefore would be more effective at work.

The calculation should also include the general increase in occupancy levels of the bus system overall. Riders could get to bus stations more easily and so would fill the trunk line buses. This would lessen the cost currently needed to subsidize the bus system. That’s right, buses typically collect around 25% of their cost of operation at the fare box.

Another important factor is that implementing a Comprehensive Transit Pass system would obviate the need to expand the Park & Rides, which would save hundreds of millions of dollars. And it would obviate the need to widen the freeways, which would save billions of dollars.
We are silly to presume that we should just keep widening freeways to carry more single occupancy vehicles. Every time we widen the freeways we set in motion forces that will cause us to need to widen them again. We must figure out a way to ration the use of the enormous freeways we have.

To reduce labor cost, we could make use of part time carpool drivers. They could carry along a load of passengers where every they might be going. It would be a form of multi-tasking, and they would get paid for it.

Such a system would increase mobility generally and thus make our businesses more competitive internationally. When all these savings are factored in they more than offset the additional cost for vehicles and drivers to deliver door-to-door service.
And just maybe, if other cities implement similar programs, we could stop the sea level from rising.

Wouldn’t this be a little chaotic? Yes, and in an earlier era it would not have worked. But now practically everyone is equipped with a cell phone. Even some children carry cell phones. The less affluent could use cheap pagers. And now we have GPS onboard computers, like the ones in taxis, that can be connected by wireless networks to central mainframe computers. It would be easy to coordinate those needing rides with those available to accept riders and to map out travel routes for the driver.

A jitney could even be called on to carry children to and from home, school, and daycare, and to their father’s law office after work. Parents would not have to act as constant chauffeurs for their children. Maybe the door-to-door system would supplant the current school bus system, with its acres of buses sitting idle most of the time in vast parking lots.

Not everyone would buy a Comprehensive Transit Pass. Some would walk and bicycle to work. Some would walk or bike to the Transit Center and take the buses which operate on regular routes on freeways and major highways and avenues. Some will insist on driving their own vehicles on the freeways and will pay a heavy toll. Some will drive their own vehicles and carry one passenger and pay a lesser toll, two passengers and a lesser toll, and so on.
Riding in a jitney or bus will not work for everyone all the time. Some use their car as their offices. Sometimes we need to make trips involving a series of stops. But it would work for enough people to remove a sizeable number of vehicles from the road.

What about buses that run on regular bus routes? If these routes were significantly utilized, then they should continue to operate. However, underused bus lines should be phased out. Drivers would not lose their jobs but would go to work driving jitneys providing door-to-door service.
I lament the number of buses I see driving by here in Lynnwood mostly empty. It would be funny if it were not so expensive and ineffectual. It’s like the kings new clothes. Buses driving around empty following lines on a map are a pretend bus system. Most bus lines here are under utilized, and there is good reason: Buses run only every half hour. Buses usually pass many blocks from where you live or want to go. To get where you want to go, you often have to transfer to a different bus. You end up waiting in the cold and the rain.

My theory is that we would attract far more passengers by giving them what they need—fast door-to-door service. Instead of relatively few buses driving around mostly empty and getting gallons per mile, we would have more smaller jitneys carrying more riders and getting better mileage per passenger mile overall. We would be moving a lot less steel and rubber and a lot more people. Some costs would go up, but benefits would go up even more.

My vision of transit-oriented development is “string theory.” High-rise construction would be authorized near bus and train stations, and high-speed bus and later train lines would interconnect all the stations. Orbiting around the stations would be jitneys to bring those living further out to and from the stations and ferries. Every few years we hear that planners are considering reopening the ferry system that once ran from down Kirkland across to the foot of Madison or to the University. But the ferry line never opens because there is not enough parking in downtown Kirkland. Parking! The almighty parking space for the almighty SOV! All bow down to the almighty SOV!

Homes, apartments, condominiums, and office buildings could be built with fewer parking spaces, and the savings would be great. Park & Ride parking lots and bus stations could be redeveloped with high-rise condos, high-rise apartments, high-rise office buildings, and vertical industrial parks where there are now acres of parking spaces filled with acres of cars. The people who would live and work close to stations would drive rented cars on occasion, but generally they would ride in buses, jitneys, and carpools.

How far out from the densely populated areas of Snohomish, King, and Pierce County should the Comprehensive Transit Pass, door-to-door system extend? I suggest that the congestion pricing and fast bus and jitney system would be expanded gradually and eventually throughout the I-5 corridor from Blaine to Portland and I would hope even into rural areas throughout the state. Transit in rural areas can be extremely difficult. People there generally have infrequent bus service if they have it at all. I am proposing a state-wide transportation utility district that will lessen dependence on driving around solo.

Some rural counties have buses, but they mostly drive around empty as in Lynnwood. People must own a car to go anywhere, including to work or to college. The economics of providing transportation in suburban and rural areas could be worked out, and I think the key to keeping down costs would be to encourage a significant number of owners of private cars to sign up and serve as jitney drivers as they go about their daily driving. With drivers and riders signed up and certified, informal ride sharing and hitch hiking could be quite effective in moving people around in rural areas.

I want to say a few words about growth. Both political parties favor growth. One seems to favor a lot of growth, and the other seems to favor slightly less growth. But growth is growth. Time continues infinitely into the future, as I often say, so the result is the same. In the long run growth increases the cost of utilities, schools, roads, police, and fire protection, and the costs rise faster than the increased tax revenue that growth produces. The last time I checked, both parties said nothing about population explosion in their platforms. That is one of the reasons why I am not a member of any political party.

More people and more vehicles and more consumption produce more greenhouse gases. I oppose growth in general. If I got my wish, the United States would mostly close its doors to immigration and we would stabilize our population immediately. Illegal immigrants already here would be allowed to stay, in fact, it would be impossible to round them up and evict them. But no others would be allowed to enter except for those we specifically allow to enter except the very closest relatives.

Given the primitive level of our politics, I presume that our numbers will continue to grow. On the other hand, it is possible to decrease the impact of so many new people by decreasing the number of vehicles we drive and by living in more compact high rise neighborhoods where public transportation can more easily be implemented.

According to my string theory of transit and land use, incentives should be set up to encourage conversion of older housing into green space and to concentrate living space into 40-story condominium towers located along transit lines. The easiest example of this is the concrete block ghettos of Mountlake Terrace. Owners of an entire block of homes could be bought out by a public utility district. Owners would own a large, new, energy efficient unit in a tall condominium tower built on one corner of the block. The rest of the block would be tennis courts, ball fields, vegetable gardens, and green space. Our tall condominium towers would be surrounded by miles of meadow and forest. In theory we should evacuate the sprawling suburbs over the decades and regroup back into town centers.

I would like to say a few words about bicycling, and most of the things I say about biking will apply to walking: Biking is an excellent form of exercise. Old people and fat people can bike. It is not as hard on the knees as jogging. Biking is a relatively fast way to get around. Bicycling can be a way for people to get to bus stations or get to their ultimate destinations.

I propose we develop what I would call bicycle highways and freeways. Some would be striped lanes winding through neighborhood streets. Some like the Burk-Gillman and the Interurban should be limited access bicycle freeways, with overpasses and underpasses over and under streets, and with continuous roofing for all-weather use. Traffic signals should be set up at busy streets. Traffic flow could be timed so that bikers and cars could take turns riding through on green lights. Main bicycle highways should have overpasses or underpasses so bikers and walkers could safely pass the busiest streets and highways. I note how difficult it is in most places for pedestrians and cyclists to cross freeways. The roads that pass under freeway interchanges often include no lanes for walkers and bikers, who must sprint across freeway on-ramps littered with broken glass and gravel. Bike tires can be punctured. Biking is not necessarily a sweaty thing, but employers should be encouraged to make showers available for those who push hard and get sweaty.

Already we have bicycle corridors on major thoroughfares and even highways. Their virtue of these is that they are straight and that hills are gradual. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that drivers will make mistakes and hit bikers. I suggest that alternate routes be developed which would parallel heavily traveled thoroughfares and run a few blocks away from busy streets. These routes would twist and turn through neighborhood streets. There would be few cars on these streets, and the few cars there would be required to drive slowly and carefully and give bikes and pedestrians the right of way. With 50 to 75 percent of the vehicles off the road, there would be more room for bikers and walkers.

What is mass transit? It is transportation that moves a lot of people and goes really fast. Moves a lot of people—yes. Goes really fast—not necessarily. If the mode of transportation moves a large number of people and the distances are not great, then high speed is not a necessary ingredient. It is the total flow per hour that is important. Three miles can easily be walked by a pedestrian in an hour, and 12 can easily be biked by a biker. The term “mass transit” should not have to exclude methods where people travel three mph as in the case of walkers or 12 mph as in the case of bicycling. I would propose bicycle and pedestrian routes that would be multiple and parallel, and which would thus have a large carrying capacity. This is why I contend that biking and walking qualify as mass transit. Proposition 1-RTID allocated only .3% of its funds for bikers and pedestrians.

We have a lot of people who have problems getting to and from work. A lot of these people do not get enough exercise. In one bicycle or walking package we could give them weight loss, good health, and a refreshing and reasonably fast commute to work.

Another component of the door-to-door concept would be to make rental cars available at bus and train stations. Sometimes a person needs a private vehicle to conduct private business. Sometimes people need to travel to destinations far from bus stations. Maybe there are no jitneys or carpools available going out to remote areas. There are times when the SOV is the best option.

How would a person go from Woodinville to a destination a few miles outside of Frederickson, a small Pierce County berg that is not well served by transit. He would go by Jitney from his home in Woodinville to the bus station, then by express bus at 70 mph with no slowdowns to a Tacoma station, and then by jitney or rental car to Frederickson. He might rent a car if he had many trips to make in and around Frederickson. If he drove his SOV all the way, and if congestion pricing had not yet been implemented, the trip would be slow, tense, and exhausting, particularly if attempted during rush hour. If congestion pricing were in effect, it would be faster but still tense and exhausting, and in addition it would be expensive. But if he used his Comprehensive Transit Pass, the trip would be faster and cheaper, and he could even take a nap in route.

I would like to say a few words about light rail and trains in general. Some transit thinkers question whether we need trains at all. Their theory is that computerized and congestion priced freeway driving combined with rapid buses, vans, and carpools would do the job better than a train or a widened freeway and could be implemented much more quickly than trains. Some may take the position that we lack the population density necessary to justify the high cost of trains.

I agree that computerized and congestion priced use of the freeways is the first step we should take, along with bus rapid transit, jitneys, vans, and carpools, plus safe bicycle highways and walking paths—what I refer to as the Comprehensive Transit Pass system. However, I believe that there are corridors where—after the Comprehensive Transit Pass System is implemented first—there is sufficient ridership to justify building the right kind of high speed train.
And the right kind of train is a maglev train, digital transportation, almost no moving parts except the HVAC fans. Why waste your money on analog transportation; it’s outmoded.
Such a train makes sense because it can operate at much higher speeds, which is necessary where longer distances are involved. It is energy efficient, can carry many passengers, enjoys low maintenance costs, can carry freight and would make a lot of money doing so, provides a much higher quality ride than buses, jitneys, and steel wheeled trains or rubber wheeled monorails.

Such a train would go fast enough to replace some airline traffic, including short haul airline freight traffic. I will talk below about how Sound Transit could build a train around Lake Washington that would be the first leg of fast train that would interconnect all four corners of the state of Washington and perhaps other states.

The valid objection to trains has been that people have to get to them to ride them, and that it is difficult for people to get to them, especially if there are no parking lots around them. A door-to-door jitney program would get people to and from the train stations.
I come to the conclusion that high speed rail is feasible because I apply my string theory of development and because I take a really long view.

I also come to that conclusion because the train I have in mind can be designed to carry freight. Not coal or logs, but light and medium weight freight of high value that would justify solid freight charges and thus high profits. Carrying freight is always the high profit side of the business for trains. Maglev freight trains made up of aerodynamically designed container vehicles could run day or night. Maglev is so quiet that no one would object to night trains. One of light rail’s defects is that it is not designed to carry freight.

If my string theory of development were adopted, there would be many condominium dwellers and many vertical office and factory buildings in close proximity to train stations. Cargo would need to be delivered, and the new train would be the deliverer.

The system I propose would have turnouts so trains could leave the main line and ride on a slow lane into stations and then onto another line where containers would be off loaded.
The system would have switching on the trains and not on the tracks, a concept hard for those new to train design. Tracks would not move to switch a train from one set of tracks to another. Instead an apparatus on the train would move. This arrangement would be safer and greatly reduce wear and tear and thus maintenance costs.

Next I would like to say something about the various freeway and train mega-projects now on the boards. I am talking about light rail across the I-90 bridge, rebuilding the SR-520 bridge, and doing something about the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Again, please bear in mind that this is a speculative and hypothetical treatment of these issues intended to stimulate debate on these subjects. I will not be offended if you disagree with my proposals. All I ask is that you give them due consideration and, if you disagree with them, come up with something better.

I would first suggest a method to use in analyzing these mega-projects, and that would be to look forward to 2050 and ask ourselves what kind of state-wide transit and transportation system we are worthy of having by that date. We should keep that system in mind as we decide what to build and what not to build today. Everything we build today should fit in as a component part of the 2050 system. Nothing should be built that will not fit in as a component.

We are building what should be permanent improvements, so we should think far into the future. We should not be wasting any of our limited funds on projects that will be rendered unnecessary by more advanced technologies which we will build later. Our transit opportunity capital is limited, so none of it should be squandered on projects that do not fit with the ultimate 2050 vision.

This is far different from the method we currently use: We analyze one project at a time and individually. We do not analyze them as part of an integrated system. We incrementally expand and rebuild existing components, with no vision of how they will work together and what will happen in the distant future.

I would first apply this big-picture, comprehensive 2050 look-back method of analysis to the issue of whether we should build light rail across I-90 from Seattle to Bellevue. The answer is No. No, the answer is HELL NO. Instead of a slow train across Lake Washington, we should build a fast train around Lake Washington.

First, I will comment on why light rail on I-90 would be a bad idea and then discuss the advantages of building a high speed train around the Lake instead of light rail across the Lake—of course after, the door-to-door Comprehensive Transit Pass system is implemented.
George Kargianis and Phil Talmadge wrote about “The Hidden Costs of Light Rail Across the I-90 Floating Bridge” (Seattle Times, May 16, 2007). They correctly pointed out that taking over the I-90 reversible lanes for light rail would lessen our ability to deliver rapid bus service across Lake Washington. They pointed out that three inches of concrete would have to be shaved off the bridge deck so that when two trains pass, the weight will not be excessive.

Transit experts point out that the shaving is needed because, although the I-90 reversible lanes were designed for heavy rail, they were not designed for light rail. They explain that ironically light rail trains are heavier than their heavy rail counterparts (like BART, which has an exclusive right of way) because light rail trains have to be sturdy enough to survive inevitable collisions with trucks and cars at grade crossings.

Kargianis and Talmadge could have reminded readers that there is a difficult stray current issue when operating an electric train on a floating bridge. That trains making the transition off firm ground onto a barge that moves up, down, sideways, and rotationally, may derail, or that as a precaution against derailment trains might have to creep slowly onto the bridge. That if rails are not precisely parallel and level with each other, trains have a tendency to oscillate from side to side. That as a result on a floating bridge there would be bridge movement that could set off or amplify such oscillations. That trains might have to travel slowly as they cross the bridge, especially on windy days. That the flanges on conventional train wheels are small and that it is relatively easy for a conventional train to be derailed—accidentally or through mischief.

They could have added that floating bridges are not permanent structures. They are glorified pontoon bridges. They only last a few decades. The majority of all floating bridges ever built in Washington have sunk. A train system should be built on firm ground and should be built to last for centuries. A glorified pontoon bridge is no place for a train. The entire idea of building light rail on I-90 is so riddled with absurdities that it should be laughed out of town. It continues to amaze me that we contemplate squandering $6.0 billion of our transit birthright money on such a ludicrous project.

Next, I will say a few words about the many advantages of a round-the-lake high-speed train—of course after, the door-to-door Comprehensive Transit Pass system is implemented.
The round-the-lake train I have in mind would do more than just connect the two sides of the Lake and all the cities around the Lake. It would be the first stage in interconnecting the entire state by high speed rail.

Fast buses, fast vans, and fast carpools are an excellent use of technology for relatively short trips, especially if congestion pricing and door-to-door service are implemented to eliminate traffic jams. However, for longer trips, moving people and freight by automobiles is too slow. I think it is a shame that I cannot get on a fast train and be in Olympia in an hour or less to lobby politicians. Driving to Olympia is exhausting and stressful. All automobiles use more energy than a train on a per passenger basis. There is a practical speed limit for vehicles not physically or magnetically attached to a rail. It is just not safe to drive them at the same speeds that trains can achieve. Further, freeway lanes and even HOV lanes can become blocked.

It should be our goal by 2050 to have a state-wide high-speed rail system up and running which would connect all Washington population centers—Blaine to Vancouver to Renton to Bothell to Redmond to Bellevue to Issaquah to Tacoma to Bremerton to Yakima and to Spokane. All of it should be built with an exclusive right of way and with turn-outs at each station so express trains will not have to stop at each station. Local trains could pull out and stop and let non-stop trains bypass the station. High speed buses and door-to-door jitneys would deliver passengers to the stations.

This state-wide system could be part of a Northwest States or a West Coast or even a national high-speed, train system. There would be plenty of time for agreement to be reached on a common technology. My thesis is that the first stage of that system could be a high-speed maglev rail line around Lake Washington. It would make sense to start in Seattle because we need a round-the-Lake system.

What if train technology changes? Rails, what ever the type, should be built so they can be unbolted from supporting structure and replaced with different rails.
Another reason why we should develop a high speed train system is to diminish the use of airplanes. Flying people and freight around is very fuel inefficient, and when you consider the time needed to get to and from the airport, it is not necessarily faster, especially for short hops.
Airplanes spew greenhouse gasses high into the stratosphere, including carbon dioxide, which does not dissipate because there are no forests and no oceans up there to absorb it, plus much nitrous oxide, “the third largest greenhouse gas contributor to overall global warming, behind carbon dioxide and methane.”

How do we reduce such pollution? It’s easy: Develop hydrogen burning aircraft. Easy? Neither Boeing nor Airbus has any plans to build hydrogen powered aircraft. That leaves only one other method: Stop flying. Take trains. We need to use trains instead of airplanes if we are really serious about reversing the greenhouse effect and stopping sea level rise. Unfortunately, building a national high-speed train is also a long-term project. But just because a worthy project will take a long time and will be an uphill battle does not mean we should not work to get it started. If we started now, we could have it running by 2050.

Our ultimate goals should be to adopt a more cooperative approach to travel and treat it more like a public utility. We should lessen our reliance on private vehicles and instead utilize fast buses and trains instead of cars and use fast trains as much as possible for both short and long trips. We have to move in this direction in order to reduce emission of greenhouse gasses both on the highways and in the stratosphere. With apologies to Boeing, I conclude that planes should be used primarily for travel between continents or at least between cities which have no trains interconnecting them.

I would apply the same big-picture, 2050, look-back method of analysis to the debate about the SR 520 floating bridge. The solution is simple: Tear it down, and don’t rebuild it. There is no need to waste $5 billion rebuilding a floating bridge if we are going to have a high-speed train running around the Lake and high-speed bus rapid transit running across the I-90 bridge. The SR 520 bridge should never have been built, and rebuilding today would be a repetition of the original mistake.

What about the Alaskan Way Viaduct? I have read of the following six options for dealing with it: 1) relocate it into a new tunnel along the waterfront or a deep tunnel running further inland, 2) refurbish it as an elevated highway, 3) rebuild it as a new elevated highway, 4) build a new high-level bridge soaring over the waterfront, 5) build an “elevated tunnel” just below and just above ground level, or 6) get rid of it altogether and move traffic to surface streets.

Some suggest that the Viaduct be shut down for a while to see how well we could get along without it, a version of option 6. This makes good sense because no matter which of these six options we choose, we will have to shut down the Viaduct anyway, and for many years.

There are possible problems with digging a new tunnel under Alaskan Way: The tunnel will be below sea level from the start, and we can look forward to sea level rising continuously, year after year. Frankly, I believe it is too late to avert global temperature increases and a major rise in sea level. Even if there were solutions which might work, I believe our amoral version of capitalism is too devoted to worshiping the dollar and just too powerful to implement such solutions before the water starts to rise in a big way and it is too late to stop it. Temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic will rise up to ten degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Many more cubic miles of ice are melting into the oceans yearly than are being added as snowfall. Warming oceans expand. Sea levels quickly rose 400 feet at the end of the last Ice Age, and the rising has resumed.

Uniformitarianism is a serious intellectual error, because as I said above, time continues infinitely into the future. We should take a really long view of this, I mean a 100 or 500 year view: In a century Ivar’s Acres of Clams will probably be underwater. Sooner or later any tunnel built along the Seattle waterfront will be a canal sooner or later and the money we spend on it now will later prove to have been squandered. An Alaskan Way tunnel or rebuilt viaduct certainly would not fit into the 2050 comprehensive plan I propose.
Severe earthquakes occur here every few hundred years, and the last one devastated the Northwest in 1700. Soil along the waterfront is unstable fill. Some say a killer quake could heave and twist the shoreline, destroying a new viaduct or tunnel.

So what should we do about the Viaduct? I would apply the same big-picture 2050 look-back method of analysis and propose a seventh alternative, one which may sound extravagant and impossible at first, and odd because I am proposing new freeway construction, something I generally oppose. But I think it makes sense in this case. And if you disagree, please come up with something better.

Here is my proposal: I-5 would be relocated straight down into a group of deep-bore, stacked tunnels below where I-5 now runs through Downtown Seattle. SR 99 would be rerouted to run jointly through the same set of tunnels. The new high-speed train I am proposing would run through these tunnels and continue around Lake Washington, following I-5 and I-405 or Bothell Way. It would mostly be elevated.

A detoured SR 99 would turn east and run as an elevated highway over Royal Brougham to join a subterranean I-5 heading north. At Mercer it would turn west in a tunnel under or a viaduct over the present Mercer to rejoin the existing SR 99. At the completion of the project the Alaskan Way Viaduct would be dismantled.

I admit that such a tunnel project would be fabulously expensive. I only propose it because we have to do something about the Viaduct before the next earthquake hits and because Seattle is proposing to spend a fabulous $4.5 billion on a new waterfront tunnel. A single, combined I-5/SR 99 tunnel would presumably cost more than a waterfront tunnel alone. However, if we are going to spend fabulously, shouldn’t we at least get something fabulous for our money? My mother always said it was usually better to spend a little more to get something generally much better. Cheaper is not always better, but it seems that most Washingtonians believe that.

And the results would be fabulous: Putting I-5 into a tunnel would free up an area for redevelopment and parks that would be a city block wide and two miles long, all the way from King to Mercer, around 40 city blocks. That redevelopment would produce fabulous infusions of capital from the sale of the real estate plus fabulous real estate tax revenues for ever—maybe enough to pay for the project through the sale of long-term bonds. Because a federal freeway would be involved along with a new high-speed train, federal money would be available to help finance it. Conversely, the Feds will contribute little to rebuild any version of a state highway along the waterfront.

In retrospect it should be clear that our predecessors made a big mistake 50 years ago when they failed to insist when I-5 was built that it be tunneled through Downtown Seattle. President Eisenhower, signer of the 1956 act that authorized building of the Interstate system, was shocked at the resulting bulldozing of American cities. Ike admitted he had envisioned the new freeways going around instead of through downtown cores.

The plan I propose would allow the Viaduct and I-5 both to remain open during construction. It would give us a no-freeway Downtown, a no-Viaduct waterfront, crossover routes between I-5 and SR 99, bi-directional HOV lanes through Downtown (needed if bus rapid transit plans are to work), improved truck access to the Port, opportunities for a new high-speed train, a solution to the Mercer mess, new land for parks and development, revenues from land sales, and new ongoing tax revenues.

Mayor Schell is right when he says that a new Alaskan Way tunnel would reconnect Seattle to its waterfront, but the plan I propose would do that and also reconnect the Seattle that was bifurcated by I-5.

I have been told by those who should know that the Burlington Northern rail right of way under Seattle is inadequate, and it could be upgraded at the same time this other work is done.
Except for completion of the HOV system, I oppose widening the freeways. I favor putting I-5 in a tunnel in part to complete the HOV system. I also favor it because we have a general need to build more and better rights of way through downtown Seattle—for bidirectional HOV, for trains fast and slow, and to create an alternative to the Alaskan Way viaduct or tunnel.
Back to the subject of cost and a comprehensive plan: We would save $4.5 billion by not building an Alaskan Way tunnel, $6 billion by not building light rail across I-90 bridge, and $5 billion by not rebuilding SR-520. Now we have saved $15.5 billion that could be applied to more useful projects such as my Comprehensive Transit Pass system followed by a round-the-Lake train.
Which form of taxation should be used to fund transit and road improvements is another difficult issue. I hope you would agree with me that a general sales tax is not the way to do it; it is extremely regressive. Same with a high motor vehicle tax. Cars should be relatively cheap to own but relatively more expensive to use. Any large property tax on cars creates great resentment and politicians would be wise to oppose it.

The best way to fund transit is with user fees, specifically a fuel tax and congestion pricing. The Washington Constitution might prevent using fuel tax for anything other than road building and ferries. A sales tax on fuel might be a way to circumvent the constitutional problem. But if the Washington Constitution must be amended, I say amend it. Those who drive the most should help pay for building transit alternatives that will get people off the roads so the roads will work better. A tax on road use, a charge by the mile, would be a way of sidestepping constitutional problems with a fuel tax: Tax miles driven instead of fuel used.

Would citizens of Eastern Washington support use of a fuel tax to build a state-wide high-speed train? It would benefit them, so maybe they would. If they opposed it, then it could be left out of the taxing district. They just would not get their bus and high-speed train.

I found it amazing that Proposition 1-RTID proposed to use a general sales tax to fund freeway expansion. It should have been a fuel tax—but unfortunately it is doubtful whether a fuel tax can be used to build transit, and the light rail aspect of Proposition 1 was bigger than the freeway aspect. That Constitution really needs to be changed.

Another alternative source of revenue would be a state income tax on the rich, a flat income tax at a relatively low rate that would exempt the first $200,000 in income, indexed to the cost of living. We have tens of thousands of millionaires and billionaires living here in Washington who have been made rich at least partially through the assistance and services given them by the state of Washington. They are able to pay something back, and they should do so. The same could be said of Washington corporations: We should tax the incomes of corporations with the first $500,000 in corporate income exempt and mostly do away with the B & O tax. If the Washington Constitution must be amended for us to have such an income tax, I say amend it.

I would prefer that the income tax be dedicated first to fund education fully. The Washington Constitution requires that the state do so, but we ignore it on that point. Bill Gates Sr. and other enlightened wealthy people say they do not want all the tax breaks they keep getting, that they would rather have a state where kids are well educated, where transit works well, and where people are not sleeping in the streets.

I would like to say a few words about light rail: Before we vote on spending more money on Link Phase 2, we should first complete Link Phase 1. It is only fair to give us some time to study how it works and think about how Phase 2 might be constructed differently or even whether implementation of Phase 2 should be delayed in favor of the improvements I am proposing.

Light rail is not the highest and best technology available, nor the most cost-effective, nor the safest. It does not offer an exclusive right of way and therefore is too slow. Trains lacking an exclusive right of way will inevitably run into or be run into by cars, trucks, animals, and people. The advantage its supporters tout most is that its tracks are small enough that cars can drive over them. Duh? We want cars OUT of the right of way. I was glad to learn recently that Sound Transit has decided that any additional light rail to be built will have an exclusive right of way.

Maglev is a higher and better mass transit technology than steel rail. Being elevated and not having grade crossings, it would be safer and faster. It might cost more in the short run, but having no moving parts, it would cost less to maintain, and thus would be more cost-effective in the long run. Also, being capable of higher speeds, it would attract more riders. Further, it can carry freight, and light rail is not designed to do that.

I suggest that Link Light Rail not be expanded north from Downtown Seattle to the University of Washington or beyond at this time. We could accomplish much more with the capital and taxing authority available than to spend it on more light rail.

I would like to say a few words about monorail: I was a Seattle resident for many years, and if I had still been living there, I probably would have voted in favor of the final 2005 referendum to build the monorail. However, I have shed no tears about the monorail going down. I thought its rubber-tired technology was not the highest and best transit technology available.
Further, the version of the monorail on the final ballot was a pale shadow of its original vision. Because there was never an adequate funding source and not enough money to build a quality system, monorail leaders kept cutting the scope of the plan. Gleaming stations became unheated bus stop shelters. The number of train sets was cut. The length of the trains was cut. The length of the system shrank. It was the incredible shrinking monorail.

Ironically it was Dick Faulkenberry who set the monorail up for failure. From the very beginning, Dick said he was only in favor of monorail if it could be built cheaply. Trains cannot be built cheaply, at least not the first ten miles of a new train. If they are built cheaply, they will have to be rebuilt later or replaced. A well built train can last for centuries. The funding source for the monorail, a property tax on cars, was truly stupid. A sales tax on fuel or even a general sales tax would have been more palatable politically and would have raised more money.
Perhaps someday we will revive the Green Line as a medium-speed HSST style maglev, running on guideways compatible with those used by my proposed high-speed train. http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr25/f58_tec2.html; http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/CHSSTApplicabilityFTA2003.pdf; http://monorails.org/tMspages/MagMono.html.

I must say something about how Sound Transit and any new RTID should be governed. Its directors should be directly elected by the people. Currently directors are appointed by the county councils of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. There is no way to vote out Sound Transit commissioners without voting out the county councils, and therefore voters have no real control over what the directors do.

Finally, I would like to return to the initial issues: Any competent transit and transportation plan must include congestion pricing as well as a way to make it easier and cheaper for people to use mass transit than their SOV cars. Any competent plan must do something about global warming. Proposition 1-RTID failed on all counts.

The plan I propose would take cars off the roads permanently. It would improve the flow of traffic and make it possible for buses, jitneys, vans, and carpools to move around the region quickly. It could even ultimately provide an alternative to airplane travel. All of this would reduce the greenhouse gases we emit.

We need to take this global warming thing very seriously. Gradualism is not going to prevent a lot of valuable real estate from being flooded by this time next century. I find it odd that Republicans drag their heels most on global warming: Republicans own most of the beachfront property!

Half measures will not get the job done. We must come up with a bold and comprehensive new plan and implement it. If we do so, we will deal with traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse emissions, and bequeath to our descendants a saner lifestyle. On the other hand, if we continue to make the same marginal transit and transportation adjustments that Proposition 1-RTID proposed, we will accomplish nothing except spend lots of money ineffectually.

Links:

See my October 26, 2007, article in the Seattle P-I on this subject: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/337040_ltrs28.html.

See My Book on the Link between the Environment and Diet

Read about the Fluoride Scandal
Bellevue Dentist Bill Osmunson Speaks out on Fluoride

Seattle Dentist Paul Rubin speaks out on fluoridation

My Letter to the Legislature (copy to Governor Gregoire) regarding the Fluoride Scandal