JAMES ROBERT
DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110,
Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com
TRAFFIC
CONGESTION: FLEX VANS MIGHT BE THE SOLUTION
October 4, 2014
October 4, 2014
There is continuing debate in the Seattle
Times over what we could do to alleviate traffic congestion. Writers suggest
that we preserve
what we already have, build bicycle
highways, and stop
waging war on cars.
Another suggests that we improve our mass
transit system, however, no matter how much we spend upgrading mass transit, it
will attract more riders only if we make it easier for passengers to get to and
from mass transit.
Lynnwood Transit Center, for example, has 1,368
parking spaces but is maxed out by 8 a.m. From most places in Lynnwood it is
not easy to get to the Lynnwood Transit Center by bus. Some passengers do get there
by bus, some by bicycle, some on foot, and some by being dropped off (at the
“kiss and ride”), but most drive to the Transit Center. If they find no
parking, most will drive on to their destinations. And so the number of
passengers who can be served out of Lynnwood is limited.
How do we get more riders to and from Park-and-Ride
and light rail stations and thereby reduce the number of single occupancy
vehicles from roads and freeways? I suggest we implement a flexible and
spontaneous van program which would carry commuters from their homes in the
morning to the transit centers. At the end of the day the vans would carry them
back home. I call these “flex vans”. Flex vans would not drive fixed routes but
would pick people up where they are and deliver them to where they are going.
Flex vans would solve what I call “the last mile problem”.
The Lynnwood area would be divided into a
dozen or so zones, with vans “orbiting” each neighborhood zone. A van would
probably pick you up within ten minutes. Is that too long to wait for a chauffeured
(but shared) ride in an energy efficient van?
Transit agencies would sell a pass which would
include flex van door-to-door service. Through smart
phones or pagers, flex van pass holders could summon a ride to grocery,
doctor, work, or transit center. We now have the computing power to make a flex
van program work.
For those too poor to own a car and who are
completely dependent on public transit, a flex van program would be life
changing.
Some will say that a flex van program would be
expensive. I respond: More expensive than what? More expensive than widening
the freeways? More expensive than converting every transit center into a
multi-story parking garage? More expensive than the wasted hours we spend stuck
in traffic? More expensive than most of the buses here in Lynnwood driving around mostly empty most of
the time? More expensive than our current transit system, which is subsidized
around 80% by our sales taxes? More expensive than driving a single occupancy
vehicle, which costs on average around $745
per month to finance, operate, maintain, and insure?
People would buy a flex van pass if it would
cost them less than what their cars cost them. They might go back to being – shock
– one car families and save a lot of money. They might rent a car from the
transit system when they need to go on a trip, and become – shock – no-car
families and save even more money. People might be willing to pay enough for a
flex van pass, that the system could cover its own operating costs.
We read in the Seattle
Times that bus rapid transit is having problems in Ballard. BRT cannot work
if the streets are too crowded with cars for BRT buses to be – rapid. The
solution is to make it so easy to use public transit that riders will gladly
leave their cars at home, which we can accomplish only by giving commuters what
they now get by driving their own cars – door-to-door service.
A flex van system might solve our ferry
problems. Vans would carry commuters to the ferries. Buses, vans, and rental
cars would be waiting on the other side to carry them on to their destinations.
There would be fewer vehicles on the ferries. Long ferry lines could be a thing
of the past.
A flex van program would add more cars to the
road, but it would take more cars off the road than it would add. Are we
serious about reducing carbon emissions? What would do more to reduce carbon
emissions than to get half of our commuters to leave their SOVs at home? Congestion
taxes might not be necessary.
We have thousands of school buses which sit around
mostly idle most of the time. Flex vans could be used instead of school buses. Currently
our children must walk several blocks and wait in the dark and the rain for buses.
Instead, vans would pick them up at home in the morning and deliver them home after
school. School districts would save money; children would travel more safely; parents
would worry less.
In outlying areas and at night, all those
mostly empty buses would be parked. Flex vans would use “fuzzy logic” to pick
up and deliver people. Such a system would attract more ridership than do the
buses – because it would deliver a more complete service.
Our current transit system delivers you from
Point A to Point B, but it does not get you to Point A nor take you on from
Point B to your destination. Our current system offers commuters a fragmented transit
service, and that is why most people decline to use it.
Our long-term goal should be to develop a
train, bus, van, and rental car system that would provide fast, safe,
non-stressful, affordable, and environmentally responsible transportation to
most parts of the city, county, and eventually the entire state.
For further discussion of these possibilities please
visit http://comprehensive-transportation.blogspot.com.
Sincerely,
James Robert Deal, Lawyer
Washington
Bar Number 8103
No comments:
Post a Comment