Taking a swim in a very big pond

It is no secret that most state DOTs view themselves as in somewhat of a funding crisis. With congestion on the rise, rising fuel costs placing political pressure to temporarily suspend gas taxes, and long term concerns of fuel tax revenue decline, many states have encouraged the development of alternative financing programs. Some illustrative examples of the type of program developments that have occurred in the past year include:

• The Trans-Texas Corridor, a privately financed mega-corridor system in Texas including toll lanes, truck lanes, high speed rail, and utility pipelines.
• Oregon's Innovative Partnerships Program, encouraging the development of network tolling, HOT lanes, or other toll alternatives on three mega projects of statewide importance.
• Chicago Skyway concession agreement, whereby an investment group receives a 99 year agreement to toll the Chicago Skyway (with annual toll increases) in exchange for a present-term transfer of $1.8B to the City of Chicago.

Arguably, the glue that holds all of these programs together is tolling. Other states that are advancing toll programs include California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia. Not everything is rosy in the world of tolling, though. Significant political opposition has been raised in every state where tolling has been proposed -- a quick review of the Texas Toll Party shows what life can be like facing public opposition to tolling.

Despite political opposition, it is clear that these states and others will continue to advance toll projects to address perceived financing shortfalls. The question for TDM professionals is the role we play in these projects. Let's be clear -- this is a big money, big influence environment. Project costs usually are articulated in B's, not M's or T's. TDM does not bring any significant money to the table. What we do bring includes partnerships with developers, chambers, and employers and existing mechanisms for outreach to commuters. What other roles can we play? How do we advance considerations for carpools, vanpools, and buses in toll facilities, when so much pressure will be placed to maximize revenues? Are there appropriate carpool and vanpool considerations that do not involve toll discounts or waivers?

In short, how can we swim in the big pond?

Where is matching going?

Rideshare matching, while an important function in most metropolitan areas, isn't seen as all that important by some. Databases are small in most areas. Placement rates are debated. And, over the past few years, additional matching services and capabilities have arrived. Witness Craig's List, erideshare, and more.

It is likely that no matching system in place 15 years ago is in operation today. No vendor of ridematching systems operating then is offering a matching system or service today as far as I know. (This statement is probably true for a shorter time than suggested here.) What may be in place in 5, 10, or 15 years is unknowable but history would tell us there will be high turnover, new services, and faded services.

However, one person matched could mean over 400 vehicle trips eliminated for the following year. The databases can be mined for more results than are typically sought. Spending $200 (or so) in public funds on one placement isn't all that expensive in that light.

Where is the matching function going? Are we going to see lots of small matching systems with capabilities spread even thinner? Are we going to see integration of matching capabilities?

And what of less-than-matchable outcomes? (telecommuting, walking, bicycling, changed work hours, etc.) How should we be treating those in on-line services in the future?

-- Tad

Sustainable Housing and the Global Oil Peak

I'm posting the following question from Stuart Rose that was posed to the TRANSP-TDM listserv today and has generated some additional discussion about whether or when the global peak in oil will be reached.

"I'm currently completing development of a prototype cluster of sustainable houses. The houses provide their own power, water, hot water, etc. It's not that difficult. However, since this effort began, about five years ago, the definition of what "sustainable" includes has expanded. The next generation of these houses will need to take the form of small communities that are totally self-reliant ... for power, water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management ... and even food.

My guess is, we hit Global Peak Oil in 2000, when Saudi peaked. We're already experiencing all the early signs of what will be a post-oil economy ... and world. Within 3-5 years, semis will likely be virtually gone from highways. Transportation will need to shift, to respond to development of many small communities - much like the pre-industrial revolution hamlets, except with most of modern technology.

The best way, on the surface, to connect smaller communities with a larger one would be rapid transit. Then, hi-speed rail between major cities. And probably only air for trips over 1,000 miles or so. But I'm not a multimodal transportation planner.

My questions:

1. What criteria determine when different modes are justified? Population numbers? Density? Distance?

2. How would these modes be funded? Government seems fairly inept at managing a rail system; ours is one of the worst in the world. How to determine what role is best for private companies and what for government?

3. As these small communities evolve, they could connect via electric car or bus to small towns, of perhaps 8,000 to 80,000 or more. Would counties simply somehow maintain small roads for that connectivity?

4. Do you know of one or two resource people who might be able to describe how such a pattern would - or would not - be justified? initiated? funded? managed?

In planning for these small sustainable communities, I also have to think about their context - connectedness to other communities.

Thanks for whatever help you might be able to provide."

Stuart W. Rose, Ph.D.
Garden Atriums