Climate Action at AAATA

Comments to AAATA Board 2019-09-19

Greta Thunberg...have you seen her on the news? Only 16 years old, and she has galvanized youth around the world into striking for climate action tomorrow. She has met with top US lawmakers and chided them firmly about their inaction on a matter that will critically impact people her age for the rest of their lives.

I'm happy that AAATA's Board has already acted. You have a strong policy statement about sustainability in ENDS:
1.2. The Area's natural environment is enhanced.
1.2.1. The Area's overall transportation system minimizes energy use and pollution.

In March 2019, the CEO's Interpretation and Rationale stated:
"I interpret this policy to mean that the AAATA should be working to reduce the prevalence of automobile trips with only a single occupant (the driver) in favor of any alternative transportation option that is more energy efficient and creates less pollution, including reducing demand for travel entirely. This is best measured by overall mode share trends."

So far, so good. But then the CEO's interpretation continues:

"We can assume that most modes produce less GHG emissions per passenger trip than single-occupant vehicles."

As Greta Thunberg said to a House Joint Committe yesterday, September 18, "Look at the science!"

The CEO's assumption can easily be fact-checked with reference to sources like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Transportation Energy Data Book. By their calculations, single-occupant vehicles (or SOVs) are near the bottom of fuel economy (and hence pollution). With the most efficient mode calculated to be intercity passenger rail at 57 miles per gallon-equivalent, SOV's average is about 38 MPG. But there is one travel mode less efficient on average: TRANSIT BUSES, at 30 MPG.

Why? Quoting the 2018 Transportation Energy Data Book: "Transit buses are not very efficient at their current ridership rates, where, on average, a given bus is less than 25% full."
AAATA can easily calculate the overall fuel efficiency. There are precise records for miles buses traveled, passengers carried, and fuel used. The calculation can even be very closely estimated for each route.

Having mandated Policy End 1.2.1, this Board has both a right and an obligation to the community, to expect this kind of measure from the staff, and to expect concrete steps taken to improve, and keep improving, both ridership and fuel efficiency on our vehicles. Not just within the next 5-10 years. Now.

Greta is waiting. My grandchildren are waiting. They can't do anything about ridership and pollution from inefficient transit buses. And they're telling us they can't wait that long. But you, the AAATA Board, CAN do something about it. Please don't keep our kids and grandkids waiting any longer. Use the science.

To learn more:

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory Table 2.14 of the Transportation Energy Data Book 36B. 2018.
  

PUBLIC COMMENT, AAATA BOARD 2019-08-15

Please consider with me the dangers of complacency, or "business as usual".

AA News, front page, August 1, 2019. "U-M's growth sets stage for traffic problems city admin says" referring to City Hall meeting July 29. "The average travel delay in Ann Arbor is projected to increase by about 30% by 2045. The truth is unless we really address alternate means and methods of getting around, congestion will be a bigger part of our lives," he said, arguing congestion leads to aggressive behavior. "We are operating in a zone where we've increased our crashes by roughly 17% over the last 10 years," he said. "During that time, the population of the city of Ann Arbor has increased 7% and ...commutes into Ann Arbor have also increased."

Possible solutions mentioned at the meeting included sidewalks, bike lanes, scooters, road diets, red light cameras, and speed limits. Public transit was NOT mentioned as possible solution. Why not?

Could it be because AAATA is not seen as moving toward real transportation solutions, simply carrying on "business as usual" with, perhaps, a few modest "band-aids" for Washtenaw Avenue?

In today's Board packet, on p.3 of the Service Committee report, we read, "Mr. Hewitt asked about schedule adjustments to address traffic realities at busier times of the day. Mr. Sanderson explained that schedule adjustments are  being studied but may be too expensive and too disruptive to the current pulse system."

I find that response very discouraging. In effect, AAATA is saying, "We're looking into it, but please don't expect us to come up with anything that might disrupt Business As Usual. And certainly don't expect us to suggest solutions that might require budget. We'll just continue our pulse system. We're comfortable with it. After all, it has worked for the last 50 years."

And it has worked. Sort-of. Sure, the published schedule is guaranteed to be inaccurate and misleading during the times when most people need to commute. Ridership figures, also released in the Board Packet, indicate passengers may not be "highly satisfied with public transportation services". (AAATA Ends 1.1.4.) The majority of people with access to a personal car apparently do not find public transit to be an attractive alternative. (Ends 1.1.3) Local leaders may not be aware of the contribution public transportation could make to the community (Ends 1.3.6).

But we're comfortable with the pulse system, just as it is. And don't bug us about it: the pulse system is an operational matter, so the Board is out of bounds to question it. Just let the experts continue to study the problem in comfort.

Thank you,

Laurence Krieg / Wake Up Washtenaw

This year, I'm turning my focus on a phenomenon that has sometimes been called "Edge Cities", though I'm using the term somewhat differently than what was popularized by Joel Garreau in 1991. Why this focus?

All cities that are growing prosperously, no matter where they are in the world, are experiencing a similar set of problems. The value of land in their core is increasing so much that service personnel are unable to afford housing near the core, and those who were housed there until recently are being forced out ("gentrification" is the term usually applied); as buildings grow taller in the core, the demand for access increases, but the cost of providing that access becomes more and more unaffordable to the governments responsible for providing it.

Affordable housing, commercial, and office space is needed "near" the core city. The problem is to achieve functional proximity at a reasonable cost. My focus has turned to a 21st Century version of the "edge city" concept as a possible solution.

If achieving functional proximity seems to be the key, what does it look like? How has it been achieved - if at all - in cities around the world? What are the major hurdles? What variations on the theme have proved more successful, and why? And how does one measure all the factors?

My travels in 2019 will take me to Vancouver Canada, Seattle and Sacramento USA, and in Japan to several cities including Tokyo, Osaka, Sendai, and Sapporo. All these are cities that appear to be growing prosperously while functioning reasonably well. The visit to Vancouver includes my fourth EcoCities World Summit, where I hope to share my questions and potential answers with others from even more cities around the world.

My goal is to lay the groundwork during August and September, including more detailed articulation of the issues and preliminary measurement of the parameters in each of the cities I mentioned - plus others I'm familiar with like Toronto, Denver, and of course Detroit. I hope you'll follow along with me on this quest for the 21st Century Edge City.