Horizontal/Subsurface Infrastructure & Transportation

Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

How can the collective frustration of drivers be harnessed through social media and a public outreach campaign into a coalition that has a voice which can forcefully advocate for the needed infrastructure improvements within the political and public arena?

As the infrastructure needs are outpaced by vehicular demands, and as I sit in traffic on a regular basis in, and around, the Metro-Boston area, I constantly ponder the question of why needed transportation improvements are not being made and what can be done? 

Can a coalition of those with a vested interest in improving conditions for drivers, which would also support the transportation engineer's goals of bringing infrastructure improvements through the design process and to completion, be created? 

At the same time, can this coalition develop a political action committee (PAC) that can pressure the local, state and federal governments into advocating for and funding the needed improvements?  For some reason politicians often side with the minority group opposed to an infrastructure improvement project, why?

As a Professional Engineer with more than 35 years of transportation and legal experience, I am very familiar with the planned improvements for highway improvement projects in the Metro-Boston area; however, many of the projects, that are so desperately needed and which have been contemplated and in many cases designed, have never been completed.

The traveling public deserves a voice in support of needed improvements; however, I am unaware as to whether such a group exists in the in the Metro-Boston Area, or whether there is a model that exists elsewhere in the country. 

Road user delays experienced by drivers should be considered and the voices of those experiencing these delays should be heard.  If a road user benefit analysis is applied and/or an analysis based on the lost productivity resulting from the delays is performed, these needed transportation improvements can be easily justified.  In addition, an analysis of the gas taxes that are being generated by the drives using the roadway on a regular basis and those sitting in traffic for significant periods of time, if targeted toward the improvements, would also justify the financial cost of the needed improvements.  In addition, safety improvements to infrastructure, which benefit the traveling public, should be another component that supports the initiative.

It is obvious that opponents to transportation improvements have a much louder voice than the proponents of these improvements.  Also, because it is too difficult to battle with the opponents, we are now at a point where needed improvements are not made in order to avoid the conflict.  Further, due to regulatory requirements, it also takes years of effort to gain the necessary approvals for any project that is ultimately built. 

The collective voices of the "Not-In-My-Backyard" opponents along with the environmental lobby, which does not want cars on the roads, have silenced the voices of those who are working for the needed transportation improvements.  The opponent lobby has also made the design and permitting process much more complicated, which has resulted in a significant loss of time and money that would be better spent on bricks, mortar and asphalt.  These improvements would clearly benefit the overall region and would stimulate the local economy.  

A public relations initiative should also be undertaken by Civil Engineers to make drivers understand the need transportation improvements which include additional travel lanes, HOV lanes where tolls are paid to travel in these lanes and the funds generated are targeted towards further improvements.  Members of ASCE should band together and create a group that will advocate for an agenda that will benefit drivers everywhere.  In addition an outreach and public relations campaigns for the needed improvements should be created.

I welcome input on this topic.

------------------------------
John McDonnell P.E, P.L.S. Esq., M.ASCE
McDonnell Consulting
Boston MA
------------------------------

I am in agreement with your points and exasperated at the lack of leadership on focusing on the 75% to 90% who get transported by car in (almost all) American cities as opposed to the typical focus on marginal transportation alternatives.

My most recent article in Honolulu's daily newspaper echoes your points: "Rail will never be as practical as roadways"
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/07/11/editorial/island-voices/rail-will-never-be-as-practical-as-roadways/

I am dismayed that tiny Honolulu is spending $10 billion dollars of local and national taxpayers monies on an elevated rail system, which, by the city's own estimates, will reduce congestion by about 1%. Where are the engineering ethics in this massive engineering endeavor?

I was disappointed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers swallowed hole the principles of Smart Growth, Complete Streets and emphasis on alternatives other than traffic mobility.

On a positive note, the American Highway Users Alliance (American Highway Users Alliance | Highways.org) has some strong state or city chapters and an active presence in DC.

Uninformed, biased or outright corrupt politics, and a subservient engineering profession currently rule the day when it comes to transportation infrastructure quantity, quality and operational performance.



------------------------------
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Department Chairman and Professor of Transportation Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa
------------------------------

​​Close your eyes and imagine a place you'd like to live.   Maybe it's a woodsy suburb or a quaint village.   Now imagine the demolition and clearing contractor coming through to make way for more parking and widened highways.   That's what I hear being advocated in this forum.   

Asphalt and gasoline are non-renewable resources.   Shouldn't responsible civil engineers seek to use them sparingly for the sake of future generations of our exponentially growing population?   

You can't have beautiful, walkable, or sustainable communities when every building must be surrounded by a sea of pavement.  We can do better than that.

------------------------------
David Cooper P.E., M.ASCE
Pittsburgh PA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2017 19:32
From: Panos Prevedouros
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

I am in agreement with your points and exasperated at the lack of leadership on focusing on the 75% to 90% who get transported by car in (almost all) American cities as opposed to the typical focus on marginal transportation alternatives.

My most recent article in Honolulu's daily newspaper echoes your points: "Rail will never be as practical as roadways"
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/07/11/editorial/island-voices/rail-will-never-be-as-practical-as-roadways/

I am dismayed that tiny Honolulu is spending $10 billion dollars of local and national taxpayers monies on an elevated rail system, which, by the city's own estimates, will reduce congestion by about 1%. Where are the engineering ethics in this massive engineering endeavor?

I was disappointed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers swallowed hole the principles of Smart Growth, Complete Streets and emphasis on alternatives other than traffic mobility.

On a positive note, the American Highway Users Alliance (American Highway Users Alliance | Highways.org) has some strong state or city chapters and an active presence in DC.

Uninformed, biased or outright corrupt politics, and a subservient engineering profession currently rule the day when it comes to transportation infrastructure quantity, quality and operational performance.



------------------------------
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Department Chairman and Professor of Transportation Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa
------------------------------

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/7/23/springfield-we-have-a-problem

Consider this in the discussion.

------------------------------
Owen Miyamoto P.E., F.ASCE
Consultant
Honolulu HI
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2017 19:32
From: Panos Prevedouros
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

I am in agreement with your points and exasperated at the lack of leadership on focusing on the 75% to 90% who get transported by car in (almost all) American cities as opposed to the typical focus on marginal transportation alternatives.

My most recent article in Honolulu's daily newspaper echoes your points: "Rail will never be as practical as roadways"
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/07/11/editorial/island-voices/rail-will-never-be-as-practical-as-roadways/

I am dismayed that tiny Honolulu is spending $10 billion dollars of local and national taxpayers monies on an elevated rail system, which, by the city's own estimates, will reduce congestion by about 1%. Where are the engineering ethics in this massive engineering endeavor?

I was disappointed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers swallowed hole the principles of Smart Growth, Complete Streets and emphasis on alternatives other than traffic mobility.

On a positive note, the American Highway Users Alliance (American Highway Users Alliance | Highways.org) has some strong state or city chapters and an active presence in DC.

Uninformed, biased or outright corrupt politics, and a subservient engineering profession currently rule the day when it comes to transportation infrastructure quantity, quality and operational performance.



------------------------------
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Department Chairman and Professor of Transportation Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa
------------------------------

​What I have found is that decision-makers prefer the grand projects rather than the sensible ones.  There are well established transportation engineering practices for determining the most effective intervention be it via a highway, rail or BRT project.  What is needed is for transportation professionals to uphold their principles and give unbiased data based solutions for the medium and long term benefit of the community.



------------------------------
Trevor Townsend M.ASCE
Senior Lecturer in Transportation Engineering
University of the West Indies
Trinidad-Tobago
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2017 19:32
From: Panos Prevedouros
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

I am in agreement with your points and exasperated at the lack of leadership on focusing on the 75% to 90% who get transported by car in (almost all) American cities as opposed to the typical focus on marginal transportation alternatives.

My most recent article in Honolulu's daily newspaper echoes your points: "Rail will never be as practical as roadways"
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/07/11/editorial/island-voices/rail-will-never-be-as-practical-as-roadways/

I am dismayed that tiny Honolulu is spending $10 billion dollars of local and national taxpayers monies on an elevated rail system, which, by the city's own estimates, will reduce congestion by about 1%. Where are the engineering ethics in this massive engineering endeavor?

I was disappointed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers swallowed hole the principles of Smart Growth, Complete Streets and emphasis on alternatives other than traffic mobility.

On a positive note, the American Highway Users Alliance (American Highway Users Alliance | Highways.org) has some strong state or city chapters and an active presence in DC.

Uninformed, biased or outright corrupt politics, and a subservient engineering profession currently rule the day when it comes to transportation infrastructure quantity, quality and operational performance.



------------------------------
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Department Chairman and Professor of Transportation Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa
------------------------------

I (as an individual) am in total agreement with the sentiments expressed in this post.

I am the Chair of the Eastside Transportation Association (Transportation, Traffic Problems & Solutions on the Eastside | ETA) here in the Seattle suburban crescent (Eastside meaning East King County, east of Lake Washington, centered in Bellevue, WA).  ETA was formed 28 years ago and continues as a volunteer transportation think tank for urban transportation.  CONGESTION IS THE PROBLEM.  WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! is our motto. 

In Nov., 2016 the 3 county urban taxing district of Sound Transit passed a $54 Billion 25 year tax increase for light rail expansion connecting light rail from Everett (110,000) through Seattle (700,000) to Tacoma (220,000), each in separate counties.  Our MPO estimates that by 2040, after the $54 billion program, light rail will carry less than 0.5% of the then regional daily trips of over 19,000,000 per day.  See an example of ETA documents at http://www.eastsideta.com/docs/How-people-choose-travel.pdf

ETA advocates that the buses run on roads as well as the pedestrian and bicyclists, and when added to the SOV's, HOV's, vanpools (King County Metro operates a fleet of over 1,700 vans) and private buses (Microsoft Connect - an 80 coach private bus system for employees), about 99.5% of the daily trips operate on our roads.

Washington has a gas tax rate of 49.5 cents per gallon, protected by a state constitutional amendment that requires gas taxes be spent "for highway purposes".  That means that almost no other revenue source is used for state roads.

The State of Washington has about 5.7 million licensed drivers, with virtually no statewide advocacy group involved in promoting their interests.  

We have a failed two year pilot program for Express Toll Lanes (ETL's) on I-405, our suburban belt loop, from Bellevue to Bothell, about 10 miles.  One lane each direction was added to a 6 lane freeway and the new lane plus the old 2+ HOV lane were converted to 3+ ETL's in the peak periods, with variable tolls ranging from $.75 to $10.00 for the full corridor (WSDOT converted the north end of I 405, from Bothell to Lynnwood from a single 2+ HOV lane to  3+ ETL for the next 8 miles).  Overall congestion increased and moved to new locations.  The Legislature removed the ETL tolls on weekends and at night after six months.  The two year pilot ends in Sept. 2017, with independent analysis currently being conducted by the Univ. of Minn. Hubert Humphrey School of  Public Affairs.  ETA is following this analysis carefully. 

We in the profession who believe that suburban traffic congestion (we see 4-5 hrs of breakdown in each peak period on I-405 and other local freeways/arterials daily) http://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2015/May19/documents/2015_0519_BP7_StuckinTraffic_2015Report.pdf  really need to band together in an effective way to change the mantra.  In my 50+ year career, it is capacity increases that provide congestion relief, and congestion is the largest environmental impact that we experience on a daily basis. 

Victor H. Bishop, P.E.

Fellow, ASCE

Chair, ETA

------------------------------
Victor Bishop P.E., F.ASCE
retired
Bellevue WA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2017 19:32
From: Panos Prevedouros
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

I am in agreement with your points and exasperated at the lack of leadership on focusing on the 75% to 90% who get transported by car in (almost all) American cities as opposed to the typical focus on marginal transportation alternatives.

My most recent article in Honolulu's daily newspaper echoes your points: "Rail will never be as practical as roadways"
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/07/11/editorial/island-voices/rail-will-never-be-as-practical-as-roadways/

I am dismayed that tiny Honolulu is spending $10 billion dollars of local and national taxpayers monies on an elevated rail system, which, by the city's own estimates, will reduce congestion by about 1%. Where are the engineering ethics in this massive engineering endeavor?

I was disappointed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers swallowed hole the principles of Smart Growth, Complete Streets and emphasis on alternatives other than traffic mobility.

On a positive note, the American Highway Users Alliance (American Highway Users Alliance | Highways.org) has some strong state or city chapters and an active presence in DC.

Uninformed, biased or outright corrupt politics, and a subservient engineering profession currently rule the day when it comes to transportation infrastructure quantity, quality and operational performance.



------------------------------
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Department Chairman and Professor of Transportation Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa
------------------------------

Victor:

Thanks for the input.

Where can I find information on how this advocacy group started in the the Seattle Area?

Regards,
Jack
McDonnell Consulting

------------------------------
John McDonnell P.E., M.ASCE, P.L.S.
Consultant
McDonnell Consulting
Boston MA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-25-2017 13:18
From: Victor Bishop
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

I (as an individual) am in total agreement with the sentiments expressed in this post.

I am the Chair of the Eastside Transportation Association (Transportation, Traffic Problems & Solutions on the Eastside | ETA) here in the Seattle suburban crescent (Eastside meaning East King County, east of Lake Washington, centered in Bellevue, WA).  ETA was formed 28 years ago and continues as a volunteer transportation think tank for urban transportation.  CONGESTION IS THE PROBLEM.  WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! is our motto. 

In Nov., 2016 the 3 county urban taxing district of Sound Transit passed a $54 Billion 25 year tax increase for light rail expansion connecting light rail from Everett (110,000) through Seattle (700,000) to Tacoma (220,000), each in separate counties.  Our MPO estimates that by 2040, after the $54 billion program, light rail will carry less than 0.5% of the then regional daily trips of over 19,000,000 per day.  See an example of ETA documents at http://www.eastsideta.com/docs/How-people-choose-travel.pdf

ETA advocates that the buses run on roads as well as the pedestrian and bicyclists, and when added to the SOV's, HOV's, vanpools (King County Metro operates a fleet of over 1,700 vans) and private buses (Microsoft Connect - an 80 coach private bus system for employees), about 99.5% of the daily trips operate on our roads.

Washington has a gas tax rate of 49.5 cents per gallon, protected by a state constitutional amendment that requires gas taxes be spent "for highway purposes".  That means that almost no other revenue source is used for state roads.

The State of Washington has about 5.7 million licensed drivers, with virtually no statewide advocacy group involved in promoting their interests.  

We have a failed two year pilot program for Express Toll Lanes (ETL's) on I-405, our suburban belt loop, from Bellevue to Bothell, about 10 miles.  One lane each direction was added to a 6 lane freeway and the new lane plus the old 2+ HOV lane were converted to 3+ ETL's in the peak periods, with variable tolls ranging from $.75 to $10.00 for the full corridor (WSDOT converted the north end of I 405, from Bothell to Lynnwood from a single 2+ HOV lane to  3+ ETL for the next 8 miles).  Overall congestion increased and moved to new locations.  The Legislature removed the ETL tolls on weekends and at night after six months.  The two year pilot ends in Sept. 2017, with independent analysis currently being conducted by the Univ. of Minn. Hubert Humphrey School of  Public Affairs.  ETA is following this analysis carefully. 

We in the profession who believe that suburban traffic congestion (we see 4-5 hrs of breakdown in each peak period on I-405 and other local freeways/arterials daily) http://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2015/May19/documents/2015_0519_BP7_StuckinTraffic_2015Report.pdf  really need to band together in an effective way to change the mantra.  In my 50+ year career, it is capacity increases that provide congestion relief, and congestion is the largest environmental impact that we experience on a daily basis. 

Victor H. Bishop, P.E.

Fellow, ASCE

Chair, ETA

------------------------------
Victor Bishop P.E., F.ASCE
retired
Bellevue WA
------------------------------

These problems are insoluble as long as most Americans equate the word "vehicle" with automobiles.  Our federal government has been in the business of building highways for a good century now.  Automobiles have their place; whether the federal government's role (and that of the state offshoots) has been the right one is an entirely different question.  Americans think they want roads, but the real need is transportation:  getting people and goods from Point A to Point B.  Automobiles are horribly suited to urban environments, and they are not always the best solution in rural ones (sometimes conveyors and pipelines are--depends what one is transporting!).  It is a shame that so much of this important field has long been dictated by politics instead of more organic communities in concert with market forces and good, sustainable engineering.  We need an equable means of incorporating all social costs into the costs of transportation and somehow removing the politicians from the mix.

------------------------------
Peter Klevberg P.E., M.ASCE
Project Manager
Thomas Dean & Hoskins Inc
Great Falls MT
------------------------------

Vehicular improvement advocates continue the incredible belief that automobiles are the only means of transportation and more construction will solve the traffic congestion.  Los Angeles has chosen that route and the results speak for themselves  San Francisco has chosen the opposite and torn down elevated highways and improved their environment.

------------------------------
Owen Miyamoto P.E., F.ASCE
Consultant
Honolulu HI
------------------------------

While it's true there are some urban areas in the US where rail makes sense, the vast majority of America needs the automobile to most cost effectively and efficiently move from point A to point B.  As engineers, I would expect us to look beyond anecdotal data and see that.  

It's also true vocal minorities force their way into our lives at a rate that is well beyond the population of their constituencies.  I would hope engineers remain above the noise created by a few who want to force their way of life on others.

We do need a voice calling out for the quality of life of the majority, whether to e.g. escape crime ridden areas and commute to jobs or just take a trip to visit family or friends (which others might call "an elective trip").  

As Mark Twain said: "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness..."



------------------------------
Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
Semi-Retired
Rio Rancho NM
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2017 13:38
From: Owen Miyamoto
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

Vehicular improvement advocates continue the incredible belief that automobiles are the only means of transportation and more construction will solve the traffic congestion.  Los Angeles has chosen that route and the results speak for themselves  San Francisco has chosen the opposite and torn down elevated highways and improved their environment.

------------------------------
Owen Miyamoto P.E., F.ASCE
Consultant
Honolulu HI
------------------------------

Thanks to those who have responded.  To clear up what appears to be certain misconceptions that some may have, my advocacy for the improvements for vehicular travel on major roadways and highways is not mutually exclusive of improvements to rail transportation and safer local streets.  It appears that several of those who responded misunderstand that for which I am advocating.  While I appreciate those who are in agreement with my advocacy position, I wanted to address those Civil Engineers who seem to be in the opponent camp.

As a MDOT engineer and project manager for 15 years, who is now in the private sector, I am fully aware of that differing design parameters that should be considered and applied when developing solutions to transportation demand issues of varying types. I am also aware of the varying positions of those advocating for local roadway improvements and improved public rail transportation; but, a benefit cost analysis should be applied when spending significant public funds and these position in support of public transportation are often unsupportable.

I understand that there may be a conflict between those who advocate for certain types of highway improvements and those who oppose these improvements; however, I am suggesting that those who oppose improvements have had the loudest voice and have been more successful over the past 20 years.  This has been to the detriment of the larger community and a detriment to those roadway users who sit in traffic wasting gas and time.  These are the members of the public whom I believe deserve a voice and for whose position I advocate.  As a Professional Engineer, I do agree with David Cooper and believe we can do better.

In order for those in the opponent camp to really understand the issue for which I am advocating, one must understand the demographics and the origins of the roadway and rail infrastructure systems that surround metropolitan areas.  One must also understand the progression of the roadway system from the early 1700s to its current day configuration along with the population expansion that has occurred over this 300 year timeframe.  I am very familiar the Boston and New England area and clearly understand the progression and development of the roadway and highway system surrounding the metropolitan areas.  I am also familiar with how the transportation improvements during this time period have been made to respond to the demographic changes.

In my view, the purpose of the roadway system is to move travelers from one location to another in the fastest, most economical, safest and efficient manner.  People should not be sitting in traffic for hours at a time when a fairly simple interchange improvements, or added highway lanes, will solve the problem.

Since the early times in the United States there has been, and always will be, a growing population which is venturing further from the metropolitan areas.  Many of those in areas that were once more rural now want to travel to the Metropolitan Center, as is the case with Boston.  While at the same time these metropolitan centers are expanding significantly outward to areas which are 10 to 20 miles outside its center.  In these circumstances it is impractical and not economically feasible to encircle city such as Boston with a train system on its outskirts.  This is simply based on zoning of the property in the surrounding suburban towns and cities.  This zoning does not permit more dense development where public transportation is more economically feasible.

What I am advocating for is improvements to existing major highways and highway interchanges, along with the feeder roadways, such that these infrastructure components of the transportation system function in a way that is more responsive to the current demands being placed on these systems.  Trees will need to be cut and added pavement will be necessary.  It is a simple fact of life, given the purpose of the roadway and highway system.   Those in the opponent camp, who responded to my post, seem to be ignoring the need for improvements and instead simply advocate for rail improvements or advocate for safer local streets, which will not solve the problems that travelers are experiencing with highway travel.

Based on the responses, there appears to be no local or regional model of such an advocacy group and thank you Panos for the information on the American Highway Users Alliance.

------------------------------
John McDonnell P.E., M.ASCE, P.L.S.
Consultant
McDonnell Consulting
Boston MA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2017 13:38
From: Owen Miyamoto
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

Vehicular improvement advocates continue the incredible belief that automobiles are the only means of transportation and more construction will solve the traffic congestion.  Los Angeles has chosen that route and the results speak for themselves  San Francisco has chosen the opposite and torn down elevated highways and improved their environment.

------------------------------
Owen Miyamoto P.E., F.ASCE
Consultant
Honolulu HI
------------------------------

You cite LA as a negative when it comes to public transportation, but LA is continuing to develop a light rail system that is working, and does in fact keep some vehicles off the roads.  San Fran is a highly-conentrated work center, when compared to LA, which is more sprawling, and as a result has greater difficulty serving a wider geography.  Even with the new bay bridge, SF's traffic is nightmarish, even compared to LA.  

A larger problem is that by the time  CALTRANS gets new infrastructure built, it's attempts at remedy are already passe.  Private tollways haven't worked either.  Much of what I see is the lack of planning for future expansions beyond the next one, and California in general has become a slave to its regulatory processes and restrictions.

Boston has a more mature public transportation system, and while the Big Dig has opened up some bottlenecks, commuting into the city is still very challenging.  Even systems with 4+ lanes of highways face challenges when they feed into the streets of major metropolitan areas.  I Can see us debating these issues far into the future.

------------------------------
Eric Sosnowski P.E., M.ASCE
Operations Manager
Bluffton SC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2017 13:38
From: Owen Miyamoto
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

Vehicular improvement advocates continue the incredible belief that automobiles are the only means of transportation and more construction will solve the traffic congestion.  Los Angeles has chosen that route and the results speak for themselves  San Francisco has chosen the opposite and torn down elevated highways and improved their environment.

------------------------------
Owen Miyamoto P.E., F.ASCE
Consultant
Honolulu HI
------------------------------

If you are concerned about transportation's impacts on our quality of life you may want to read http://www.advancedtransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Muller-A-New-Transportation-ParadigmNEWVERSION.pdf

------------------------------
Peter Muller P.E., M.ASCE
President
PRT Consulting, Inc.
Franktown CO
------------------------------

The Eastside Transportation Association (ETA) has a web site at www.eastsideta.com.   This site is a placeholder for documents we have produced and or support.  The archived documents go back to 2002, when the USDOT Record of Decision (ROD) was issued for our 30 mile I-405 corridor from Tukwila to Lynnwood, WA.  This is the primary freeway around Seattle, from I-5 to the south to I-5 to the north, going to the east of Lake Washington.  This is much like Rt. 128 around Boston.

ETA was formed in 1989 (as the Eastside Transportation Committee - ETC) by three businessmen in and around Bellevue to promote the idea that I-405 (originally constructed in the 1960's and '70's) needed to have a Master Plan to provide access for 2020.  Success was declared when the legislature approved the I-405 Corridor Program in about 1998.  After three years of study and EIS work for $7,000,000  the I-405 Master Plan was approved by 27 local, state and federal agencies within the corridor, culminating in the ROD.  The name change from ETC to ETA occurred in about 2000.

The ETA created and funded an advocacy promotion called "Move on 405" during the three year study period.  

The plan was costed at $7 billion in $2000, $5 B for I-405 capacity, $1 B for BRT and $1 B for local agency access improvements.  

ETA has been advocating for implementation of the I-405 Master Plan ever since.  WSDOT has a site showing current activities and a summary of the plan at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I405/.     To date (July, 2017) about $2 B YOE has been spent on the corridor, about $1.5 B more is funded (2015 Connect Washington 11.9 cent gas tax increase) for the corridor, Sound Transit's Nov. 2016 $54 Billion regional light rail plan included about $800 M for BRT to be in revenue service in 2024, and about $.5 B has been spent on the local access projects.

I-405 now has 8 miles of two lane Express Toll Lanes plus 6 more miles of a single lane Express Toll Lanes, 4-5 hours of severe congestion in each weekday peak period, and will be under construction for the next 7 years for the Connect Washington portion, which will bring the freeway part of the Master Plan to about 45% completion (in 2024, when the 'plan year' of the Master Plan was 2020.  Also, the corridor has been redefined as the I-405/SR-167 corridor to include the freeway south thru the Kent/Auburn valley.  See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I405/ for current activities.

ETA is participating in the American Dream Coalition (ADC) Conference  in Arlington, VA being held Aug/ 6-8, 2017 at the Key Bridge Marriott hotel http://americandreamcoalition.org/?page_id=4384.  This is a national advocacy group for the dream of owning a home and a car in America, and being able to freely enjoy both.  It has a stellar list of speakers.

Vic Bishop,
Chair, ETA
www.eastsideta.com

------------------------------
Victor Bishop P.E., F.ASCE
retired
Bellevue WA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-27-2017 11:27
From: Peter Muller
Subject: Advocating for Vehicular Transportation Improvements in Metropolitan Areas

If you are concerned about transportation's impacts on our quality of life you may want to read http://www.advancedtransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Muller-A-New-Transportation-ParadigmNEWVERSION.pdf

------------------------------
Peter Muller P.E., M.ASCE
President
PRT Consulting, Inc.
Franktown CO
------------------------------