KC Climate Protection Forums Forum: Transportation Work Group

MartyKraft on "Feet First District"

MartyKraft — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:16:59 +0000

We could start by giving the pedestrians and bicyclists the right of way and giving tickets to motorists who do not. There might already be a law in KCMO that says that motorests must stop for pedestrians stepping off the curb at the corners.

ronmclinden on "Feet First District"

ronmclinden — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:38:47 +0000

In the "Policies We Might Change" thread I introduced the concept of a "Feet First District," and Brent added his thoughts. See

http://www.allspecies.org/forum/topic/10?replies=10#post-16

A "Feet First District" would be a part of the city within which walkability and bikability -- rather than SOV mobility and free-flowing traffic -- are the principle design criteria where streets are concerned -- a district within which the "success" of a street is measured by how well it serves non-motorized people.

The FFD should extend well beyond a few isolated enclaves within Downtown, Westport, the Plaza, and Brookside. (When it comes right down to it, those enclaves aren't all that friendly to non-motorists.) It needs to be much more expansive than that -- initially including much of Mayor Barnes' "River-Crown-Plaza" corridor. We should publically claim (and informally "mark") our "territory," and then work with (or, if necessary, against) the city's traffic engineers to make every street and sidewalk and (especially) intersection within the FFD "friendly" to all citizens, especially citizens who don't happen to be "wearing a car" at the moment.

Part of our vision should be that the city will formally embrace the FFD concept and actually "post" the FFD with appropriate signage as upgrades are made. (I'm reminded of signs I saw posted, affirmation-like, all over Baltimore ten years ago: "Baltimore: a City that Reads.")

And part of our vision should be that the FFD be expanded over a period of a decade or two to include all 320 or so square miles within the city limits.

JerryShechter on "Transportation Work Group MInutes - 1.16.07"

JerryShechter — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:40:38 +0000

Summary of Transportation Workgroup meeting – January 16, 2007

Phelps Murdock began the meeting with introductory comments and the "homework" assignment.

Sam Swearngin of the KCMO vehicles and fleet operations, gave a presentation on the City's use of alternative fuels.

He said that biodiesel is viable, although supply is limited, and it does not displace as many emissions as natural gas. Natural gas is a more plentiful fuel for the short-term future, but Sam believes that only plug-in hybrids are a true long-term solution because the electricity could be taken from renewable energy plants.

Natural gas vehicles require special modifications to the vehicle and natural gas stations; the initial investment is high.

Miles per gallon of all alternative fuels are very comparable to petroleum fuels.

Interestingly, the primary "drivers" for the City's use of such fuels are the desire to clean the air and security (less dependence on fuels that are scarce or non-domestic). Regulation is not currently much of a factor.

The question that needs follow-up: how much petroleum is needed to PRODUCE alternative fuels? Many people in the workgroup wanted a better understanding of the lifecycle.

Mark Huffer of KCATA gave a presentation on mass transit. The transit authority is a quasi-governmental organization with the power of eminent domain and the issuance of bonds, but it has no direct taxing authority. They have 800 employees and a $70 million budget. They make 15,000,000 passenger trips each year; a little over 1% of total commuter trips are by transit.

Funding for KCATA
Passenger revenue 15%
Local govt 61%
State funding 2%

Missouri state funding is very low compared to other states, which give, on average, 22% of the transit's budget. Even Kansas, with smaller cities, has a higher overall investment in transit than Missouri.

The MAX buses have been a success; ridership is up 35%. MAX buses are technologically advanced with GPS arrival times posted at the bus stop.

Another success is a daycare facility operated at 39th and Troost, so that parents can easily take the bus and drop off/pick up children. There are more plans to add buses in the urban core, but it is not financially feasible to add routes/buses too far north to the river.

Smart Moves funding passed in Missouri, but has yet to pass in Kansas. Johnson County does not seem interested in Smart Moves, but other municipalities may participate.

The Chastain light rail plan was not endorsed by KCATA. Huffer feels the funding estimates and engineering assumptions are not accurate. KCATA is seeking federal funds for an analysis study to see what parts of the plan are viable. The light rail plan, however, has increased the sense of urgency for transit alternatives.

Incentives for transit:
• Discourage parking structures
• Encourage developers to support transit stops
• Parking and zoning policies should not favor cars
• Discourage urban sprawl
• Trip Transit Ridership Incentive program, private corporations offer discounted bus passes to employees as a tax write-off

Kate Barsotti asked the group for input on the next meeting’s topics on Feb. 6 and they selected:

Incentives programs
Promotion of carpooling, ridesharing by Marge Gasnick, MARC

JerryShechter on "Transportation Work Group MInutes - 12.14.06"

JerryShechter — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:39:06 +0000

Kansas City Climate Protection Plan
Work Group Meeting Notes
December 14, 2006

Transportation Work Group

Summary of Work Group Activities

The following question was posed to the work group: What are the 3 most important measures we must implement in Kansas City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020?

Participants were instructed that preference should be given to the following criteria:

• Build on existing initiatives
• Identify Low Hanging Fruit
• Economically viable options
• Options with partnership opportunities across the community
• Measures that have been successfully implemented in other cities

Participants were given three “sticky” notes on which to write their recommendations. The notes from the group were posted on a wall, and organized in columns by similar topic.

The work group reviewed the results and adjusted some of the placements after discussion. When there was general agreement on the groupings, the “dot” exercise was performed.

Each participant was given three sets of colored dots and asked to place them by the columns to help prioritize the initiative recommendations. Dot colors and definitions were:

• Green – “Early Victories” – Implementation can begin before April 2007
• Blue – Critical & Strategic, but Long Term – Will take more than 2 years
• Yellow – Need more information to determine priority level

Results

Results of the exercise are summarized on the following pages. Each heading represents a column or grouping of responses; these groupings may need to change over time, but served their purpose in this initial meeting. Each bullet under that heading is a suggestion from the work group that was placed in that grouping. The number of green, blue, and yellow dots placed on the grouping is also listed. Duplicates or similar suggestions are taken out.

The Transportation Group indicated some concern over making any decisions based on a swift prioritization exercise. They were assured that subsequent meetings would allow for refinement and discussion. Overall, the responses were positive about the process and goals of the City. Participants were encouraged to bring new thoughts and ideas to the next meeting.

One step that must be added in future work is to pair predicted emissions reductions with the group's suggestions. One weakness of the exercise is that they were working without the benefit of data that indicated which methods are the most effective at reducing greenhouse gases. The group will not be able to make informed decisions without more details about their suggestions.

Another concern was using the term "behavioral change" when talking about the public, which may, to some people, sound like "social engineering." We don't believe we have the intent or resources to force people to change their way of living, but we do intend to support choices that are better for the environment and to expect those who choose otherwise to pay the cost of those choices. It's not about limiting lifestyle options, but about making the costs and benefits more visible and realistic. The majority of the people in the group seemed to understand this purpose and goal, but it may be worthwhile to explain it to the group as a whole in the next meeting in order to clarify the direction. It's possible to make good environmental choices appealing.

Transportation Work Group

The underlined headings are the general categories or groupings of recommendations. Bulleted items beneath each heading are the specific comments received.

G = # of green dots, B = # of blue dots, Y = # of yellow dots

CARPOOLING

• Car pool clubs – 1 Y
• Encourage carpooling – 1 G
• Create incentives for car and van-pool programs – 5 G
• "Rentable" cards (Fords), follow lead of Chicago and San Francisco – 1 Y
• Car-share program – 5 Y, 1 B

Total for section: 6 G, 1 B, 7 Y

INCENTIVES

• Make parking more expensive (and don't build new parking facilities) – 2 G, 1 Y
• Development tax incentives targeted to infill only – 1 G
• Employer incentives for biking/walking/transit/carpool to work – 3 G
• Tax commuters living outside of city and driving into city (i.e., London, England) – 2 B, 2 Y
• Preferred parking for small and energy-efficient vehicles – 1 G
• Less parking, more expensive, not on the surface – 3 B
• Economic incentives for local auto manufacturers to produce green solutions – 1 G, 1 B
• Pay people not to drive to work
• Tax incentives for living close to work
• Incentives for purchase of smaller, fuel-efficient cars or hybrid or alternative fuel cars – 1 G
• Enforce red-alert days
• Competitions among businesses for green transport/commuting (like Corporate Challenge but about alternatives to driving, carbon savings, etc.) – 1 G, 1 B
• Green construction: retrofits, repowers, policy/contracts
• Charge daily access fee for SOV use of the region's highways – 1 B, 2 G
• Incentives for increased usage of alternative fuels – 1 Y
• Create incentives for the use of vehicles with less emissions, i.e. hydrid taxi program; more utilization of energy-efficient vehicles in mass transit programs; more renewable fuel infrastructure

Total for section: 12 G, 8 B, 4 Y

TREES/GREEN

• Tree survey and complete replacement by developments

Total for section: 0
SPRAWL

• Create a Smart Growth plan and policies to support implementation – 1 G, 1 B
• Stop sprawl, stop spreading out – 4 B
• Fewer big-box stores, more retail locations closer to home
• Live near work – 1 B
• Discourage urban sprawl – 3 B

Total for section: 1 G, 9 B, 0 Y

FUELS

• Natural gas powered vehicles – 3 B
• Idle reduction; truck stop electrification; no-idle policy
• Plug-in hydrids – 1 G, 1 Y, 2 B
• Challenge all governments to use bio-diesel
• Government to lead way to use fuel cell power – 1 Y, 2 B
• Promote energy-efficient vehicles – 1 G
• Increase use of alternative fuels – 7 G
• Work with trucking/locomotive companies to improve fuel efficiency (Smartway, EPA voluntary program)
• Alternative fuels locator system – 1 G, 1 Y

Total for section: 10 G, 7 B, 3 Y

EDUCATION/OUTREACH

• More and better public communications, publicize bike-to-work days
• TV shows/media activities to explain/promote green transportation, walking, transit, bicycles, carpooling, etc.
• Programs to encourage walking/biking to school and work
• Educate the public about the impact of driving everywhere – 2 B
• Trip reduction tips, printed, Internet, media
• Free tire gauge promotion – 1 G, 1 B
• Generate public support for metro green
• Auto service vehicle efficiency program – 1 G
• Help and teach families to reduce their driving by 30% (eg. kids walking to school, bus to work, trip sharing, etc.) – 1 Y

Total for section: 2 G, 3 B, 1 Y

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN

• Provide free bikes in core business districts and universities – 1 G, 1 Y
• Lend-a-bike for city employees to encourage biking on short errands (plus incentives to use it) – 1 Y
• Promote bike on bus system – 1 B
• Bicycle edcation – 2 B, 1 G
• Double amount of walking and bicycling in 10 years – 3 Y
• Trails systems but also on-street bike/ped network – 2 B

Total for section: 2 G, 5 B, 5 Y

TRANSIT

• Expand current bus service in region – 2 B, 1 Y
• Require all city businesses to participate in TRIP program (subsidized bus passes) – 2 G
• Develop regional public transportation system
• Provide adequate alternative transportation to prevent driving individually – 1 Y
• Regular free transit days or weeks to get people to try it
• Standard/required emissions testing – 2 G, 1 Y
• Reduce number of SOV trips, implement a multi-modal transportation system that includes light rail, BRT, bikes, peds – 1 B
• More transit (light rail?) and walkable, mixed-use nodes along transit lines and reduced parking – 8 B

Total for section: 4 G, 11 B, 3 Y

SCHOOLS

• Help schools develop bikes and walking to school programs – 1 Y
• Implement a regional safe routes to school – 2 Y

Total for section: 0 G, 0 B, 3 Y

TRAFFIC

• Fees/tolls for freeway use, especially at peak periods – 1 G, 1 Y
• Retrofit/adjust traffic signals to make them bike/ped friendly
• Pedestrian/bike/public transit corridors
• Reduce peak-hour travel – 1 Y
• Reduce highway speed limits
• HOV lanes – 1 Y, 1 B
• Traffic signal coordination (Operation Green Light is not enough) – 1 Y, 4 G
• Lesson peak travel (reduce congestion) – 1 Y, 1 G
• Make all traffic signals activated (demand response)
• Synchronize traffic signals (remove some?)
• Bike lanes
• Use minimal intersection control: yield instead of stop signs; roundabouts instead of traffic signals; remove unwarranted traffic signals – 1 G

Total for section: 7 G, 1 B, 5 Y

Addendum

Added later, after dots exercise, from one individual:

Things I noted missing/not on list yet.

1. Need to look at city/regional road building practices and policies. Are they encouraging sprawl? Walking? Bicycling? Transit? Some of this could be covered by upcoming citywide trails plan, should be in the scope of this plan.
2. Encourage telecommuting/other non-transportation solutions. This is an area of strength right now in KC—so if we can capitalize on it even more....)
3. Beyond just sprawl, land use in the sense of, "Can I walk/bike/transit to work/school/shopping/park, etc.?"

Received by e-mail after first meeting from one individual:

In our Transportation Work Group you were asking for ideas that are not on the list or "outside the box".

Here is an interesting one I have been thinking about.

Sprawl is one of KC's major problems that causes its high dependence on single-automobile travel and other problems that lead to greater pollution and higher energy use. The idea is:

* Create a "sprawl trading" system, similar to carbon trading.

The idea is to link activities that increase sprawl with those that decrease it. If you do an activity that increases sprawl then you can do simultaneous offsetting activities to reduce sprawl--or pay a sprawl tax.

We know that certain actions will increase sprawl. Widening arterials, increasing traffic flow, building/widening highways, even synchronizing stop lights. If people can drive into work 10 minutes quicker it encourages them to build 10 minutes further out.

In KC right now there is never a balance. There is always a tendency build greater highway/roadway capacity to help people get there faster and with less congestion and rarely to never anything done to offset the bad effects this has on locations close to the urban center.

There is also a disconnection. "This project is funded by highway tax dollars and you bike/ped people need to get your own funding source."

The funding is always with the project that increases sprawl and never with the one that solves the problem.

Examples: If the Paseo Bridge is widened to reduce congestion then lower congestion encourages people to live further out. And it reduces people's interest in transit, walking, and bicycling on those trips because you can do them so much faster by car. When there is congestion there is interest in alternative ways of getting there! Less congestion means, by definition, less interest in the alternatives.

When 71 Hwy was built, it encouraged more people to live out the the area of Lee's Summit/Grandview because now they can just zip downtown easily.

If 350 Hwy is widened it will encourage more people to live out in Lee's Summit and drive in--at the expense of creating greater problems for local traffic and for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit users in the areas it goes through.

In all these cases we "improve" the road in order to encourage "development" on the outer fringes. But this is always done at the expense of the places further in.

By the same token increasing the bike/ped/transit connectivity of core areas encourages in-fill development, work, shopping, and housing to built in close proximity, etc.

So the proposal is to create a kind of trading system whereby if you do something to increase sprawl you also have to do something to offset it.

A perfect example is the Paseo Bridge. You widen the bridge which encourages sprawl up north. But you also built a bike/ped river crossing and create complete bike/ped connectivity in the areas near the bridge. Now you are encouraging sprawl but at the same time you would be simultaneously encouraging infill development and making the urban core more attractive. So there is a balance.

If you put in a "71 Hwy" type project then you also go the extra effort to create bike/ped transit access all along that corridor and at numerous crossing points across the corridor. No money to do all that "extra" work? Well then, don't do the project.

Or if you built a single-use type development then you have to do something to offset that. It could be as simple as making the area completely bike/ped accessible and including commercial/shopping areas within walking/biking distance (and making sure they are bike/ped accessible). Or even doing something in a different area of town to offset. Or if you don't want to do that then you pay $X into the sprawl fund which is used to build projects to ameliorate the sprawl problem.

If you synchronize stop lights then you also simultaneously adjust and program them so they detect bicyclists and work WELL for pedestrians. And you paint and maintain crosswalks and bicycle slots for the intersections. And you make sure the traffic signal detects bicyclists and has the needed software etc. to accommodate buses and facilitate transit movement. (Right now the rush is to adjust stoplights to reduce "stop time" for motorists, but often this is done at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclists, who need longer cycle times to safely cross.)

bhugh on "KC Transportation Work Group"

bhugh — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:47:43 +0000

If we are really serious about hitting the 50% reduction target (as suggested by Phelps), we've really got to be thinking of some more ambitious initiatives than what we've been proposing so far.

Transportation is such a huge portion of the total picture (over 50% of the city's carbon emissions) that it is going to have to go the whole way on its own--we can't just say, well, we'll get a 10% reduction and just hope the other sectors will be able to overshoot their goals to make up for it.

As a first guess, I would say you could reach that goal by getting a 25% reduction in motor vehicle trips (more transit, carpooling, walking, bicycling, etc.) and the other 25% from changing the vehicles themselves: alt fuels, hybrids, more efficient vehicles, better pollution control equipment, idling reduction, and that whole end of things.

The 25% reduction in trips isn't all that unreasonable when you realize that our walking and bicycling is half the national average (5% rather than 10% of all trips), transit is way below the average for cities like ours (about 1% of trips--could easily be 5%), and carpooling, congestion charges, car pool lanes, and all the rest of never been the subject of a major, organized, well financed push.

The 25% from the vehicles themselves isn't all that unreasonable when you realize Pres. Bush (!) is promoting a plan tonight in the State of the Union to reduce gasoline use by 20% in ten years.

* If our goals are going to be that ambitious, and important initiative we ought to get behind as a Phase I transportation initiative (that also affects some of the other groups) is to take a serious look at the ongoing revision of KCMO's planning and zoning ordinances. This only happens once every 50 years and it is in process right now.

I know they are looking at the proposed zoning ordinances as being more "climate friendly" by far than the current ordinances, but do make a really dramatic change it may need to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb again. Just for example, it would put some real muscle behind our idea of implementing workplace incentives to reduce commuting trips by 25%, if the zoning ordinances required new buildings to be constructed up front with the 25% fewer parking spots.

These changes could affect future transportation patterns very greatly. One of the reasons KC has far more single-vehicle trips than the average U.S. city is the way our city is built and designed. The zoning ordinances are one of the few chances we have to change that pattern for the better.

ronmclinden on "KC Transportation Work Group"

ronmclinden — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:08:49 +0000

PhelpsMurdock wrote (above):

>When the KC Climate Protection Transportation Work Group first met (12/14/06) to discuss planning, the following priorities (in order) were identified:

>INCENTIVES had strong support for immediate use + interest in a long term approach;
>ALTERNATIVE FUELS had fairly strong support for immediate + interest in long term:
>TRANSIT had some support for immediate, but mostly long term;
>CARPOOLING had some support for immediate, but more info is needed;
>TRAFFIC CONTROL had fairly strong support for immediate and for more info;
>BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN was viewed as long term approach with need for more info;
>REDUCING SPRAWL was viewed as long term approach;
>EDUCATION-OUTREACH did not get much support from this group, but it was viewed as the highest priority by the four work groups as a whole.

In my view, we should resist the tendency to overlook approaches labeled "long term." While it might take years to realize their ultimate benefits, many such approaches have benefits that can be realized in the near term. The important thing is to begin.

Here's an initiative that involves incentives, transit, carpooling, and bike/ped:

PARKING CASH-OUT. This is an employer based program to encourage employees to choose modes of commuting other than a single-occupant vehicle (SOV). Rather than giving each employee a free parking space, the employer would instead give each employee a monthly allowance for commuting. The employee would be free to use that allowance toward the "purchase" of the mode of his/her choice: a parking space (for which the employer would charge market rate), a transit pass, or a cash payment. The employee could use the cash to reimburse a fellow employee for a seat in a carpool, or pocket it (if he/she chooses to walk or bike to work). Parking cash-out would begin with a pilot program sponsored by one or more employers. It would likely work best in the River-Crown-Plaza corridor where the cost of employer-provided parking is high, where that cost might be separated from the employer's lease payment (or parking spaces freed up can be made available to others), and where transit service is good.

ronmclinden on "KC Transportation Work Group"

ronmclinden — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:30:06 +0000

Car-sharing? A worthy idea.

Here's another angle on car-sharing: do it within the household. Consider the energy savings if each household member, on needing to drive, would choose the most energy-efficient vehicle (or the one otherwise best suited to the trip purpose) rather than his/her "personal" vehicle.

TerryWiggins on "KC Transportation Work Group"

TerryWiggins — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:09:56 +0000

Just a little input from a member of another group --
I'm wondering if it would be worth asking a car-sharing company to think about/evaluate coming into Kansas City. I've heard enthusiastic comments from friends who have visted other cities with car sharing, and it would certainly facilitate the decision to reduce car ownership.

abhesania on "KC Transportation Work Group"

abhesania — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:59:09 +0000

Transportation Group: A thought/Concern that we aren't looking into other forms of transportation - currently just passenger/light-duty.

How can we make sure that our recommendations are representative of the spectrum of transportation modes which impact our air quality? While light-duty (passenger) vehicles make up over 50% of the GHG emissions, heavy-duty vehicles make up over 19%. Additionally, heavy-duty emissions increased by 57% from '97 to '03 versus light-duty which had an increase of only 19%. Heavy-duty vehicles and other modes of transportation (air, rail, construction equipment) will continue to play an increasing role in GHG emissions in this city. There are several successful projects which other cities have implemented to address GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.

What about adopting and enforcing no idle zones or idle reduction ordinances, this has been successful in several other cities/states. What about working with local over-the-road long-haul truckers based in KC and local delivery services or distribution warehouses to cut idling. This is a significant cause of GHG - I can get #'s if needed.

ronmclinden on "KC Transportation Work Group"

ronmclinden — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:42:15 +0000

We need to start with some relatively simple things that also have a good degree of visibility. What about lowering the speed limit on freeways within the city and then enforcing that limit? Reduced energy use, reduced emissions, less severe crashes (when they happen), reduced incentive to live far away and/or travel long distances -- plus, enforcement will generate far more revenue than will be needed to change all the speed limit signs.

I didn't say it would be popular -- but then, climate change won't be very popular, either.

PhelpsMurdock on "KC Transportation Work Group"

PhelpsMurdock — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:53:41 +0000

When the KC Climate Protection Transportation Work Group first met (12/14/06) to discuss planning, the following priorities (in order) were identified:

INCENTIVES had strong support for immediate use + interest in a long term approach;
ALTERNATIVE FUELS had fairly strong support for immediate + interest in long term:
TRANSIT had some support for immediate, but mostly long term;
CARPOOLING had some support for immediate, but more info is needed;
TRAFFIC CONTROL had fairly strong support for immediate and for more info;
BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN was viewed as long term approach with need for more info;
REDUCING SPRAWL was viewed as long term approach;
EDUCATION-OUTREACH did not get much support from this group, but it was viewed as the highest priority by the four work groups as a whole.

Overall members were positive about the process and were encouraged to bring new ideas to subsequent meetings. While some expressed concerns about decisions based on this initial prioritization, subsequent discussion will allow change and refinement. It was further suggested that we must be able to pair predicted emissions reductions with the means to make informed decisions when setting goals. There was also concern that comments about "behavioral change" might be viewed as "social engineering" when our efforts are really about making costs-benefits more visible, not about limiting lifestyle options.

When the Transportation Work Group met the second time (1/16/07), we heard presentations on Alternative Fuels and Transit, two of the top priorities. The next meeting (2/6/07) will include input on Incentives/Disincentives as well as any other subjects work group members wish to discuss. In the interim, Transportation Work Group members will meet in self-formed groups to detail areas they want to be certain are included in the Phase I plan so these can be presented and discussed at the February meeting.

All citizens are encouraged to submit their recommendations to this forum <www.allspecies.org/forum> and to keep up to date by reading information posted at the Climate Protection page <www.kansascity.com> to be posted by the end of January.