Cascade Policy Institute

This proposal is one of ten winning reports from the 1994 Oregon Better Government Competition. The 1994 and 1996 Competitions were organized by the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute. Opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of Cascade staff or advisors, nor should they be construed as an attempt by Cascade Policy Institute to influence any election or legislation.

Athena

An Advanced Public Transportation/Information System For Residents of Urban, Suburban and Rural Communities

by

Robert W. Behnke

Aegis Transportation Information Systems

Beaverton, OR

Executive Summary

Fares, costs and subsidies per transit trip have risen much faster than inflation throughout the United States during the past 25 years. At the same time, transit ridership per capita has continued to fall and automobile ownership per capita has continued to rise. As a result, U.S. metropolitan areas are losing their battles against traffic congestion and higher taxpayer subsidies for transit. It is becoming increasingly clear that major changes are needed in the way public transportation services are delivered, financed and managed, particularly in low-density suburban and rural areas, where most Americans now live and work.

Recent developments in computers and telecommunications will make it possible to develop new types of low-cost, door-to-door transportation services and to integrate them with conventional buses, trains, taxis, dial-a-ride vans, carpools and vanpools to create more cost-effective public transportation systems. This report outlines how this could be done in urban, suburban and rural areas throughout Oregon and how it could save taxpayers billions of dollars in transit subsidies over the next 25 years.

Reprints of the complete report with appendices and exhibits are available from Cascade Policy Institute.

About the author

Robert Behnke has over 30 years experience in operations research and systems engineering. His work has included design and development of military command and control systems and Intelligent Transportation Systems. He has worked with Tri-Met, California's Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation to design operational tests of promising Advanced Public Transportation Systems, Advanced Traveler Information Systems, and other Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems concepts.

Currently Behnke is working with the City of Ontario and other public/private organizations to develop new types of low-cost, door-to-door transportation services in order to reduce traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, air pollution, and mobility problems in Southern California.

Executive Summary

In March 1992, Tri-Met released a new Strategic Plan that would greatly expand conventional public transportation services in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Although only two years have elapsed since the first draft of this plan was distributed, the available evidence suggests that the ridership projections or the cost projections are much too optimistic and that Tri-Mets plan needs to be revised.

This paper outlines a new system, called ATHENA, and some non-conventional transportation concepts that should be considered when revising the Strategic Plan. Studies conducted for the U.S. Department of Transportation and several state, regional and local transportation agencies indicate that these new concepts could significantly increase public transportation ridership at a low cost to taxpayers, particularly in markets that are now poorly served by conventional transit services.

One of these markets in the Portland metropolitan area is commuter services for those who work in low-density suburbs, where most of the areas jobs are located and where most of the new job growth is occurring. Although suburban employers pay the same payroll tax rates to support transit as Downtown Portland employers, less than three percent of the people who work in the suburbs find Tri-Mets bus and rail services attractive for commuting. These fixed-route modes were never designed to operate efficiently in low-density areas. Moreover, Tri-Mets proposed new minibus services will simply be too costly to provide attractive transportation services in the future for very many more people who work in these low-density areas. As a result, suburban employers will continue to get very little direct benefit from their transit taxes under Tri-Mets new Strategic Plan and traffic congestion will continue to grow throughout the metropolitan area.

ATHENA may be described as a smart community system. It is designed to be a user-friendly, a taxpayer-friendly and an environment-friendly way to:

• reduce traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, air pollution and mobility problems, and

• increase business, employment, education, recreation and other opportunities for residents of urban, suburban and rural communities in Oregon and elsewhere. ATHENA uses telephone-based information systems, like The Oregonians Inside Line service, to create new types of privately-owned, on-call transportation services (e.g. smart jitneys, taxi-like carpools) that can provide guaranteed seating and door-to-door service at low subsidies, even in low-density areas.

ATHENA also uses telephone-based information systems and other computer and communications technologies to integrate these new personalized transportation services with conventional transit (e.g. bus, rail, ferry), paratransit (e.g. taxi, shuttle, dial-a-ride), and ridesharing (e.g. carpool, vanpool, buspool) modes to develop more cost-effective public transportation systems. Market research studies indicate that this approach would reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita significantly, at a low cost to taxpayers.

The interactive computer network used by ATHENA to offer and request door-to-door transportation services will also be used to provide drivers and riders with the capability to quickly and easily find the best ways to get between any two points in the region. The network will use the latest data about the weather, traffic congestion, fires, accidents, construction projects and other conditions to provide this information. This interactive computer network will also be available to provide a wide variety of other personalized public information services. These include home-shopping, telebanking, electronic mail, auto-instructional training courses, video games, stock and bond prices, sports scores and reservations for trains, buses, restaurants and parking spaces. These new information services will not only reduce the need for vehicle trips and VMTs per capita, they will also generate revenues from users and advertisers to help operate and maintain ATHENA.

The City of Ontario, in San Bernardino County, and a number of public and private partners are planning to conduct a comprehensive test of some of the transportation elements of ATHENA in Southern California during the next three years. The primary objective of this project is to determine how a small fleet of privately-owned smart jitneys can be used to create and maintain a large fleet of privately-owned taxi-like carpools and significantly improve the cost- effectiveness of public transportation services in low-density areas. The multi-county test area has some of the worst traffic congestion and air pollution problems in Southern California and, therefore, in the United States.

The State of Oregon has many low-density suburban and rural areas that could use these non-conventional public transportation services. The State also has many areas that would be very good for conducting operational tests of other ATHENA concepts. The Portland metropolitan area, for example, would be an excellent place to test low-cost, door-to-door jitney or single-trip carpool feeder services for MAX light-rail stations and major bus stops. This approach would reduce the need for transit riders to own a car in order to get to and from Tri-Met bus and rail stations conveniently. It would also eliminate the need to add 2,000 employees to Tri-Mets workforce by 2005.

Tri-Mets goal in the Strategic Plan is to more than triple transit ridership by 2005 by expanding light rail, bus and minibus services. This is an increase of almost one-half million passenger boardings per weekday over todays ridership levels. Based on the experience of transit agencies throughout the U.S. during the past decade, however, each additional one-way passenger trip will require more than a $5 (in constant 1994 dollars) increase in annual operating subsidies (i.e. excluding depreciation). Based on Tri-Mets projected ridership growth from 1994 to 2005, it will cost taxpayers at least $3.65 billion (in constant 1994 dollars) more in operating subsidies over this 11 year period than it is now spending on these subsidies. The use of ATHENA and its non-conventional transit concepts should be able to reduce this $3.65 billion increase in operating subsidies by 60 to 80 percent and save taxpayers between $2.19 billion and $2.92 billion between now and 2005 or 2006.

It should be noted, that the new Strategic Plan estimates that each increased passenger boarding will only require an average increase of 53 cents (in constant 1994 dollars) in operating subsidies between 1994 and 2005. This means that Tri-Met is projecting that it will cost taxpayers $388 million rather than $3.65 billion more on operating subsidies over this 11 year period. However, during the two year period that has elapsed since Tri-Met released the first draft of its Strategic Plan in 1992, each increased passenger boarding has required an average increase of $10 in operating subsidies. Based on this and data from other U.S. transit agencies, it appears that Tri-Mets projections in the Strategic Plan are much to optimistic. It also means that ATHENA and non-conventional transit approaches could save taxpayers more than $2 billion between now and 2005 or 2006 in the Portland metropolitan area alone.

Since ATHENA employs advanced communications and computer technologies to improve the transportation of people and goods, ATHENA is an Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS) or smart cars, smart highways system. Since it employs advanced com-munications and computer technologies to improve access to information and information-based services, ATHENA is a National Information Infrastructure (NII) or information superhighway system.

The Intelligent Vehicle-Highway System (IVHS) industry is projected to become a multi-billion dollar industry within the next few years. In fact, public and private spending on IVHS is projected to exceed $200 billion over the next 30 years. This is more than was spent on the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system during the past 30 years. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) industry is expected to be even larger. Many companies that are located in Oregon - including computer manufacturers, software companies, systems integrators, tele-communications companies, newspapers and other information providers - could play an important role in these new high-tech industries. These companies could do well by doing good in Oregon, in other states and in other countries. They should form public-private partnerships with Tri-Met, METRO, Oregons Department of Transportation (ODOT) and other public agencies to explore the possibilities.

Introduction

Tri-Met, Oregons largest public transportation agency, released a draft of a new Strategic Plan 1 for public discussion in March 1992. According to an Oregonian article,2 the plan calls for big changes in a relatively short time even though the focus of the plan was on increasing fixed-route transit ridership via long-term land use changes. The Tri-Met system carried approximately 194,600 boarding riders per weekday in FY 1992. According to the new plan, this would jump to 216,000 by 1993, 310,000 by 1997 and 690,000 by 2005. However, the plan got off to a shaky start. Ridership in both FY 1993 and FY 1994 were well below projected levels.

A second draft of the new Strategic Plan3 was released in December 1992. The ridership projections contained in this second draft were the same as those in the first draft. Apparently, Tri-Met still believed at this time that it could turn around the lagging ridership before the end of the 1993 fiscal year. Even if it had been able to do this, however, an analysis of other data shows that Tri-Mets ridership projections, financial projections, or both were much too optimistic for an expanded light rail, bus and minibus system in an area where most of the growth was occurring in low-density suburbs.

Appendix C summarizes the ridership, passenger revenues, operating expenditures, taxpayer subsidies, etc. projected by Tri-Met for 1993, 1997 and 2005, in constant 1993 dollars, in the draft plans. These data were obtained from the Business Plan of the second draft Strategic Plan (Appendix B) and discussions with Tri-Met staff. They show that Tri-Met, which planned to more than triple ridership between 1993 and 2005 by expanding its workforce from 1,800 to 4,500 employees and increasing the level of conventional transit services, projected the operating subsidy (i.e. excluding depreciation) for each additional passenger over 1993 levels in 2005 would be only 34 cents, in constant 1993 dollars. This is an astounding claim. To appreciate the magnitude of this claim, consider the following:

• As described in the Strategic Plan, Tri-Met started demand-responsive minibus services in selected areas. Although these neighborhood minibuses may provide rides at lower subsidies per passenger trip than conventional buses in low-density neighborhoods, they cannot come close to a $.34 subsidy per passenger trip. For] example, the June 1994 Tri-Met Monthly performance Report shows that the cost of these shuttle/demand responsive services jumped from $4.41 per passenger trip in FY 1993 to $5.36 in FY 1994. The subsidy levels are at least 75 percent of these costs. Widespread use of these neighborhood minibuses will require subsidies of 15 to 25 times the Strategic Plans projection of $.34 per new passenger trip.

• Data from USDOT show that the U.S. transit industry carried 7.3 billion passengers in 1975 and had a 59 cent (in 1990 dollars) operating subsidy per passenger trip. The industry carried 8 billion passengers in 1990 and had $1.05 (in 1990 dollars) operating subsidy per passenger trip. The subsidy per each additional passenger trip over 1975 levels, therefore, was $5.87 (in 1990 dollars) or $6.69 (in 1993 dollars). This is 20 times the 34 cents per additional passenger trip that Tri-Met projected in the draft Strategic Plan. Furthermore, the operating subsidies per additional passenger trip in the U.S. transit industry since 1990 are over $7 (in 1993 dollars).

• In the latest (June 1992) Report to Congress on the Status of Mass Transportation in the United States, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) estimated that the total subsidy per additional transit passenger trip during the next 10 years will be more than $10, in constant 1993 dollars. Operating subsidies represent approximately $7 (70 percent) of this amount. This is more than 20 times the 34 cents per additional passenger trip that Tri-Met projected in the draft Strategic Plan.

Transportation researchers at the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), universities, consulting firms and other transit agencies were astonished by Tri-Mets 34 cent subsidy per additional rider projection. They could not have been more astonished if Tri-Met had claimed in its new Strategic Plan that its buses would soon get 200 miles per gallon of fuel or that its workers had agreed to an 80 percent wage cut. Tri-Mets projections in the draft Strategic Plans are much too optimistic.

The second draft of the new Strategic Plan also had one interesting change that was not explained. As noted in the Oregonian article of March 13, 1992,4 Tri-Met used Toronto as its role model in its first draft. In its second draft, however, Tri-Met substituted Vancouver, B.C. for Toronto. The following note in a recent Mass Transit magazine5 may provide one reason for the change.

HUGE TRANSIT PLAN IN JEOPARDY

Toronto Metros blueprint for public transit is in jeopardy as politicians struggle with how to pay the $2.7-billion cost. A report to Metro Council reveals that even with the controversial proposal for a one-percent property tax increase for five years, Metro and the TTC would only have about half of the money needed for the project. Several options are being looked at to salvage the plans.

Although the average Toronto resident takes two times as many transit trips each year as a Vancouver, B.C. resident and five times as many transit trips each year as a Portland resident, Tri-Met was probably wise in not continuing to use Toronto as its role model in the new Strategic Plan if Toronto was having trouble getting its taxpayers to pay the subsidies required for an expanded bus and rail transit system.

Tri-Met released its new Strategic Plan6 in August 1993 without the fanfare of the first draft. There were few if any comments about the plan by the media or by Portlands business, government and community leaders. Although the earlier drafts covered the thirteen-year period from FY 1993 to FY 2005, the new plan only covered the five-year period from FY 1994 to FY 1998. This eliminated the need to explain the very rapid growth, but very low subsidy characteristics of the ridership projected by Tri-Met between FY 1998 and FY 2005. As Appendix C shows, Tri-Met projected that the $.34 subsidy per new rider in FY 2005 would be less than half the $.77 projected for FY 1997.

Moreover, since Tri-Met had already reported 194,400 boarding passengers per weekday for FY 1993, the somewhat embarrassing forecast of 216,000 boarding passengers per weekday for this year in the earlier drafts was eliminated from the new plan. In addition, the ridership forecasts for FY 1994 through FY 1998 in the final plan are slightly less optimistic than these in the draft Strategic Plans. Tri-Met appears to have delayed the growth of its projected ridership by almost one year. This can be seen by comparing Tri-Mets Business Plans of the draft Strategic Plans (Appendix B) and the Strategic Plan (Appendix D).

Appendix E compares and contrasts Tri-Mets projections for FY 1997 in the final plan and in the draft plans The first two columns of this table are the same as those in Appendix C. The third column shows that Tri-Mets revised projections increased the estimated subsidy per new rider (over projected FY 1993 levels) by 14 percent, from $.77 in the draft plans to $.88 in the final plan. It should be noted, that these are still very optimistic projections, because Tri-Mets operating subsidies (i.e. not counting depreciation) in FY 1993 were $1.41 per existing rider. Adding new riders to a mature transit system almost always requires higher taxpayer subsidies per new rider.

In July, Tri-Met released its cost and ridership data for FY 1994. However, instead of the 219,600 boarding riders per weekday projected in the Strategic Plan, Tri-Met only carried 198,300 riders in FY 1994. This is shown in Appendix F. It appears that Tri-Met will need to slip the ridership growth projected by the Strategic Plan once again. Appendix F also shows that passenger fares covered less of the operating costs in FY 1994 (i.e. 24.2%) than they covered in FY 1993 (i.e. 25.4%), when the Strategic Plan projected they would cover more (i.e. 26.1%). As a result, taxpayer subsidies of Tri-Mets operating costs have continued to increase while the Strategic Plan projects that they will decline.

In addition, Appendix F shows that the operating subsidies required to add each new boarding rider between FY 1993 and FY 1994 was $6.27. This is much higher than was projected in the Strategic Plan and much higher than the $1.41 operating subsidy per boarding passenger paid in FY 1993. Although land use changes may eventually increase ridership on fixed-route bus and rail transit systems by increasing population densities in selected corridors, it will take many years before the subsidies required to attract new riders will be less than the subsidies required to support existing riders. The available evidence strongly suggests that Tri-Mets ridership projections, financial projections, or both in the Strategic Plan are much too optimistic and should be revised.

Tri-Met should also make some other changes if it revises the Strategic Plan. For example, in the second draft plan it states:

Seattle did not have the advantage the Portland region has of well-established land use planning. It grew out not in - and has paid dearly in terms of traffic jams, gridlock and lost livability.

This statement was replaced in the Strategic Plan by the following statement:

This was a change in the right direction by Tri-Met, but more can be done. It is unfortunate that the Strategic Plan made very little change to the following statement in the second draft plan:

This statement strongly suggests that Portland has avoided the traffic congestion problems thatare now confronting Seattle. This is simply not the case.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has contracted with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to measure the annual growth of traffic congestion in the 50 largest U.S. urban areas, using data obtained from state transportation agencies. TTI developed a Roadway Congestion Index which measures the expected delay per mile of travel caused by traffic congestion in each urban area. Appendix G contains a copy of a table from one of TTIs latest reports. It shows that traffic congestion grew almost as fast in Portland (23%) as it did in Seattle (26%) between 1982 and 1990. Appendix G also shows that, if present trends continue, Portland will have the same levels of traffic congestion that Seattle has today within the next 4-8 years.

Furthermore, USDOTs Journey-to-Work Trends in the U.S. and its Major Metropolitan Areas 1960- 1990, shows that a higher percentage of workers in Seattle (6.3%) than in Portland (5.4%) used public transit to commute to work in 1990. An earlier USDOT report, New Perspectives in Commuting, made the following observations about the declines in transit and ridesharing in Portland between 1980 and 1990:

Despite the large increases in drive-alone vehicles, average travel times in the County grew less than a minute. Portland was one of the cities in which driving alone increased more than the increase in workers.

The available data suggest that Portland has not had much greater success than Seattle or other U.S. metropolitan areas in dealing with traffic congestion or declining per capita transit ridership, particularly for work trips, since 1980.

Furthermore, Seattle and the State of Washington appear to be ahead of Portland and the State of Oregon in realizing the importance of computers, telecommunications and other IVHS technologies in finding more cost-effective ways to provide public transportation services within low density suburban areas, where most U.S. metropolitan area residents now live and work. This is discussed more fully later in the report.

The following sections will describe why the use of single-occupant vehicles and traffic congestion are increasing in Portland, Seattle and other major U.S. (and Canadian) metropolitan areas. They will also describe why light-rail, buses and minibuses cannot solve these problems in a cost-effective manner without the use of non-conventional public transportation services.

BACKGROUND

The wasted time and wasted fuel from traffic congestion now cost U.S. residents more than $100 billion per year. The medical problems from gasoline pollution now cost U.S. residents an additional $50 billion per year. However, efforts to get more Americans to use transit and ridesharing since the late 1970s have been costly and ineffective.

For example, dividing the increase in annual transit subsidies by the increase in annual transit ridership in the U.S. since 1980 shows that each additional one-way passenger trip on transit has cost taxpayers more than $10 in capital and operating subsidies. Each additional commuter automobile that transit has been able to take off the road in the U.S. since 1980, therefore, has cost taxpayers more than $5,000 per year in increased subsidies. In some metropolitan areas, the cost to taxpayers has been much higher than this.

Although federal, state and local taxpayers in the U.S. have spent billions of dollars a year since 1980 to encourage greater use of multi-occupant vehicles (MOVs), both transit and ridesharing have continued to lose market share to single-occupant vehicles (SOVs). According to the latest Census Bureau data, the percentage of motor vehicle commuters who used MOVs declined from 29 percent in 1980 to 20 percent in 1990. Data collected in several metropolitan areas show that the use of MOVs is still declining throughout the United States.

There are many reasons for the decline of transit and ridesharing in U.S. metropolitan areas. Three of the most important are:

1. Automobile users, particularly SOV drivers during peak commuting hours, are heavily subsidized. Gasoline taxes and automobile registration fees cover only a portion of the costs of building, operating and maintaining the highway-road-street network and cover none of the costs of the traffic congestion delays, air pollution and other problems caused by SOV users.

2. Transit has become more costly for users as well as for taxpayers. Fares and subsidies per passenger trip have increased 60 percent and 130 percent faster than inflation since 1965, respectively, while the cost of operating automobiles has declined in real terms.

3. Most of the population and employment growth in U.S. metropolitan areas is occurring in the suburbs. In fact, more than half of all U.S. metropolitan area workers now have jobs in the suburbs and almost 90 percent of these workers also live in the suburbs.

The June 1992 National Housing Survey by pollster Peter Hart found that 80 percent of all Americans identify the traditional single-family detached home with a yard as the ideal place to live7. It appears, therefore, that there will be pressures to continue the suburbanization trends of the past few decades into the future. Data collected by the American Public Transit Association (APTA) show that buses operated in low-density areas have operating costs per passenger trip that are 50 percent higher than buses operated in urban areas8. A study by Barton-Aschman Associates9 found that sixty percent (60%) of Americans will not walk more than one-eighth mile (i.e. the length of two football fields) to a bus stop. It is very difficult, therefore, for U.S. transit agencies to obtain the funds to provide frequent and convenient bus, rail or paratransit services in low-density suburban areas.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 were prepared to help those who are concerned with either government spending or with quality-of-life issues to understand what suburbanization has done to the use of conventional public transportation and conventional ridesharing. This background information is important in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new approaches to reduce traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, air pollution and mobility problems in the United States.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 divide the journey-to-work trips of U.S. metropolitan areas (aka SMSAs) into four mutually exclusive commuting groups - those who live and work (1) within the central city and (2) within the suburbs, and those who commute (3) between the suburbs and the central city and (4) between the central city and the suburbs. This market segmentation strategy was originally developed by Dr. Phillip Fulton of the Census Bureau and refined by transportation consultant and author Alan Pisarski to analyze journey-to-work flows in U.S. metropolitan areas.

Table 1 provides important information about the variations in the use of public transportation and ridesharing in each market segment. For example, it shows that those who live and work in the central city use public transportation much more (18.2%) than those who live and work in the suburbs (1.8%). This is not surprising since quality public transportation services are difficult to find within lower-density suburban areas and it is more costly for users to park automobiles near work sites in higher-density central cities. The large difference in public transportation use between suburb-to-suburb commuters and central city-to-central city commuters is a direct result of rational consumers examining the pros and cons of the transportation alternatives available to them today and selecting the alternatives they find most attractive.

Table 1 also shows that those who live in the suburbs and work in the central city tend to use public transportation slightly more (8.1%) than those who live in the central city and work in the suburbs (5.8%), but significantly less than those who live and work in the central city (18.2%). Again, this is not surprising because it is more difficult to find quality public transportation for those who commute to and from the suburbs than for those who commute within the central city. Public transportation services for commuters to and from the suburbs usually require higher subsidies because the trips are longer and the passenger loads are highly peaked and highly directional. As Table 3 shows, three times as many suburban residents commute into the city as city residents commute into the suburbs. It is difficult to manage transportation resources efficiently under these conditions.

One of the facts presented in Table 1 that surprises many transit advocates is that commuters in U.S. metropolitan areas prefer carpools and vanpools (20.1%) to buses and trains (8.8%). As might be expected, suburb-to-suburb commuters use ridesharing modes much more (20.0%) than they use public transportation (1.8%). However, the fact that central city-to-central city commuters use lightly-subsidized ridesharing modes as much as they use heavily-subsidized public transportation modes is usually not expected. There is a lesson here for public transportation advocates about the importance of door-to-door service and guaranteed seating to attract suburban residents out of their automobiles, station wagons and vans.

A cursory examination of Table 1 would lead one to conclude that suburb-to-suburb commuters use carpools and vanpools more than central city-to-central city commuters. Although this is true if one measures the rates of ridesharing of all motor vehicle commuters, it is not true if one measures the rates of ridesharing of all non-transit motor vehicle commuters. Table 2, which was derived from the data in Table 1, shows that among workers who commute by private vehicle, ridesharing is more popular among those who live and work in the central city (22.5%) than it is among those who live and work in the suburbs (20.4%), where employee parking is usually free and where it is difficult for carpoolers and vanpoolers to find attractive backup public transportation services.

Table 2 also shows that public transportation continues to be much more popular for commuters who live and work in the central city and dont rideshare (22.3%) than for commuters who live and work in the suburbs (2.3%) and dont rideshare. It is unfortunate that it was not possible to obtain segmented journey-to-work data from the 1990 census for Table 1, 2 and 3. The unsegmented 1990 data shows significant declines in public transportations share of com-muting trips and even more significant declines in ridesharings share of commuting trips in U.S. metropolitan areas since 1980. Although no surprises are anticipated, it would be interesting to examine the changes in market share for each of the four commuting groups since 1980.

Table 3 traces the changes in the relative size of each of the four U.S. metropolitan area commuting groups between 1960 and 1990. It shows that more than half (53%) of all jobs in U.S. metropolitan areas are now located in the suburbs, up from 35.7 percent in 1960, and that almost 90 percent of all these suburban jobs are filled by suburban residents. Table 3 also shows that more than two-thirds (67%) of all U.S. metropolitan area workers now live in the suburbs, up from 47.6 percent in 1960, and that less than 30 percent now commute into the central city. After examining the suburbanization trends of recent decades, it should not be surprising that the use of public transportation and ridesharing has declined and that traffic congestion has increased in U.S. metropolitan areas. It should also not be surprising that the productivity of the U.S. transit industry has declined, in terms of passenger trips per vehicle mile, and that transit fares and transit subsidies per passenger trip have risen much faster than inflation in U.S. metropolitan areas. Endnotes 13-17 discuss these cost and subsidy issues in more detail.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

By any yardstick, Portland and other U.S. metropolitan areas are still losing their battles against traffic congestion, and the efforts to reduce our dependence on imported oil and to reduce motor vehicle-generated air pollution are going much slower than hoped. Table 4, which uses data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, shows that 3.8 million fewer workers used multi-occupant vehicles (MOVs) for commuting in 1990 than in 1980, even though the work force increased by 18.5 million during this same period.

The evidence is mounting that these trends are continuing into the 1990s.

The evidence is also mounting that driving a single-occupant vehicle to a park-and-ride lot to take a bus, train, carpool or vanpool does little to reduce air pollution. For a typical trip of 5 to 20 miles, approximately 50 percent of the emissions come from the cold-start stage, occurring in the first minute after the engine is started. For a seven mile trip, 90 percent of the emissions occur in the first mile.

Because cold-starts generate such a significant share of the pollution for most trips, auto use reduction strategies should eventually give greater emphasis to reducing the number of vehicle trips taken, rather than simply reducing total miles traveled. For example, a 20-mile trip by a vanpool of six passengers where each rider drives to and from a park-and-ride lot would reduce miles traveled and increase average vehicle occupancy. But it would do relatively little for air pollution reduction, since each rider started and drove his or her own car to the park-and-ride lot. On the other hand, if that same vanpool picks up riders at home, it would make a significant contribution to emissions reductions.10

Public transportation and ridesharing must become less dependent on park-and-ride lots and kiss-and-ride feeder services in suburban areas in order to reduce cold starts and air pollution levels.

Improved transit/paratransit/ridesharing services are a key to reducing traffic congestion and air pollution problems in suburban areas,

where most metropolitan area residents now live and work. However, it does not appear that any mix of conventional transit, paratransit and ridesharing services will be able to provide a level of service that is attractive to residents in these low-density areas, at subsidy levels that are attractive to taxpayers. Something more is needed to solve the transportation, energy and environmental problems of suburban areas in a cost-effective manner.

Improved transit/paratransit/ridesharing services are also a key to improving the quality of life in rural areas in Oregon and in other states. However, it does not appear that any mix of conventional transit, paratransit and ridesharing services will be able to provide a level of service that is attractive to residents in these low-density areas, at subsidy levels that are attractive to taxpayers. Something more is also needed to solve the transportation, energy and environmental problems of rural areas in a cost-effective manner.

Although the drama of inner city poverty walks away with the headlines, poverty in the countryside, particularly among the working poor, is becoming more acute, according to a study by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan, non-profit research group. Nearly one in three of all hourly-paid rural workers earn at or near the minimum wage. 11

Though the Census Bureau reports the population of Farm Belt states is up, only 4.9 million (7.6%) of the 64 million people (approximately 25 percent of the population) live in the USAs 2,400 rural counties, but nearly 500,000 of them are leaving annually... The million who abandoned small towns have moved into urban areas, increasing traffic congestion, air pollution and other problems there. Rural towns have to provide a reason to stay. We dont just want to preserve rural areas for people to drive to on weekends. 12

The United States must develop new ways to give rural area residents - particularly those who do not drive because they are too young, too old, too poor or too disabled - better access to people, goods, services and information available to urban area residents.

GENERAL METHOD OF APPROACH

Over the years, many transportation experts have pointed out that the traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, air pollution and parking problems of the U.S. are not caused by a shortage of transportation resources.

Most areas in the U.S. have enough transit vehicles and automobiles to handle their existing travel demands, using only the front seats of the automobiles. Most areas also have enough roadways and parking to handle all these multi- occupant vehicles without traffic congestion. Most areas of the U.S. also have enough automobiles and other transportation resources to provide good public transportation services for all their existing residents, including he poor, the aged and the disabled. The transportation-related problems of the U.S. are largely the result of not having information systems that will permit decision-makers to manage their existing transportation resources effectively, particularly in low-density suburban and rural areas.

The following section discusses the French Minitel System, German Smart Bus Systems, and the California Smart Traveler System. These three innovative information systems provide insights into possible ways to use new technologies to reduce traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, air pollution and mobility problems in the United States. The ATHENA System is also discussed.

Some of the basic concepts of ATHENA were discussed in Sustainable Communities by Peter Calthorpe and Sim Van der Ryn. In their words:

"The direct effect of Telecommunications (TC) on travel will not be large. However, significant secondary effects can be expected.

Big secondary effects will come from TCs facilitation of the use and operation of less conventional forms of transportation. Forms of pooling cars, vans, and taxis, especially in their dynamically scheduled versions, will be able to provide much faster and better customized information, scheduling, response, and billing to their users. Fleet operations can be optimized and economized also. The same is true for auto rental operations.

It is possible to imagine a new type of business evolving out of the present ride-sharing, paratransits, local auto rental, and/or taxi businesses that offer transportation or vehicles as needed, as convenient as a touch-tone phone or simple terminal in every home."

Sustainable Communities was published by Sierra Club Books in 1986

DISCUSSION

The French Minitel System

During the 1980s, the government-owned telephone company in France distributed small, low- cost, black-and-white computer terminals (called Minitels) to millions of homes and offices instead of printed telephone books. Using a Minitel terminal, connected to the telephone line, anyone could find the current listed phone number of any person or business in France. Unlike the printed phone book, the Minitel Electronic Directory is always up to date. As a result of this system, the telephone company received fewer requests for information and directory service personnel could be transferred to other activities.

Since most Minitel terminals are only used a few minutes a month for directory information, the telephone company invited other government agencies and the private sector to provide other telephone-based, videotex information services (e.g. home banking, teleshopping, electronic mail, video games) to Minitel owners for a fee. Today, there are more than 20,000 information services available to Minitel users and they generate millions of dollars in revenue to the telephone company from advertisers, users and fees for centralized billing and collection services. They also provide interesting jobs.

Although the graphics and the technologies are primitive by todays PC standards, the Minitel videotex system is a successful National Information Infrastructure (NII) project. The Minitel system can also be viewed as a successful, public-private IVHS/Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) project, because users can use it to find transit schedules, check traffic conditions on the freeways, book train reservations, order taxis, etc. at any time, without operator assistance. By imbedding the ATIS functions in a multi-purpose information system, France was able to save hundreds of millions of dollars in design, development, implementation, training, marketing and administrative costs. For more information on the French Minitel System consult Endnote 15.

German Smart Bus Systems

In order to increase transit ridership and reduce operating costs in suburban and rural areas, some counties in Germany have installed new transit-telecommunications systems (e.g. FOCCS) that permit residents to request bus rides between any two checkpoints (e.g., bus-stops) at any time. These smart bus systems are user-friendly. A prospective rider does not need to know the route number, the schedule of the bus, or the fare structure. To use a smart bus (i.e. a bus equipped with an on-board computer terminal and a wireless data communications link with the central dispatching computer), a prospective rider calls an easy-to-remember telephone number. A telephone operator enters the following trip request information into a computer terminal: (1) Origin checkpoint number, (2) Destination checkpoint number, (3) Requested departure time (including ASAP), (4) Number of people traveling together, and (5) Special needs (e.g. wheelchair, seeing-eye dog, baby stroller).

The central computer matches the trip request against the available resources, and quickly dispatches the most cost-effective bus, mini-bus, or microbus (i.e. taxi) to pick-up the rider and his or her traveling companions. The telephone operator tells the passenger when to be at the checkpoint, the fare, and the number of the bus, van or automobile (i.e. taxi) that will provide the ride. The average waiting time for a passenger is less than eight (8) minutes. Alternatively, riders can use kiosks at some major bus stops to enter trip requests directly into the FOCCS computer and bypass the telephone operator. However, the waiting time for the smart bus then starts at the bus stop rather than in the home, office, shop, etc. of the caller. This can be a disadvantage to users in bad weather. Furthermore, the kiosks tend to be costly to install, operate and maintain.

The FOCCS system can use any bus, mini-bus or micro-bus in fixed-route mode, route-deviation mode or demand-responsive mode, at any time of the day or night. This multi-modal transportation capability has helped to improve service and to reduce operating costs in low-density areas and during low-travel periods. Despite the sophistication and elegance of the FOCCS transit-telecommunications system, however, the available data suggests that the operating cost savings provided by FOCCS in Germany and Australia are barely enough to cover the costs of the additional computer and telecommunications equipment that is required. Although the FOCCS smart bus system is more user-friendly than traditional transit-paratransit systems, it is not more taxpayer-friendly. For more information on German Smart Bus Systems consult Endnote 16.

California Smart Traveler (CST) System

Both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and USDOT have established major IVHS programs to investigate ways that computers, telecommunications and other electronic technologies could be used to improve the cost-effectiveness of local and regional transportation systems. In the early 1990s, these organizations jointly sponsored two California Smart Traveler studies to investigate how telephone-based information systems could be used to:

• Develop new types of low-cost, door-to-door public transportation services.

• Integrate these new services with conventional transit, paratransit and ridesharing modes to create more user-friendly and more taxpayer-friendly public transportation systems.

• Provide drivers and riders with the capability to quickly and easily find the best ways to get between any two points in the region, in light of the latest information about the weather, traffic congestion, construction activities, transit accidents, etc.

The California Smart Traveler studies also examined a number of potential test sites and prepared cost projections for IVHS operational tests in three suburban communities in the State.

Caltrans, USDOT, Tri-Met and others have been studying FOCCS and other German smart bus systems to find ways to make these systems more user-friendly and more taxpayer-friendly, particularly for use in low-density areas of the United States. For example, substituting door-to-door services for checkpoint-to-checkpoint services would make the FOCCS system more user-friendly. Adding features that would reduce subsidies per passenger trip would make the FOCCS system more taxpayer-friendly.

One way to make the German FOCCS system both more user-friendly and more taxpayer-friendly is to add an interactive, multimedia, front-end computer to the central dispatching computer system. With this capability, would-be riders would be able to simulate the use of a FOCCS kiosk with a touch-tone telephone (i.e. audiotex), personal computer (i.e. videotex) or some other input/output (I/O) device. The front-end computer would let a would-be rider bypass telephone operators and quickly enter his or her ride request directly into the FOCCS dispatching computer by pressing one or two buttons on a touch-tone telephone, PC or other I/O device. This would make the FOCCS system more user-friendly when the telephone operators are busy. The front-end computer would also reduce the number of telephone operators required to handle a given number of ride requests each day. This would make the FOCCS system more taxpayer-friendly. The proposed California Smart Traveler System has an interactive, multimedia, front-end computer in its design.

A second way to make FOCCS more user-friendly and more taxpayer-friendly is to add new ridesharing services. The front-end computer makes it possible to develop single-trip carpool matching capabilities. A would-be rider would be able to request a ride (e.g. between home and school) by merely pressing one or two keys on a touch-tone telephone, PC or some other I/O device. The detailed specifications (e.g. origin address, destination address) for the trip will be pre-stored in a computer file. A would-be driver would be able to offer a ride (e.g. between work and home or points in-between) by merely pressing one or two keys on a touch-tone telephone, PC or some other I/O device. The central dispatching computer would try to match them with other ride offers and ride requests. This is a way to provide low-cost, door-to-door transportation services to residents of low-density suburban and rural areas and to provide part-time work for single-trip carpool drivers. The proposed California Smart Traveler System also has single-trip carpool matching capabilities in its design.

Requesting A Single-Trip Carpool Ride

An individual desiring to obtain a single-trip carpool ride would make a telephone call to the local ride-request number. The would-be rider would provide his or her travel itinerary, including date-time, origin, destination and number of seats required. The information would also include any specific restrictions or preferences (e.g. no smoking, no radio). The CST computer system would then search through the database of active information about the make and color of the vehicle, license number, drivers name or ID number, telephone number, scheduled pick-up time, etc. Although this is not a requirement, the would-be rider could call the would-be driver to confirm the match and to iron-out any other details.

If no match is found, the would-be rider would be told about the availability of other public transportation services for his or her trip or would be asked to call back at a scheduled time to see if a match could be found. In the latter case, the would-be riders request would be added to a database of active single-trip carpool ride requests. The CST computer system would continue to analyze new ride offers to look for a match until the scheduled call-back time. Alternatively, the CST computer could notify the would-be rider via a paging service as soon as a match was found. In the future, would-be riders who own micro-cellular Personal Communications Network (PCN) phones or Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) could be called as soon as a match was found and provided with the match details.

Another way to make the German FOCCS system more user-friendly is to add driver information services. Connecting the multimedia front-end computer to a regional Traffic Operations Centers (TOCs) computer system would permit drivers to get more timely and more accurate information about the status of the regional roadway network in the future. By pressing one or two keys on a PC or a telephone, a driver of a taxi, truck, shuttle or private automobile would be able to quickly find out if his or her planned route is experiencing unusual traffic delays and, if so, to find the best alternative route. This personalized traveler information service would be particularly useful during commuting hours and during storms. The proposed California Smart Traveler System is being designed to provide personalized traveler information services in the future. The ATHENA System is an enhanced California Smart Traveler System. For more information on the California Smart Traveler System, consult Endnotes 17 and 18.

The ATHENA System

USDOT and IVHS AMERICA released a draft National IVHS Program Plan which provides a blueprint for the work needed to achieve the goals and objectives stated in the IVHS Strategic Plan. The draft Program Plan focuses on IVHS services from the perspective of potential users. It identifies 27 IVHS user services and sets out a program for the development and deployment of each service over the next five years. One of these IVHS user services is the Ride Matching and Reservation user service.

The National IVHS Program Plan describes the Ride Matching and Reservation user service as a mechanism for expanding the market for shared-ride transportation by providing real-time ridematching information, along with reservations and vehicle assignment, and by serving as a clearing house for financial transactions. According to the Program Plan, these capabilities will not only expand the market for ridesharing as an alternative to single-occupant vehicles (SOVs), they will also provide enhanced alternatives for special population groups. For example, Human services agencies (could) benefit from this user service by having access to broader transportation service options with reduced administrative overhead. 19

Although the National IVHS Program Plan notes the success of low-technology single- trip ridematching systems (i.e. slug lines or instant/casual carpools) for the Shirley Highway Corridor in Washington D.C. and the Bay Bridge Corridor in the San Francisco Bay Area, it does not mention that these are very special situations. Both of these corridors have attractive incentives for using MOVs rather than SOVs, dependable public transportation services for backup, and there are enough drivers and riders traveling in the same direction at the same time. Nor does the Program Plan mention that there are few, if any, successful single-trip carpool operations in other high-volume travel corridors in the United States and there are no successful single-trip carpool operations in any low-volume travel corridors in the United States.

It will be difficult to establish successful single-trip carpool systems in low-density suburban and rural areas. One reason is the costs of providing attractive backup with either conventional or smart transit-paratransit modes will be very high. A second reason is it will be difficult to attract drivers before there are riders and riders before there are drivers. This is the chicken-and-egg problem of single-trip ridesharing. A third reason is the problem of sustaining rider and driver interest if the match rate is low for single-trip carpools. The low match rate for conventional ridesharing services in major metropolitan areas (e.g. Washington D.C., Los Angeles) suggests that it will be difficult to maintain a critical mass of drivers and riders in low-density areas.

The ATHENA System contains enhancements to the proposed California Smart Traveler System that address both the chicken-and-egg and the critical mass problems for single-trip ridesharing in low-density areas. One enhancement is the use of smart jitneys to provide dependable and low-cost backup services for single-trip carpools. Smart jitneys (e.g. usually 8-12 passenger vans) will be equipped with personal digital assistants (PDAs). These devices will enable a small fleet of smart jitneys to provide flexible-route, personalized MOV transportation services in corridors where conventional public transportation services would not be cost effective.

Most smart jitneys will be owned or leased by drivers who regularly make long trips on the same routes (e.g. home to work, school to home) in the region. Workers, students and others who drive smart jitneys will be told by their on-board PDA when and where to deviate from their regular routes to pick up and deliver passengers enroute. These smart jitney drivers will be paid a minimum each month (e.g. $400) for spending on the order of one hour per day, five days a week, providing personalized MOV trans-portation services on their way to and from work, school, etc.

When a smart jitney gets to a pick-up point, the driver will use the on-board communications equipment to advise the ATHENA dispatching computer if the passenger was on-board or a no show. The on-board PDA will then tell the driver the location of the next stop to pick up or deliver passengers. In the future, GPS receivers may be added to the smart jitneys to provide automatic vehicle location (AVL) capabilities that can be used to check if the smart jitney driver was at the right place at the right time. This AVL capability should improve the quality of transportation services for smart jitney riders and provide an extra measure of security for both smart jitney drivers and riders.

If a typical smart jitney driver spends 15 minutes picking up riders in his or her origin neighborhood and another 15 minutes delivering riders in his or her destination neighborhood, the average delay time and the maximum delay time for a smart jitney rider will be 15 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively. Although these delays in door-to-door travel time may be acceptable to some riders, many riders would rather save this time by driving alone. These time-sensitive riders will be able to eliminate or greatly reduce travel-time delays by using single-trip carpools most of the time. Single-trip carpools, which need not be equipped with smart equipment (i.e. PDAs), will only pick up one passenger group per trip and will deliver the group to its destination without intermediate stops. The single-trip carpool driver will get the name and address of the passenger over a telephone, usually before starting out. However, single-trip carpool vehicles that are equipped with cellular phones or PDA terminals can obtain this information enroute.

Although ATHENAs smart jitneys are expected to be more taxpayer friendly than fixed-route buses or dial-a-ride minibuses in low-density rural and suburban areas, they will still need to be subsidized. Consequently, the fleet of smart jitneys in the area will be small and their primary mission will be to complement and supplement a much larger fleet of very low subsidy vehicles (e.g. single-trip carpools, taxi-like carpools (TLCs), voice-dispatched jitneys, parataxis). Since these very low-subsidy vehicles will not require on-board PDA terminals or other computer/telecommunications equipment, they can be added to regional fleet of ATHENA public transportation vehicles quickly, and at a low-cost to taxpayers.

The interactive computer network that is used by ATHENA to process ride offers and ride requests, to dispatch and monitor vehicles, and to collect and disburse fares, will also be used to provide a wide variety of personalized information services to travelers in the future. By merely pressing one or two keys on a touch-tone telephone, cellular phone, personal computer, multi-media kiosk, personal digital assistant (PDA), etc., drivers and riders will be able to find the best ways to get between any two points in the region in light of the latest information on weather conditions, traffic conditions, transit accidents, construction activities and others.

Advertisers who sponsor these pre-trip or en-route traveler information services and new types of traveler services information (e.g. electronic Yellow Pages) will keep the cost of ATHENA low to both users and taxpayers. Like the Minitel system in France, the ATHENA system will also encourage government agencies and private organizations to utilize its telephone-based computer network to provide a wide range of new information services (e.g. home shopping, telebanking, electronic mail, video games, auto-instructional training courses) to community residents.

France has spent 15 years and over $3 billion (in 1994 dollars) to develop a multi-purpose, telephone-based information system. The French Minitel system has created many new business, employment, education and other opportunities for residents of urban, suburban and rural areas. Users and advertisers now pay all of the costs of operating and maintaining the nationwide French system. ATHENA will take full advantage of the lessons learned by operators of the Minitel system and other videotex information systems (e.g. Prodigy, CompuServe).

Moreover, ATHENA plans to use touch-tone telephones, as well as personal computers (PCs) and videotex terminals, to provide access to ATHENAs wide range of information services. This will not only cost much less to get started, it will also save time in establishing a critical mass of users who are ready to use ATHENAs driver, rider and other information services. Furthermore, The Oregonian has already trained many Portland area residents to use touch-tone telephones to access a wide variety of information from remote computer data bases.

CONCLUSIONS

Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS) technologies can be used to develop new types of public transportation services (e.g. smart jitneys, taxi-like carpools) and to integrate these new services with conventional transit, paratransit and ridesharing modes to form multimodal Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). Preliminary market research studies indicate that APTS can significantly reduce traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, air pollution and mobility problems at a low cost to taxpayers.

A user-friendly Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) is a critical component of a well-designed APTS. By pressing one or two buttons on a touch-tone telephone, personal computer (PC), videotex terminal or other input/output device, a smart traveler will be able to quickly find the best ways to get between two points by public transportation. These public transportation vehicles can be either privately-owned or publicly-owned ferries, trains, buses, minibuses, vans or automobiles. Their drivers, like the drivers of some rural fire departments, can be full-time, part-time, piece-work, or volunteers.

A user-friendly ATIS system is also an important partner for a well-designed Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS). By pressing one or two buttons on an input/output device, a smart traveler will be able to quickly find the best routes to take to drive between two points, based on the latest information about accidents, construction projects, weather, etc. Integrating ATIS with other audiotex or videotex information services (e.g. home-shopping, telebanking, electronic mail, video games, interactive training programs) could reduce the need for some trips and VMTs per capita, as well as the cost of the ATIS services.

ATHENA has been designed to help urban, suburban and rural communities use their existing telephone systems to:

- make more efficient and effective use of their existing public and private transportation resources,

- increase the mobility of all residents, including the poor, the aged and those with disabilities,

- reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and parking problems,

- control transportation spending at all levels of government,

- reduce oil imports and improve the U.S. balance of trade, and

- create new transportation service jobs, information service jobs, and other jobs for local residents.

If the IVHS operational tests of ATHENA are as successful as projected, similar systems can be set up quickly throughout the United States. Just as a small tax on basic telephone bills now finance many 9-1-1 emergency vehicle information systems, a small tax on gasoline sales in the future could finance ATHENA-like smart community systems. Just as the Electronic Telephone Directory System was the foundation of the French Minitel System, ATHENA-like smart community systems could be the foundation for the U.S. Information Superhighway Program.

In a recent article in Technology and the New Transportation,21 Secretary of Transportation Frederico Pena noted the close relationship between the IVHS program and the National Information Infrastructure (NII) or information superhighway program as follows:

"Imagine what life in America will be like when the journey toward deployment of Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS) is complete. What will emerge is a society infused with information systems that not only connect all modes of transportation into one cohesive system, but also link transportation to the information superhighway of which Vice President Gore eloquently speaks.

"This seamless system of information and transportation will serve a world in which a suburban commuter can wake up in the morning, flip on a computer or television and obtain accurate travel data to help him decide how to get to work that day - or whether to commute to work at all This brave new IVHS world will encourage use of transit systems - not simply put more single-occupant vehicles on our highways. It will also incorporate a broader information system that eliminates many routine trips

"The IVHS industry in America is projected to grow to as much as $200 billion a year by early in the next century. In sheer economic terms, if we even approach that sort of projected growth for IVHS, the federal investment in this program will be one of the most productive investments that our government has ever made. It will also be one of the most effective examples of how federal investment can leverage private sector involvement and response."

In an article in the same publication , the CEO of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Rodney Slater, also noted the close relationship between the IVHS and the NII programs. He also expanded on the need to use federal funding to attract much greater funding from the private sector and from state and local governments in order to achieve the important goals of these synergistic programs as soon as possible. In FHWA Administrator Slaters words:

" It is essential - if we are to truly move toward deployment - to begin to think of IVHS technology as more than isolated research projects, operational tests and demonstrations. We need to make the application of technology the 'standard practice' not just the 'exception'

"The central issue facing the deployment of IVHS in the coming years is, I believe, mainstreaming the use of technology to help the Nation achieve important transportation and societal goals State and local agencies, as well as private industry, must also recognize that the federal government is not the only resource for funds. We need to think of private as well as public funds to apply technology. The risks are there for the private sector - but so too are the benefits.

"Americas economic future depends on the nations capacity to invent, master, and apply new technologies. It depends on moving ideas to the marketplace to spur growth, create new jobs, and strengthen our industrial performance. Vice President Gore had identified (these) broad initiatives as part of the National Information Infrastructure "

In another article in Technology and the New Transportation, the CEO of the Federal Transit Administration, Gordon Linton, made the following statements:

Seattle and Bellevue, Wash., are moving ahead with a 'smart traveler' project. Theyre conducting an operational test of a computerized transit information center that allows people to match up immediately with carpools or vanpools. Participants carry electronic pagers to make ride-matching easy and versatile.

"We learned early in this project that 42 percent of 'drive-alone' commuters would consider the instant ridesharing made possible by such a system.

"So, sooner than you may think, your daily commute may begin with you logging into your home computer. One program will tell you if any members of your carpool are out sick. Another will let you check for commuters looking for a carpool in your area.

"Ridesharing groups using HOV lanes are finding such electronic communication invaluable. They can find an immediate replacement when one or more of their regular riders is out sick and thereby qualify to use the HOV lanes. The system is also useful to people who only occasionally need to catch a ride with someone.

"Smart transportation technology and multimodal approach to our transportation problems can give us a wide choice of invaluable tools for addressing traffic congestion, the mobility needs of the transit dependent, environmental quality, and the humanization of our transportation systems." 22

Tri-Met, the Portland metropolitan area, and the State of Oregon should heed these words from the leaders of the U.S. Department of Transportation and make greater use of new technologies and the private-sector in their future plan

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the steps that should be taken to implement ATHENA-type systems in the Portland metropolitan area and in other cities and counties throughout Oregon:

1. Tri-Met should conduct a critical review of the cost, revenue, subsidy and ridership projections in its Strategic Plan. Data available from sources within Tri-Met and from other U.S. transit agencies should be used to prepare more realistic projections of the costs to taxpayers and users of increasing ridership by almost a half million passenger boardings (i.e. 250 percent) each weekday by 2005 or 2006. In developing these revised projections, Tri-Met should provide:

(a) Total costs rather than just operating costs. Annualized capital costs (i.e. depreciation), which are not included in transit operating costs, can be a significant factor in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of expanded public transportation systems.

(b) Originating rides rather than just boarding rides. Since originating rides do not count transfers as trips, it is a better measure to use when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of public transportation systems.

It would also be useful if Tri-Met could provide data on revenue passenger trips as well total trips in its projections. If most ridership growth in the future is occurring downtown in Fareless Square, for example, this would do little to improve mobility or reduce traffic congestion in the suburbs.

2. Tri-Met, METRO, Oregons Department of Transportation (ODOT) and other public transportation agencies should form a partnership with private companies in the computer, telecommunications, information services, transportation and related industries to develop strategic plans to develop and implement ATHENA-type systems in Portland, and in other cities and counties throughout the State. These public-private plans would show Oregon communities how to use new technologies to reduce long-standing transportation, energy and environmental problems and how to create a wide variety of new business, employment, education, recreation opportunities for their residents in a cost-effective manner.

Since ATHENA employs advanced communications and computer technologies to improve the transportation of people and goods, ATHENA is an Intelligent Vehicle- Highway Systems (IVHS) or smart cars, smart highways system. Since it employs advanced communications and computer technologies to improve access to information and information-based services, ATHENA is a National Information Infrastructure (NII) or information superhighway system.

The Intelligent Vehicle-Highway System (IVHS) industry is projected to become a multi- billion dollar industry within the next few years. In fact, public and private spending on IVHS is projected to exceed $200 billion over the next 30 years. This is more than was spent on the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system during the past 30 years. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) industry is expected to be even larger. Many companies that are located in Oregon could play an important role in these new high- tech industries.

These companies could do well by doing good in Oregon, in other states and in other countries. The good could save taxpayers $2 billion or more in public transportation subsidies in the Portland metropolitan area alone over the next 10-12 years.

Endnotes

1. Tri-Met Strategic Plan (First Draft), March 1992

2. The Oregonian, March 13, 1992, Tri-Met outlines strategic plan for Portland area's future, James Mayer.

3. Tri-Met Strategic Plan (Second Draft), December 1992

4. The Oregonian, March 13, 1992, Tri-Met outlines strategic plan for Portland area's future, James Mayer.

5. Mass Transit, May / June 1994 Issue.

6. Tri-Met Strategic Plan 1993-1998, August 1993.

7. National Housing Survey, June 1992, Fannie Mae, Washington D.C.

8. Walking: Facts and Figures, Tom Whitney, Environmental Council of Sacramento/Sierra Club. (Approximate date: 1990)

9. 1991 Transit Fact Book, American Public Transit Association (APTA), October 1991.

10. Transportation Efficiency - Tackling Southern Californias Air Pollution and Congestion, Michael Cameron, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 1991.

11. Rural Poverty Becomes Acute, Knight-Ridder News Services, October 1989.

12. Small Town USA in Trouble, USA Today, September 18, 1989.

13. The Need For IVHS Technologies in U.S. Public Transportation Systems, Robert Behnke, Dr. Kevin Flannelly, and Malcolm McLeod, IVHS Issues and Technology, SAE-SP-928, 1992.

14.Consumer Demand for Alternative Transportation Services, TRB-89054, Dr. Kevin Flannelly and Malcolm McLeod, 1989.

15. A Comparison of Consumers Interest in Using Different Modes of Transportation, TRB 910651, Dr. Kevin Flannelly and Malcolm McLeod, 1991.

16. German Smart Bus Systems, FTA and TriMet, Robert Behnke, USDOT-T-93-25, 1993.

17. California Smart Traveler System, FTA and Caltrans, Robert Behnke, USDOT-T- 92-16, 1992.

18. Cost Estimates for Selected California Smart Traveler Operational Tests, FTA and Caltrans, Robert Behnke, USDOT-T-93-31, 1993.

19. National Program Plan For IVHS, USDOT and IVHS-America, Draft, October 15, 1993.

20. Governors Conference on Videotex, Transportation and Energy Conservation, State of Hawaii, Department of Planning and Economic Development, 1984.

21. Technology and the New Transportation, IVHS-America and The Washington Times, May 23, 1994

22. Ibid.