What's New

I recently accepted an
invitation from the Swiss Consulate and the Presence Switzerland Commission to
study the public transport system in Switzerland. I was joined by nine
other national leaders in
transportation policy including a representative for
the Mayor of New York, an Atlanta City Councilmember and transit officials from
the cities of Chicago, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and Colorado.

This was a great opportunity for the Transportation Center
because it gave me an up-close view of a European model that is often cited as
a success. In future posts I will explain why I think the Swiss model is effective and whether it can be replicated here.

Until then, here are some basic facts about Switzerland:

Geography
15,940 Square miles
60% of the country lies within the Alps

Population
7.46 million people (slightly less than the population of New York city)
182 people per square kilometer (US has a density of 30
people per square kilometer)

Language
63% speak German
20% speak French
6.5% speak Italian
9% other

Economy
4% Agriculture
25% Industry
71% Services
Car ownership rate: 514 per 1000 people (US car ownership rate is 812 per
1000 people)

According to our guide, Switzerland carries no natural
resources except water, and its citizens share initiative and referendum powers
at the federal, state and county levels.

Switzerland is also not a member of the European Union, which is an important fact when you
consider their taxing structure; more on this later.

This is a picture of our work-study group in front of the
Gotthard Base Tunnel, which is a 57km tunnel through the Alps.
Once it opens in 2017, it will be the longest tunnel in the world with a cost
of about $11.2 billion (USD).

Yesterday, the state auditor’s office released a performance audit of the state ferry system (WSF). One of the more interesting findings was that ferry service is greater than demand; a finding that the WSF and WSDOT find acceptable.

The audit goes on to suggest service cuts would save taxpayers $10 million per year.

But perhaps most interesting, is the source of the h!
igher service levels. The audit lists three primary reasons for “WSF providing an extensive level of service during low traffic periods.”

1. Washington Transportation Commission mandates service levels

2. Union labor requirements

3. Customer expectations based on history of service levels

Without a doubt, the most surprising reason for the unneeded service is that ferry employee union contracts require it.

There are generally two drivers of costs in transportation projects: natural and unnatural. Natural cost drivers occur as a result of basic economic principles. They include inflation, material expenses, and higher costs for new technologies.

Unnatural costs are governmentally created policies that artificially inflate costs. These policies do not occur naturally and are implemented for reasons that are not required to fund a project. These unnatural cost drivers include prevailing wages, and in the ca!
se of WSF, union service level requirements.

At a t!
ime when the region's transportation system is failing and without the natural protections of the marketplace, policymakers need to manage these unnatural cost drivers better, in order to maximize the value of available tax dollars.

Sound Transit's plan to reconfigure the center lanes on I-90 to
accommodate light rail will cost the commercial trucking industry $7.5
million per year, or 54% more than if policymakers did nothing on I-90.

The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that freeway congestion
costs each truck about $32.15 per hour of delay in 2005.

A free-flow commute across the 9.1 mile corridor on I-90 between Bellevue and Seattle should take 9.6 minutes, or 19.2 minutes roundtrip. Delay does not exist in this ‘ideal’ scenario and thus does not result in a cost to the freight industry.

In 2005, the average roundtrip peak commute along the 9.1 mile corridor was 28.2 minutes. This
means delay represented about 9 minutes, or 32% of a roundtrip peak
commute. Using the FHWA’s estimate, trucks making a roundtrip peak hour
commute across the I-90 bridge incurred a cost of about $561,725 in
2005.

In 2030, if I-90 remains the way it is today, the average roundtrip peak commute is estimated to take 45.1 minutes. Adjusting for inflation, the cost to the freight industry would be about $4.9 million per year, or $8,596 per truck.

Under
the light rail option, the average roundtrip peak commute would climb
to 54 minutes and truck capacity would fall by 20%. Despite 20% fewer
trucks able to cross the bridge, the cost to the freight industry would
still be more than $5.2 million, annually. Assuming the remaining 20%
of trucks would still need to cross the lake, the total cost to the
commercial trucking industry would climb to $7.5 million.

In
other words, Sound Transit’s light rail proposal will directly cost the
commercial trucking industry about $7.5 million annually, or $13,157
per truck, just to cross the I-90 bridge during the peak commute. This
is 54% more costly than if Sound Transit did nothing on I-90.