There are now more cars than people, people are making more and longer trips, and we are heading for gridlock. The proposed revision of the County TransPlan is hardly visionary. The general thrust is still "build more roads and they will come," despite alternatives suggested by citizens concerned about the issue.

One such alternative is streetcars -- nothing new, but maybe one whose time has come again. Portland has opted for streetcars; why not Eugene? Streetcars are relatively non-polluting, and, though initially more expensive than buses, last five times longer, are cheaper to maintain, and are easily adaptable to new technologies.

They share the roads with autos, don't require destroying buildings, digging tunnels or purchasing rights-of-way, and don't disrupt on-street parking. Furthermore, in Lane County they could potentially create jobs, as they could be manufactured by local coach companies, whereas buses are manufactured in Detroit. The technology is simple, but also easily adaptable to new technology.

A fixed rail street car system was what neighborhood activist, Bonny Bettman, named as her Christmas gift to Eugene at last December's meeting of the Eugene City Club. "It is finally becoming obvious that our wasteful over-dependence on the personal auto - which involves burning, transporting, and exploring for oil, defending foreign oil supplies, and building roads -- constitutes a tremendous threat to the environment and a huge economic burden," she said. In her view, diminishing our dependence on the auto is "the single most important step we can take to save the ecosystems we depend upon," and a viable attractive alternative is essential. To Bettman, who served on the TransPlan committee, that's a well-designed street car system.

David Gusset, an at-large representative on the TransPlan Land Use Measures Task Force and on the Urban Rail Feasibility Study, is extremely frustrated with the committee process, and strongly agrees with Bettman. His research shows that a streetcar system would solve many of the area's transit problems not only efficiently and cheaply, but with a good deal of charm. However, his views, he says, were completely ignored or were altered in meeting transcripts. Accordingly, he has presented a 31-page minority report to eight local, state, and federal entities.

Gusset became an avid advocate for rail in 1992 when, as a board member for both the Lane Historic Preservation Council and Friends of Eugene, he helped organize a community forum on regional urban rail. His extensive travel also gave him experience with a variety of transit modes in Europe, South America and the U.S. As a result, he says, "I have come to realize the values of well-linked multi-modal public transportation systems and how much transportation systems influence patterns of development."

Both Bettman and Gusset claim the Urban Rail Feasibility Study committee was dominated by Lane Transit District (LTD) and its vested interest in perpetuating the bus system. Two members were LTD board members, another an LTD advisor; the committee chair was an LTD senior planner, and an LCOG intern and committee aide during the committee process is now the point person for LTD'S proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). They also say the study was underfunded and the summary and input rushed through with little input from concerned committee members. The final flaw was that cost and ridership projections were based on unworkable routes.

According to Gusset, LTD has actively tried to suppress any proposal of streetcars since the beginning of the latest TransPlan update five years ago. He points out that bus systems are allied with the auto, petroleum and highway construction lobbies that keep pushing Congress to increase funding for roads while slashing funds for rails.

The Draft TransPlan advocates for increasing the size and number of roads, which encourages auto use, allotting only two paragraphs to urban rail, because it was decided that projected ridership in 2015 would be too low to be competitive with other cities seeking federal funds. That projection study was based on routes submitted by the committee. However, Gusset charges that the routes on which the study was based were not those selected by the committee, which had selected four central city loops that connected major destinations, enabling passengers to easily accomplish several errands.

Streetcars have many advantages over other types of rail according to Gusset. A major transportation concern is pollution and meeting air quality and global warming standards. Streetcars can be powered by a diesel-electric combination that produces relatively little pollution and can easily switch to using the non-polluting fuel cells currently under development.

Reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is another major goal. The major source of both is the number of short-distance auto trips people make running errands. A central-city streetcar system linking all major destinations could serve many of these trips and alleviate parking and congestion headaches.

A streetcar system provides bonuses to businesses established along its line. Rail is permanent, whereas bus routes can be changed; this gives businesses security in knowing customers can reach them. Opponents claim the area doesn't have the density to support light rail. But, rail encourages the compact and efficient land use being promoted to contain and control growth and costs in the Growth Management Study and the Land Use Code update: compact, mixed-use development and permanent nodes along routes. Real estate within walking distance of the system would certainly be more valuable redevelopment opportunities than lots in areas clogged with cars and belching buses, said Bettman, while BRT, just encourages auto dependent development on the city's peripheries. "An investment now would create an opportunity to accommodate future growth while remaining livable and avoiding sprawl."

Gusset envisions three passenger rail systems linked to the Amtrak/ high speed rail station. A central city streetcar system reminiscent of Eugene's 1907-1927 trolley lines would link all major destination points: neighborhoods, commercial centers, recreation areas, educational institutions, and the high speed rail system terminus, facilitating multiple destination trips during all operating hours.

Two regional systems would use existing track with the addition of short spurs to the Eugene airport, downtown Springfield and LCC main campus. One route would link LCC, Springfield, an I-5 park-and-ride, the Amtrak Station, a West Eugene park-and-ride, and the airport. The other could use existing rail lines for passenger travel to Veneta, Florence, Coos Bay, Florence, Junction City and Cottage Grove.

Bettman sees commuters being served by outlying parking garages that connect with bus routes. "The key is that once a rider enters the system, most destinations are accessible by street car -- people can get to work and back and to pick up the cleaning and groceries on the way."

LCOG and LTD advocate the BRT system as a transitional step to light rail, saying it "mimics" a streetcar system, and as cost is a major concern, Bettman asks why millions should be spent to "mimic" a more desirable system? Why not invest in streetcars/light rail immediately, she asked, as retrofitting after the fact is extraordinarily expensive.

The initial outlay for streetcars is greater than for buses, but they are less expensive to operate and maintain and last 50 years to a bus's 10. The big question with any transit system is whether a sufficient number of people will use them often enough to justify the cost. LTD's operating costs are 80% publicly subsidized, but BRT is only projected to increase LTD's trip share from 1.8% to 2.3%. Portland's Metro, however, found that light rail attracts 15-20% more riders than bus service and has just approved a central city streetcar line.

Said Bettman, "Light rail looks spendy until you compare it with the actual costs of automobile use: continued spending for parking garages, roads, gas subsidies , and urban blight," to say nothing of the estimated cost of about $6,500 annually to the individual car owner. She points out that two railroad tracks can carry as many people in an hour as sixteen lanes of highway, at one-sixth the energy of a single occupancy vehicle.

Gusset and Bettman's complaints about the committee process are not unusual from citizens who have committed to them, attending meetings, doing research and reading voluminous reports. This experience was one that most participants in the New Community Meeting, who came from various community perspectives, were surprised to find they shared. One section of their summary report addressed such flaws in the system regarding citizen committees.*

Elected officials who appoint citizen committees view participants like the LTD representatives as "stakeholders" with a central role. As in this case, several representatives of a particular industry will dominate a committee, and the views of such "stakeholders" are usually given precedence over those of stakeholders who are residents who will be paying the bill, feeling the impacts, and using the system.

Feeling rushed to judgment is another common experience, and often committee members complain they were not given necessary information. In some instances, the final report is written by the staff, the committee never sees it before it is presented to elected officials, and when they do see it, they are often find, as did Gusset, that it is inaccurate. Committees have even been sunsetted before the job was done and the report written.

* The New Community Meeting was a year-long experiment (4/97-3/98) bringing 17 community leaders with diverse viewpoints together to address growth issues in the area. It was conducted by the Center for Conflict Resolution. A copy of its report may be obtained by calling 485-0911.

Hen Cackles

©Wanda Ballentine, 1998