Today I had a cinco. I was on three different transit systems and on five different transport modes. This morning I woke up realizing that I needed to take my car in after the check engine light had been flashing at me lately and the throttle just wasn't acting right. Since I drive to my Grammas each week (because the bus line used to stop running at 3:30pm and is now gone) it's nice to have my car to get too and from her house.
But today I took my car to Broadway in Oakland and dropped it off. "Can I get you a courtesy Shuttle?" says the service manager. "No thanks, I'll take the bus". I walked through the showroom where everyone else was waiting for thier shuttle to take them to thier car needy areas and stepped out to the 51 bus stop. I hopped on and waited five minutes for the driver to load a wheelchair customer who almost ran him over. "Whoa, slow down man" he said to the motorized wheelchair owner who wanted to back over his feet while he held the seatbelt up for him. The rest of the trip to 14th and Broadway took about 6 minutes. Not long at all.
Later that evening when I got off work, I hopped on BART and rode to Powell. I got off and walked up stairs to the Muni Metro and hopped on the J Church LRV. I hopped off at Church and Market and walked into Safeway to buy groceries for the next few days. I walked back out and back onto the J to go home to 24th street.
That's pretty cool. I drove, took the bus, took the subway, took the Muni Metro and walked today while running a number of different errands that were on the way to my final destination. All possible because I live in a place that gives me options. I wish more people could do it this way and I know there are plenty of people out there who wish they could have the opportunity, but our leaders are denying them the option on the false premise of car superiority and lame numbers.
Showing posts with label AC Transit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AC Transit. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Calculating Social Justice
I love how the blogosphere works. Someone posts on an older story and makes it relevant again and it screams across the blogs like a meteor. Today STB posted on an older Intermodality post that got to Ryan which I imagine is where it got picked up by Markos of teh big Orange.
Kos' post also brought me to this post at A Future Oakland that put forward some fun stats that drive me crazy every time the social justice folks bring them up, which they do often. The issue I have is with the use of the National Transit database to compare subsidy across different mode types for the sole purpose of saying that one mode is better for poor or minority folks than others. Why they always want to pick this fight is beyond me and its a symptom of thier not being able to connect the different types of modes and thier function to regional job opportunty expansion for lower income job seekers. Check out this chart from Public Advocates dot org, a law firm devoted to social justice.
You can see that the chart doesn't discuss income levels but rather race, I imagine as a proxy for income levels? I'm also not sure what they mean by subsidy but I'm guessing its Capital funding+operating per rider? And as an issue, these lines all perform different services at different distances which affects the costs. No mention that BART and Caltrain riders pay higher fares than AC Transit riders. No mention that per passenger mile (a standard measure across modes), Caltrain and BART are far more efficient than AC Transit. There are a couple of reasons for this and AC's would be better compared to itself if it didn't include the less productive routes or $40 a trip paratransit but those are necessary services.
I want to believe in the social justice movement but they shoot themselves in the foot with dumb charts like this that don't tell me anything except that they don't understand transit operations or regional connectivity to jobs for lower income workers. If I were arguing on the social justice angle, I would start by saying that funding for road expansions is being wasted on suburbs that are leaching tax base and making people spend more of thier hard earned money on transportation. We also shouldn't be saying that AC is more efficient because thats false based on per passenger mile comparison and its operating type. Comparing AC to Caltrain per rider based on 20 mile trip versus a mile or two mile trip is rediculous and doesn't get us anywhere. Based on the 2007 NTD here are the comparisons for operating costs:
Caltrain is 27 cents per passenger mile.
BART is 34 cents per passenger mile
AC is $1.32 per passenger mile.
If we're going to look at capital and operating per passenger mile, it comes out to this in 2007:
BART: 50.9 cents per passenger mile
Caltrain: 60.3 cents per passenger mile
AC Tranist: $1.57 per passenger mile
Versus a Per Trip operations calculation:
AC Transit is $4.02
BART is $4.21
Caltrain is $7.28
What the argument should be is that expansion funding should stop going to stuff like ebart and expansion freeways and should start going to core expansion of AC Transit, Muni, BART, Caltrain Metro East etc. Put the transit where the riders are and it will be helpful for everyone to connect with job opportunities.
This culture war against rail that takes people to job centers in places like Concord and Walnut Creek needs to stop. Would it be more efficient to run buses? No. First that means more cars on the freeway because less people would be taking transit. It also means that more of downtown Oakland and San Franciso would be parking lots inducing less walking trips overall. But if we didn't look at regional transit systems, we would be allowing the bay area fiefdoms of transit to limit the job opportunities for low income workers. In Portland, the Max lines actually allow workers to reach a greater number of opportunities. This 2006 paper on economic development for the FTA by Strategic Economics shows an interesting chart below. But basically regional connectivity provides more opportunities for jobs that make it possible for upward mobility.
If anything, the issue of expansion should point to the fact that suburban jurisdictions have too much power in how transportation funds are allocated. If it were equitable towards the core, services such as AC Transit would get more funding for more service, but it wouldn't make them more efficient in moving people. They are still a bus company.
This should tell you that MTC is shafting Oakland and San Francisco by not spending more on more efficient rail and metro type service for trunk lines that would serve hundreds of thousands of people. Compare the expansion of BART to San Jose versus a Geary Subway. A Geary Subway would cost around $3 billion and carry 100,000 riders easy the first day. The BART to San Jose line will not get anywhere close to that ridership number and cost a lot more money. These are the decisions that are being made based on regional politics rather than real expansion needs. The up front costs are more but the efficiency of operations leads to less cuts and better travel times for all riders in the core and connections beyond.
Just because people are poor or of a different race doesn't mean they deserve inferior or just one type of service. A network of service that serves different travel sheds is the best way to get people to thier jobs and open up the region for opportunity for all. The fight against the modes that take people further needs to be better thought out as a regional strategy for improving core service rather than pitting modes against each other, especially operations as efficient as BART or Caltrain. It's not very productive and the way the social justice movement is going now can only fail if they are going to bring data such as the chart above to the game.
Flame on...
Kos' post also brought me to this post at A Future Oakland that put forward some fun stats that drive me crazy every time the social justice folks bring them up, which they do often. The issue I have is with the use of the National Transit database to compare subsidy across different mode types for the sole purpose of saying that one mode is better for poor or minority folks than others. Why they always want to pick this fight is beyond me and its a symptom of thier not being able to connect the different types of modes and thier function to regional job opportunty expansion for lower income job seekers. Check out this chart from Public Advocates dot org, a law firm devoted to social justice.
You can see that the chart doesn't discuss income levels but rather race, I imagine as a proxy for income levels? I'm also not sure what they mean by subsidy but I'm guessing its Capital funding+operating per rider? And as an issue, these lines all perform different services at different distances which affects the costs. No mention that BART and Caltrain riders pay higher fares than AC Transit riders. No mention that per passenger mile (a standard measure across modes), Caltrain and BART are far more efficient than AC Transit. There are a couple of reasons for this and AC's would be better compared to itself if it didn't include the less productive routes or $40 a trip paratransit but those are necessary services.I want to believe in the social justice movement but they shoot themselves in the foot with dumb charts like this that don't tell me anything except that they don't understand transit operations or regional connectivity to jobs for lower income workers. If I were arguing on the social justice angle, I would start by saying that funding for road expansions is being wasted on suburbs that are leaching tax base and making people spend more of thier hard earned money on transportation. We also shouldn't be saying that AC is more efficient because thats false based on per passenger mile comparison and its operating type. Comparing AC to Caltrain per rider based on 20 mile trip versus a mile or two mile trip is rediculous and doesn't get us anywhere. Based on the 2007 NTD here are the comparisons for operating costs:
Caltrain is 27 cents per passenger mile.
BART is 34 cents per passenger mile
AC is $1.32 per passenger mile.
If we're going to look at capital and operating per passenger mile, it comes out to this in 2007:
BART: 50.9 cents per passenger mile
Caltrain: 60.3 cents per passenger mile
AC Tranist: $1.57 per passenger mile
Versus a Per Trip operations calculation:
AC Transit is $4.02
BART is $4.21
Caltrain is $7.28
What the argument should be is that expansion funding should stop going to stuff like ebart and expansion freeways and should start going to core expansion of AC Transit, Muni, BART, Caltrain Metro East etc. Put the transit where the riders are and it will be helpful for everyone to connect with job opportunities.
This culture war against rail that takes people to job centers in places like Concord and Walnut Creek needs to stop. Would it be more efficient to run buses? No. First that means more cars on the freeway because less people would be taking transit. It also means that more of downtown Oakland and San Franciso would be parking lots inducing less walking trips overall. But if we didn't look at regional transit systems, we would be allowing the bay area fiefdoms of transit to limit the job opportunities for low income workers. In Portland, the Max lines actually allow workers to reach a greater number of opportunities. This 2006 paper on economic development for the FTA by Strategic Economics shows an interesting chart below. But basically regional connectivity provides more opportunities for jobs that make it possible for upward mobility.
A preliminary analysis of transit ridership by industry and occupation in Portland, Oregon indicates that fixed guideway transit connects to more diverse employment opportunities than local bus. An Entropy Index was used to measure the diversity of incomes for occupations in industries with the highest percentage of transit ridership in the region. Entropy index scores are stated as a decimal and the lower the number, the more concentrated the occupational and income mix within that industry.
As Table 1 shows, industries with high percentages of bus ridership also tend to have low Entropy Index scores for an overall average of 0.54. For the most part, these were industries with a high percentage of low wage jobs. However, industries where workers use fixed guideway transit and/or bus and fixed guideway transit to get to work had a much greater diversity income diversity with an average index score of 0.89. This analysis demonstrates that fixed-guideway transit provides connectivity to jobs with different income opportunities, and possibly greater opportunities for advancement, while bus provides the best connectivity for workers in predominantly low-income industries with little opportunity for advancement.
If anything, the issue of expansion should point to the fact that suburban jurisdictions have too much power in how transportation funds are allocated. If it were equitable towards the core, services such as AC Transit would get more funding for more service, but it wouldn't make them more efficient in moving people. They are still a bus company.This should tell you that MTC is shafting Oakland and San Francisco by not spending more on more efficient rail and metro type service for trunk lines that would serve hundreds of thousands of people. Compare the expansion of BART to San Jose versus a Geary Subway. A Geary Subway would cost around $3 billion and carry 100,000 riders easy the first day. The BART to San Jose line will not get anywhere close to that ridership number and cost a lot more money. These are the decisions that are being made based on regional politics rather than real expansion needs. The up front costs are more but the efficiency of operations leads to less cuts and better travel times for all riders in the core and connections beyond.
Just because people are poor or of a different race doesn't mean they deserve inferior or just one type of service. A network of service that serves different travel sheds is the best way to get people to thier jobs and open up the region for opportunity for all. The fight against the modes that take people further needs to be better thought out as a regional strategy for improving core service rather than pitting modes against each other, especially operations as efficient as BART or Caltrain. It's not very productive and the way the social justice movement is going now can only fail if they are going to bring data such as the chart above to the game.
Flame on...
Monday, March 16, 2009
Service Levels & Income
How about this cliche fest. The Examiner writes about how San Franciscans are tougher than the rest of the bay area when it comes to walking to transit through high crime areas. But in reading it, some of the writing made me skeptical that this was a real study or whether people didn't just take stereotypes into the paper:
In places like Oakland, Berkeley and Sunnyvale, the high-crime neighborhoods tend to scare people away from using nearby transit services, the study found. Folks had a tendency to walk less in those neighborhoods, choosing to drive instead, according to a new study from the Mineta Transportation Institute.Seems to me that this has nothing to do with crime but rather to do with transit service levels & income levels & self selection. What am I missing?
...
“In [San Francisco] neighborhoods where there was more crime, people were most likely to use transit,” said Dr. Christopher Ferrell, one of the study’s principal authors.
...
He added that The City’s transit services tend to be located in high-density areas, which invariably attract crime.
...
As expected, those who chose to live in suburban areas were more inclined to avoid walking in high-crime areas and using transit hubs within those areas. But even in a dense urban city such as Oakland, folks had a propensity to avoid public-transit hubs in high-crime neighborhoods.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
An Urban A's Stadium
Since their Fremont plan crashed and burned and neighbors close to the future Warm Springs BART station have shut down the second option the A's are now going to have to look elsewhere for a stadium. They might even start looking in San Jose for a place. Not that I don't like San Jose, but Oakland is a much better place for a baseball team and they have so much history here, I'd like to make another suggestion. What about an Urban Stadium in downtown Oakland?
Other Urban Stadiums around the country are a success and most of them have really good transit access. A few examples are in Colorado, Boston, and Chicago. The Rockies Play at Coors Field - Access at Left to Union Station which will be the major hub of the Fastracks commuter and light rail network.
Fenway in Boston - Access to the Green Line
Wrigley in Chicago - Access to the Red Line
For an example, look what San Francisco has been able to do in SoMa with AT&T park. There's even an urban Safeway as seen in the picture below.
So why not accomplish two things in Oakland, extend good transit up Broadway and have a built in audience for restaurants and retail in a refurbished Auto Row until it takes off on its own. This would help stem the extreme retail leakage to Emeryville and San Francisco that Oakland suffers from. Having this anchor ramp up redevelopment of auto row and the hospital district would go a long way. I had a little fun with this and photoshopped in a stadium just south of 26th and north of 24th just west of Broadway where there is an empty auto dealership.
Another need is extending transit. It's easily walkable(.3 miles) from the site to the 19th street BART station/AC Transit 2oth street transit center but it would be nice to either have a subway extension to Kaiser or at least a streetcar line. Such a streetcar line has been proposed in other places such as at SF Cityscape.
Obviously the stadium would be a tough sell because there would be so many landowners but its a fun excersise. I would go to tons more games if it were located here which is close to my work downtown. Is anyone in A's land interested in an Urban Stadium? Thoughts from locals?
Other Urban Stadiums around the country are a success and most of them have really good transit access. A few examples are in Colorado, Boston, and Chicago. The Rockies Play at Coors Field - Access at Left to Union Station which will be the major hub of the Fastracks commuter and light rail network.
Fenway in Boston - Access to the Green Line
Wrigley in Chicago - Access to the Red Line
For an example, look what San Francisco has been able to do in SoMa with AT&T park. There's even an urban Safeway as seen in the picture below.
So why not accomplish two things in Oakland, extend good transit up Broadway and have a built in audience for restaurants and retail in a refurbished Auto Row until it takes off on its own. This would help stem the extreme retail leakage to Emeryville and San Francisco that Oakland suffers from. Having this anchor ramp up redevelopment of auto row and the hospital district would go a long way. I had a little fun with this and photoshopped in a stadium just south of 26th and north of 24th just west of Broadway where there is an empty auto dealership.
Another need is extending transit. It's easily walkable(.3 miles) from the site to the 19th street BART station/AC Transit 2oth street transit center but it would be nice to either have a subway extension to Kaiser or at least a streetcar line. Such a streetcar line has been proposed in other places such as at SF Cityscape.
Obviously the stadium would be a tough sell because there would be so many landowners but its a fun excersise. I would go to tons more games if it were located here which is close to my work downtown. Is anyone in A's land interested in an Urban Stadium? Thoughts from locals?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday Links
Portland Transport has photos of Oregon Iron Works first American made streetcar.
~~~
A high speed rail connection will soon be forged between Helsinki and St. Petersburgh Russia. I imagine that would be quite the beautiful trip.
~~~
Looks like Gavin was talking a bit too fast for the bus boys at AC Transit.
The Fort Worth Streetcar is moving forward. Kevin updates us and notes that they are thinking of paying for part of the capital with toll revenue.
~~~
A high speed rail connection will soon be forged between Helsinki and St. Petersburgh Russia. I imagine that would be quite the beautiful trip.
~~~
Looks like Gavin was talking a bit too fast for the bus boys at AC Transit.
Fernandez told Newsom that if he wants the first phase of the Transbay Terminal project delayed until funding is secured for the rail piece, terms of an agreement between AC Transit and the Transbay board may be ''threatened or violated.'' He asked the mayor to clarify his intentions.~~~
The Fort Worth Streetcar is moving forward. Kevin updates us and notes that they are thinking of paying for part of the capital with toll revenue.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Beijing Car Bans Swamp Subway Lines
I can't imagine what would happen to transit systems here if gas were to go to $10 a gallon. In Beijing today, the loop subway line was shut off from entries when it got dangerously full. A reported 1.8 million cars were ordered off the road to cut pollution for the olympics causing people to use the transit alternative.
Listen to a short story from Marketplace on the Olympic Air Cleaning.
Listen to a short story from Marketplace on the Olympic Air Cleaning.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Overheard in Oakland
A real conversation I overheard today:
Girl #1: Have you learned the bus routes yet?
Girl #2: No I have only used BART.
Guy #1: BART is much better than the bus
Girl #1: I use the 51 sometimes, it comes all the time, but I can't read on it.
Guy #1: I can't either, I feel like I have no room for my arms on the bus and it bounces all over the place
Girl #1: Yeah.
Girl #2: Well I'll figure it out.
Girl #1: Just take BART if you have a choice.
I seem to run into planning related conversations in the background wherever I go. The other night I was eating sushi with a friend and one lady in front of me loudly said: "Urban Planners don't know what they are doing, they just build those roads everywhere" and made a circular motion with her hand. I didn't say anything, but I was thinking "that's the highway engineers lady."
Girl #1: Have you learned the bus routes yet?
Girl #2: No I have only used BART.
Guy #1: BART is much better than the bus
Girl #1: I use the 51 sometimes, it comes all the time, but I can't read on it.
Guy #1: I can't either, I feel like I have no room for my arms on the bus and it bounces all over the place
Girl #1: Yeah.
Girl #2: Well I'll figure it out.
Girl #1: Just take BART if you have a choice.
I seem to run into planning related conversations in the background wherever I go. The other night I was eating sushi with a friend and one lady in front of me loudly said: "Urban Planners don't know what they are doing, they just build those roads everywhere" and made a circular motion with her hand. I didn't say anything, but I was thinking "that's the highway engineers lady."
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Transit & Acupuncture
So I've been kinda sick for the last few months with a number of things like vertigo and sinus infections. I've decided to go get acupuncture and see if it changes anything. So today was going to be my first day and I wanted to go to my Gramma's afterwards so i decided to drive. Well the transit gods were not happy about that so they smited my car mid bay bridge. I pulled off onto treasure island as my engine temperature light was flashing at me and checked the temperature. It was above normal but wasn't to the red yet. So I let it cool off for a little bit and started to drive again. I go to the other end of the bridge before I had to stop again. Eventually I got the car to the Volkswagen dealership in Oakland and took the 51 to work downtown.
So now I had to get to the acupuncturist in Montclaire. I left an hour before the appointment as the 59 comes every hour from Lake Merritt BART. I sat in the back of a 30 foot VanHool bus and watched the really nice houses pass by on the hills. It was actually a nice ride if not a little bumpy. But there was a catch. My appointment was going to be over at 5 but the last 59 went to the Rockridge BART at 4:15 or so. Not good. So I had to figure out a way back. Well where the 59 dropped off the 18 picked up and I was lucky enough that it ran every 15 minutes into the evening. So when I was done at 5 I hopped on the 18 and traveled on the other side of the hill from the 59. It took me to the 12th Street BART station and I hopped on the 24th street and mission turn around train to go home since I wouldn't be going to my Gramma's house.
I was thinking a bit negatively that there wasn't a 59 but my roommate pointed out that we are lucky to live in a fairly transit friendly place in the bay area and the fact that there was an 18 at all was good. It was still at 15 minute headways so yes, that was pretty good. I imagine that if I were in Houston or somewhere else this wouldn't have worked. So my car died, but i knew that I could depend on transit to get me where I needed to go. It took a little more time, but I got to watch the world go by instead of having to slog through traffic.
So now I had to get to the acupuncturist in Montclaire. I left an hour before the appointment as the 59 comes every hour from Lake Merritt BART. I sat in the back of a 30 foot VanHool bus and watched the really nice houses pass by on the hills. It was actually a nice ride if not a little bumpy. But there was a catch. My appointment was going to be over at 5 but the last 59 went to the Rockridge BART at 4:15 or so. Not good. So I had to figure out a way back. Well where the 59 dropped off the 18 picked up and I was lucky enough that it ran every 15 minutes into the evening. So when I was done at 5 I hopped on the 18 and traveled on the other side of the hill from the 59. It took me to the 12th Street BART station and I hopped on the 24th street and mission turn around train to go home since I wouldn't be going to my Gramma's house.
I was thinking a bit negatively that there wasn't a 59 but my roommate pointed out that we are lucky to live in a fairly transit friendly place in the bay area and the fact that there was an 18 at all was good. It was still at 15 minute headways so yes, that was pretty good. I imagine that if I were in Houston or somewhere else this wouldn't have worked. So my car died, but i knew that I could depend on transit to get me where I needed to go. It took a little more time, but I got to watch the world go by instead of having to slog through traffic.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Rail Ready BRT
Last week I had someone comment that I had not done my homework in respects to calling Oakland out for it's weak BRT program. And I should clarify that it isn't really Oakland rather AC Transit that is being weak. I'll give them some props for taking lanes away from auto traffic but at the same time I have to be skeptical of their claims that BRT will be a placeholder for LRT. Just because you build BRT doesn't mean its automatically a placeholder.
So when I got a comment about not doing my homework on San Francisco I was a bit incensed, especially because it was an anonymous troll and I feel like I pay pretty close attention to what is going on around the country. They were bound to get to my little corner of the blogosphere at some point but lets cut to the chase. Oakland will always think of itself as less than San Francisco, and this BRT plan shows it. The fact of the matter is that even though San Francisco is planning BRT too, that doesn't make Oakland or AC Transit cooler. In fact it makes AC Transit look even worse because San Francisco's BRT line on Geary is going to be rail ready. What do I mean when I say that? Well according to the SFMTA site, rail ready means the following...
On the other side of the bay, the local advocates at Rescue Muni are pushing for a rather speedy timeline for transformation including putting the rails in immediately.
So when I got a comment about not doing my homework on San Francisco I was a bit incensed, especially because it was an anonymous troll and I feel like I pay pretty close attention to what is going on around the country. They were bound to get to my little corner of the blogosphere at some point but lets cut to the chase. Oakland will always think of itself as less than San Francisco, and this BRT plan shows it. The fact of the matter is that even though San Francisco is planning BRT too, that doesn't make Oakland or AC Transit cooler. In fact it makes AC Transit look even worse because San Francisco's BRT line on Geary is going to be rail ready. What do I mean when I say that? Well according to the SFMTA site, rail ready means the following...
In the AC Transit EIS, it states that Light Rail is a long term goal in the corridor. Long term probably means next century.
The center-running bus rapid transit alternative will be designed to the physical dimensions required to accommodate a light rail vehicle. The Geary BRT Study will also determine the costs and feasibility of implementing a more extensive definition of rail-ready, which aims to minimize future construction impacts if resources become available to convert the bus rapid transit project to light rail. This definition would potentially include installing the rails and sub-surface electrical work, relocating utilities, and building longer platforms to accommodate light rail vehicles during the initial BRT construction.
It was chosen as the mode for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), with the understanding that LRT service would be considered the long-term goal in the corridor.and
The BRT transitway and stations would be designed for future conversion to LRT service. Placement and configuration of BRT facilities would be consistent with requirements for upgrading the BRT transitway to an LRT guideway and extending the low-platform BRT stations to serve up to two lowfloor light rail vehicles. No timeline or program for such a conversion has been established.
On the other side of the bay, the local advocates at Rescue Muni are pushing for a rather speedy timeline for transformation including putting the rails in immediately.
Therefore, we support a BRT project that is "Rail-Ready" or ready for easy conversion to rail when funding for that project can be secured. We also support aggressively pursuing rail along the Geary Corridor...Put the rails in now! Another requirement of "Rail-Ready" BRT is to lay the rails now. It is our understanding that rails can sit for many years without harm to their functionality. And when it comes to rapid transit projects, the rails aren't the main cost of the project. Again, if we don't put rails in now, the bus lanes will have to be torn out and reconstructed, creating a mess.So if you think that AC Transit is a forward thinking organization that doesn't think of themselves as just a bus company you would be wrong. I believe their intent is to never improve to rail. A lot of people are getting suckered into this plan because its the best they can do at the moment and because its cheap. Since when did this country not want to do things right the first time? While I think that BRT in general is a sham, the guys at Rescue Muni and the SFMTA know that their constituents want rail and are going to get it to them as fast as possible, on the other hand AC Transit runs a bus system that believes they are operating for just the poor, so they are going to give them poor service. I predict super high operating costs for these corridors because lets face it, with all those drivers in all those buses, thats gonna cost a lot of money.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Junk in the East Bay
A bad idea. Why? Because if they wanted to make bus service better they should have just done it. There was an article in the Berkeley Daily Planet discussing why it's a bad idea. I've condensed the points below:
1. The EIR even says there will be a low change from automobile drivers to transit riders
2. It provides no energy consumption reduction
3. Will poach riders from BART
4. It keeps advertising BRT as "rail like" even though its not.
5. The EIR doesn't address the impact of 51 buses vs light rail on greenhouse gases
I don't agree with him that parking is such a big deal. It's not free folks. I also think that taking a lane for transit is good. Finally cars will play second best to transit.
This is enough to just be ridiculous. I don't know why folks like the Sierra Club or TALC are supporting this. There is no good reason to other than to give up on your environmental principles for transit mode that is hemorrhaging riders in the third world. Are we serious in this country about carbon? Are we serious about global warming? This is a huge waste of money. This is a reason why the East Bay will always be second rate. They will always play second fiddle to San Francisco. The poor shouldn't be relegated to second rate transit.
If they were smart about it they could do a rapid streetcar with passing lanes at stations that allow 1o minute headways. The streetcars would have their own lanes and attract way more riders and developement. The travel times would be better as well attracting even more riders on a smooth ride.
1. The EIR even says there will be a low change from automobile drivers to transit riders
2. It provides no energy consumption reduction
3. Will poach riders from BART
4. It keeps advertising BRT as "rail like" even though its not.
5. The EIR doesn't address the impact of 51 buses vs light rail on greenhouse gases
I don't agree with him that parking is such a big deal. It's not free folks. I also think that taking a lane for transit is good. Finally cars will play second best to transit.
This is enough to just be ridiculous. I don't know why folks like the Sierra Club or TALC are supporting this. There is no good reason to other than to give up on your environmental principles for transit mode that is hemorrhaging riders in the third world. Are we serious in this country about carbon? Are we serious about global warming? This is a huge waste of money. This is a reason why the East Bay will always be second rate. They will always play second fiddle to San Francisco. The poor shouldn't be relegated to second rate transit.
If they were smart about it they could do a rapid streetcar with passing lanes at stations that allow 1o minute headways. The streetcars would have their own lanes and attract way more riders and developement. The travel times would be better as well attracting even more riders on a smooth ride.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Misleading Statistics & BRT Promotion
I went to a discussion today about BRT at Oakland City Hall where the former Mayor of Bogota Columbia spoke about his city and what they have done to promote living. He was a wonderful speaker and made a lot of great points about how a street should be safe for children and also how bike lanes should be a place where 8 year olds can ride and not have fears of getting hit by a car. I tend to agree that a white stripe in a road does not denote a bike lane. He didn't talk much about Bogota's famed Transmilenio BRT system and really I'm glad he didn't. BRT is still a bus and Columbia is a completely different country than the United States. I don't think we should be wasting money on a system where we underestimate the costs (replacing buses and pavement more often than projected etc) versus a tried and true system of getting people out of their cars with rail. In an earlier post i noted that the
However I was shocked by the blatant misrepresentations by AC Transit. In a slide show before the event they showed technology costs for Subways, Light Rail and BRT. Not surprisingly LRT was overestimated by a factor of two while BRT was underestimated by a factor of 3. I personally have never heard of a surface LRT system anywhere near the claimed $100 million. In fact, the most recent systems in Minneapolis and Los Angeles were around $60 million but only because of tunneling and viaduct construction. The most recently completed line, Denver's T-Rex was only $37 million a mile. As for BRT, it is completely underestimated. $10 million per mile is what they said but in Los Angeles it was completed for $22 million before extensive repaving because of damage from the buses and I'm not even sure if the right of way acquisition for the line was added into the costs since it was done with the pretense of light rail service eventually. Hartford's busway project is projected to cost $45 million per mile.
So I thought I might make a list of the things that BRT proponents don't tell you about that became apparent when listening to them speak:
1. They claim that its as good as a train but this is only if you add on all of the elements that come with light rail including level boarding, nextbus technology, their own right of ways, external fare recovery systems and signal pre-emption, you might as well build the system everyone wants anyway, not the one they are compromising on because such and such transit agency can't figure out how to make money off of capital investments. I feel no sorrow for agencies that don't get value capture.
2. With light rail projects, the whole street is generally reconstructed making pedestrian space more valuable with new sidewalks and amenities. BRT doesn't do this. In the renderings shown they do but when the project is completed do they do as promised. No. For example on San Pablo it's the same old bus with a red stripe on it. They did nothing to the ped space, didn't mess with the street and yet they still call it Rapid Bus. Clever marketing is bus repackaged transit.
3. They don't tell you that rail infrastructure lasts for over 50 years, perhaps more. Buses last 12 years if that but they don't add in the costs of buying new ones over and over while rail cars are used continuously. They don't tell you that buses are heavier than big rigs sometimes and crush the pavement even worse yet don't include that in costs. Taxpayers have to pay for that but it's a hidden tax that doesn't get reported.
4. They don't tell you that the bus ride is going to be the same jolting start stop bouncing even on the smoothest of roads. The guy reading the paper on the bus won't be able to because of the motion sickness. Anyone who's been on a bus, especially AC Transit 51, knows that you can't keep standing even if you're able bodied. It takes a two hand grip to stay vertical.
5. They also don't tell you that they expect gas prices to remain the same or come up with some whiz bang technology that is going to magically lower gas and diesel prices. I don't care how magically low the sulfer particulate escapage is on the bus, it's still emitting on the street where people are walking, and the internal combustion engine is still slower and less effective than an electric motor. This talk of hybrid's and fuel cells is a joke. Hydrogen of course is only as clean as the energy that is used to create the Hydrogen because it doesn't just grow on trees. Hybrid's are just fuel generators that feel electric engines. However electric overhead wires can be fueled by any number of alternative energy sources. Muni gets 30% of its power from alternative energy making it cleaner than most. Calgary uses 100% wind energy to fuel their light rail. I would be remiss to mention that most LRT lines are fueled by coal power plants but that fact that they can be converted in short order and don't give off local particulates which studies along freeways have shown affect kids the most is most appealing compared to a bus.
6. The people who advocate for BRT are people that generally don't ride the bus. In fact if you ask anyone whether they want to ride a bus or a train guess what the answer would be. Never mind that full BRT costs the same as LRT done right but at times when its more expensive people have been choosing Light Rail. More often than not they are anti transit like RandalL O'Toole or Wendell Cox. Government in bathtub drowning is their goal. But they like rules and regs that benefit them, just not you. The auto lobby in DC loves BRT, they can probably see it as another 20 years of profits and sprawl until people wake up. I get why the Mayor's of Bogota and Curitiba did it and I applaud them because they changed their cities in amazing ways. But why is it that the only thing we learn from them is about a cheap bus?
7. Light Rail operating costs per passenger mile are much less on light rail than on bus. Explained here, enough said.
8. BRT on freeways is just going to allow the cars in at some point. Creating a rail network says no cars ever in this space. In fact, the Harbor Freeway busway was supposed to be bus only, guess what? Now it's an HOV lane.
9. BRT advocates would have you think that low floor = accessible. On the contrary, buses do not pull up flush to the platform like rail does. Try as they might, it doesn't work out they way they promise and it wreaks havoc on accessibility.
10. I will continue this list at some point because i haven't really made half the points i'd like to but the bottom line is this. BRT is just bus repackaged transit pushed by folks that don't really like transit to begin with. They want it to stay for the poor so why not give the poor a third world system. Well we need to step up and invest like China, Japan, and Europe.
However I was shocked by the blatant misrepresentations by AC Transit. In a slide show before the event they showed technology costs for Subways, Light Rail and BRT. Not surprisingly LRT was overestimated by a factor of two while BRT was underestimated by a factor of 3. I personally have never heard of a surface LRT system anywhere near the claimed $100 million. In fact, the most recent systems in Minneapolis and Los Angeles were around $60 million but only because of tunneling and viaduct construction. The most recently completed line, Denver's T-Rex was only $37 million a mile. As for BRT, it is completely underestimated. $10 million per mile is what they said but in Los Angeles it was completed for $22 million before extensive repaving because of damage from the buses and I'm not even sure if the right of way acquisition for the line was added into the costs since it was done with the pretense of light rail service eventually. Hartford's busway project is projected to cost $45 million per mile.
So I thought I might make a list of the things that BRT proponents don't tell you about that became apparent when listening to them speak:
1. They claim that its as good as a train but this is only if you add on all of the elements that come with light rail including level boarding, nextbus technology, their own right of ways, external fare recovery systems and signal pre-emption, you might as well build the system everyone wants anyway, not the one they are compromising on because such and such transit agency can't figure out how to make money off of capital investments. I feel no sorrow for agencies that don't get value capture.
2. With light rail projects, the whole street is generally reconstructed making pedestrian space more valuable with new sidewalks and amenities. BRT doesn't do this. In the renderings shown they do but when the project is completed do they do as promised. No. For example on San Pablo it's the same old bus with a red stripe on it. They did nothing to the ped space, didn't mess with the street and yet they still call it Rapid Bus. Clever marketing is bus repackaged transit.
3. They don't tell you that rail infrastructure lasts for over 50 years, perhaps more. Buses last 12 years if that but they don't add in the costs of buying new ones over and over while rail cars are used continuously. They don't tell you that buses are heavier than big rigs sometimes and crush the pavement even worse yet don't include that in costs. Taxpayers have to pay for that but it's a hidden tax that doesn't get reported.
4. They don't tell you that the bus ride is going to be the same jolting start stop bouncing even on the smoothest of roads. The guy reading the paper on the bus won't be able to because of the motion sickness. Anyone who's been on a bus, especially AC Transit 51, knows that you can't keep standing even if you're able bodied. It takes a two hand grip to stay vertical.
5. They also don't tell you that they expect gas prices to remain the same or come up with some whiz bang technology that is going to magically lower gas and diesel prices. I don't care how magically low the sulfer particulate escapage is on the bus, it's still emitting on the street where people are walking, and the internal combustion engine is still slower and less effective than an electric motor. This talk of hybrid's and fuel cells is a joke. Hydrogen of course is only as clean as the energy that is used to create the Hydrogen because it doesn't just grow on trees. Hybrid's are just fuel generators that feel electric engines. However electric overhead wires can be fueled by any number of alternative energy sources. Muni gets 30% of its power from alternative energy making it cleaner than most. Calgary uses 100% wind energy to fuel their light rail. I would be remiss to mention that most LRT lines are fueled by coal power plants but that fact that they can be converted in short order and don't give off local particulates which studies along freeways have shown affect kids the most is most appealing compared to a bus.
6. The people who advocate for BRT are people that generally don't ride the bus. In fact if you ask anyone whether they want to ride a bus or a train guess what the answer would be. Never mind that full BRT costs the same as LRT done right but at times when its more expensive people have been choosing Light Rail. More often than not they are anti transit like RandalL O'Toole or Wendell Cox. Government in bathtub drowning is their goal. But they like rules and regs that benefit them, just not you. The auto lobby in DC loves BRT, they can probably see it as another 20 years of profits and sprawl until people wake up. I get why the Mayor's of Bogota and Curitiba did it and I applaud them because they changed their cities in amazing ways. But why is it that the only thing we learn from them is about a cheap bus?
7. Light Rail operating costs per passenger mile are much less on light rail than on bus. Explained here, enough said.
8. BRT on freeways is just going to allow the cars in at some point. Creating a rail network says no cars ever in this space. In fact, the Harbor Freeway busway was supposed to be bus only, guess what? Now it's an HOV lane.
9. BRT advocates would have you think that low floor = accessible. On the contrary, buses do not pull up flush to the platform like rail does. Try as they might, it doesn't work out they way they promise and it wreaks havoc on accessibility.
10. I will continue this list at some point because i haven't really made half the points i'd like to but the bottom line is this. BRT is just bus repackaged transit pushed by folks that don't really like transit to begin with. They want it to stay for the poor so why not give the poor a third world system. Well we need to step up and invest like China, Japan, and Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)