Gavin's Understanding "Out of Context"

When asked by Streetsblog's writer Bryan G about transit riders paying more than drivers Gavin stated that it was taken out of context:

When asked what he thinks about the fact that Muni riders are paying more than drivers in this budget (estimates say the ratio is 4 to 1), Newsom responded that's only true "when the budget is taken out of context" and argued that over the years "it's been fairly balanced."

O RLY Now?


As with every other car driver, Gavin seems to forget that auto transportation has been funded above and beyond transit for so long that saying they are even over time is quite a stretch. Not to mention the stealing from Muni that's been going on lately. It's a double whammy to hit transit riders with higher fares when they are still getting screwed by single occupancy vehicles every day on San Francisco streets slowing down thier trip. Transit riders should get greater benefits for doing the right thing, not penalized. If motoring cost more and we actually had a balanced transportation system we might see more people using transit. In living here, I'm not at all surprised by Adron's finding at Transit Sleuth:

This report from the Federal Transit Administration shows some interesting information which I'll use in a coming blog entry. With that in mind I’ve posted it here. Portland is at #7 in this list, which amounts to TriMet basically. The really shocking thing though, is the massive drop off after the top 5. I also find it somewhat shocking how much lower San Francisco is than New York in trips per capita.

I guess I'm not shocked. Most of the neighborhoods in San Francisco are served by buses with no real rapid transit spine. If we had a real Metro system such as Vienna or Barcelona has, we'd likely have ridiculously high ridership and less surface congestion for buses. I'd bet about a million people would take the subway every day if we had a real system. Not bad for a population of 700,000K give or take a few folks. Not to mention that would be virtually carbon free movement because of the Hydro power.

Sorry I got off on a bit of a tangent there but this is all to say that giving Muni riders a fare hike without asking drivers to share the burden of a tough budget time is highly autocentric (4x) and shows really how deep into the Emerald Aristocracy these folks go. The problem is that Gavin doesn't take Muni, so why should he care? Unfortunately, that's how it usually works.

Unofficial Gas Tax

This is what you're paying for in other cities around the world:

Prepared by the Emirate’s Department of Transport, with assistance from Mott MacDonald and Steer Davis Gleave, the master plan aims to create a comprehensive public transport network connecting Abu Dhabi island and the international airport with the UAE’s planned new capital city. The main proposals include:

• 590 km of regional high speed railway linking Abu Dhabi with neighbouring emirates and countries;
• 130 km of metro lines linking key areas in Abu Dhabi, including the airport, the new capital city, Yas Island and the central business zone;
• 30 tram projects in Abu Dhabi and Al Ain totalling 340 km;
• highway improvements totalling 1 560 route-km;
• demand management measures to support the infrastructure, including parking management and possible congestion charges.

Your "tax" dollars at work. Why can't we keep it at home?

Amercan Dream

Says Case of the infamous Case-Shilller home price index:

Case response when asked about the so-called "American Dream of Homeownership"?
"It's largely bulls---." He went on to say, "Rental is better for a lot of people (unless they bought during a boom)."

John King, urban design writer for the San Francisco Chronicle: What about all the starter-home suburbs? Case: I don't know. They're going to stagnate.

One Car, Two Car, Three Car, Blue Car

When you have access to transit, you use it. I'm looking at maps and doing GIS analysis on American Cities for most of my day. So I'm really interested in looking at these types of maps in cities outside of the US. In this instance, this is a map of car ownership and transit ridership in Melbourne, one of the cities that kept its streetcars. What is fascinating is the amount of single car ownership along the transit lines. Now it isn't controlled for income levels, self selection or the size of the household, but it would be interesting to take a look at the household costs for living near the lines vs. living away from them. Anyways, check it out at Transport Textbook.

Cars, Short Version

San Francisco:

With cars, you can go where you want to go when you want to go. But they also have the most environmental impacts, the most social impacts and the greatest cost to our system - to park it, to enforce it, to run it, to import the oil.

Aww Can Not Get Your Ship Out

I live in Noe Valley and I lost my grocery store for a few months. It's annoying but I soldier on taking Muni to the Safeway at Market and Church on my way home after work so I don't have to drive. Is it just me or are people just incredibly lazy??

Parking in "da Noe" is easier than many other parts of the city and really if you live here, its not like you even need to drive. I don't think I have ever seen a time when there isn't a meter available or a spot in that lot across from Martha Bros. Mr. Shoup would be proud.

Eliminate Public Transportation

John Hodgman (aka PC) is brilliant.

"Eliminate Public Transportation. The industry is ready to commit to this relationship, but not until fickle Americans stop catting around with Amtrak and light rail"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
You're Welcome - Auto Industry
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

H/T Hub and Spokes

BRT >> HOV >> HOT >> Lane

If you pave a road, anything with a rubber tire can go on it. Meaning at some point, someone will want to co-opt that street for a personal vehicle. Is it a process. Don't get tricked. How long till BRT becomes HOV becomes HOT becomes a regular lane? The pressure is on.

More Signs of the Apocalypse

GM's Chief thinks it might be a good idea to have $4 gas.

In a surprising turnabout, General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said Tuesday that increasing the federal gasoline tax to guarantee a minimum price of $4 a gallon is an idea "worthy of consideration."

Obviously this would help them sell more Volts. But it would also get people to think about their decisions and the true cost of gasoline.

A GM spokesman acknowledged that the automaker is thinking about the price of gasoline as an incentive to buy hybrids. "Everybody talks about $4 a gallon because, until gas prices hit $4, nobody saw any shift in consumer behavior," said Greg Martin, GM's Washington, D.C., spokesman. "Only then did people put fuel efficiency front and center."

Wasteful Stimulus Project?

The continued construction of the Charlotte Outerbelt is probably one of the most wasteful projects going on in the country right now. If it had to go through a process like new starts it would never ever pass. Yet another example of the double standard for roads versus transit. Build for the future with roads, its providing infrastructure for growth. Build for the future with transit, and its a boondoggle. And this particular investment in sprawl could get stimulus money. Great.

Breaking: Car Crashes Into Car

You never see the headline above or the phrase "A car collided with another car today in Phoenix" although I'm sure that it happens every day. What makes this so different from this?

BREAKING: Crash between light rail and car in central Phoenix

Beware of the train! It's so dangerous that if you drive in front of it, you'll get hit!! Or if you were paying attention, you wouldn't.

Valley Metro tells 3TV a driver reportedly turned in front of the train and hit the light rail car on Central and Highland, just north of Campbell.

Truth to Power

Give this guy an award for kicking the autocentrics of Seattle in the teeth when talking about what to cut because of the recession.

McGinn began by reminding us that voters rejected a roads and transit measure 2007, only to approve a transit-only package a year later; and also that in March 2007, 70% of Seattle voted against replacing the viaduct with a tunnel. He went on to point out that apparently the State has an extra $2 billion lying around to build a tunnel, and then finished by stating, “I’d start there.”

The muffled oohs and groans that erupted from the audience were an indication of what McGinn certainly already knew — that most of the people in the room were supporters of the deep-bore tunnel, or if not, they at least understood that disparaging the tunnel is a risky political position to take.

Heart Attacks

Just to note, I'm never ever stressed on the train ride home or to work.

New research from Germany shows that people who had heart attacks were three times more likely than not to have been sitting in traffic an hour before their symptoms began.

Step away from the automobile.

An Honest Question

Seattle voted against roads and transit last year and then turned around and overwhelmingly voted for transit. It was a big fight to get it back on the ballot but now the road warriors know that people didn't want the roads and are dreaming up ways to steal the money as we speak. But it begs the question in other regions, should people have to vote for roads? We see that residents are always asked to build transit, even if the funding exists, but never asked to build roads. They just do it. Do you think if they had a vote that they would approve of their hard earned money being spent on sprawl roads?

Years & Years

It would be a shame if Houston had to ditch its plans for a crosstown line that would connect downtown with two other major job centers. My guess is that it won't happen since its a major connector and an important link. But my first question is why does it take so long to engineer and build a line? I have been blogging about this line for over 4 years now (my previous blog in Austin discussed this line as well) and the FTA still hasn't approved the environmental document?

Previous projections had put a price tag on the 10-mile University line of about $750 million, roughly in line with the $73 million per mile cost Metro estimated for the North, East, Southeast and Uptown lines.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority will look to the Federal Transit Administration for help funding the University line. The FTA has yet to approve Metro’s environmental impact study for the line, a key element in moving the project forward. “I’m feeling the frustration of a lot of people in this organization who are trying to get through this process,” Metro spokesman George Smalley said Thursday.

This is why things are so messed up. It takes so long to get to environmental studies, no wonder nothing has been getting done. This will change because it has to change. No longer can roads that fuel sprawl be built for future capacity. The federal transportation bill allows cities to use flex money for transit projects. However only a few regions take advantage of this and places like Houston need a bit more nudging. The money is out there, we just have our priorities towards an unsustainable method of moving ourselves.

A Temple to Automobility

How much did this monstrosity cost?

Roads & Bridges

Everyone remembers the constant repeating of Roads and Bridges during the campaign and during the process for the stimulus package. I'm pretty sure when he was discussing this he meant existing roads and bridges instead of new ones. Well this wasn't so clear to the road warriors:

"The President's strong support for roads and bridges serves him well. Despite the controversy over the Economic Recovery package, 94% of Americans supported the President's call to increase infrastructure investments. Roads and bridges rank #2 in importance among infrastructure priorities for the American people. And while Congress only provided 3.6% of the Economic Recovery funds for roads and bridges, the President's consistent promotion of highway infrastructure made his views crystal clear.

I think its funny that when roads and bridges are discussed, people on the road side automatically think highways. It's like a dog whistle but in this case it might not mean what they think it does, which to us should be heartening. There are also plenty of complaints about tolling and the feeling that there won't be enough money to build the highway system all over again.

1. The proposal implies that the 87-year old budgetary mechanism known as "contract authority" be deleted from the budget. Without contract authority, multi-year highway projects cannot be fully-funded.
2. There is no mention of President Obama's support for roads and bridges anywhere in DOT's budget framework.
3. "Road pricing" is discussed as an option in the budget framework, despite Secretary LaHood's opposition to tolling existing roads.
4. There is no room in the budget for any substantial increase in highway funding, despite the President's recent call for investment levels that would rival the funding for construction of the Interstate Highway System.

Perhaps Mr. Obama tricked us during the election with the whole roads and bridges comment on repeat. I for one would welcome the trick if it meant we are changing the way we're funding new capacity and alternative transportation modes. We will see.

Does This Look Familiar?

I believe it looks like the creation of sprawl. If you wanted this to happen, why are you in the city at all? Why not just move to the exurbs. It already exists like that there. It's another example of the car companies and traffic engineers fantasy that everyone wants a car and everyone can have a car if we just pave the city with lanes to accommodate it. It's just cleverly repackaged as a promo for GPS navigation. Fortunately, we're beginning to think differently about the roll they play.

Trains Vs Trucks?

I think this is a perfect example of single mode network thinking. Yes the rail lines don't go to the back of the Best Buy but they shouldn't. The rail lines do certain jobs well and trucks do other jobs well. Why not work together?

In transit, my favorite example is the CityCargo tram. Yes it's a tram that delivers cargo, but it has little electric trucks to deliver directly to the door to merchants in Amsterdam. It only works with both modes.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax

Man there was quite the firestorm on the blogs today about the idea floated on a VMT tax by Secretary LaHood. Apparently it was such a bad idea to the Obama administration that they smacked down the idea later in the day. While that was the political thing to do, I'm not sure it was the smart thing to do. I'd like to see more studies on it before we come with a verdict.

Lets take a look at all the comments we saw today from progressives on a number of different blogs...

1. It will hurt the poor
2. It will cost a lot
3. It invades my privacy
4. It was proposed by a Republican
5. Why not just raise the gas tax?
6. Why not have a complicated weight and energy efficiency tax
7. Why do we even need a GPS collector instead of just reading odometers
8. It's hard for shift workers to take transit
9. Heavy trucks do more damage
10. My Prius driving will be punished
11. Senators will vote no because they are from low density states
12. If fuel efficiency goes to zero where does money for roads come from?
13. How about better road surfaces?
14. We'll need an electricity tax in ten years
15. We're not taxing vegetable oil for carbon
16. The only house I could afford was on the periphery
17. I don't want to pay anymore money for highways
18. What do miles driven have to do with anything?
19. A mileage tax doesn't distinguish between a hybrid and a hummer
20. People in Idaho live far away from where they work
21. I prefer to pay the traditional way, gas tax
22. Cheap gas is a birthright
23. It might encourage people to live closer to work
24. Miles tax is a GOP plan to save the gas guzzler
25. I don't want to punish people who live in rural areas
26. It's a trucking industry ploy to keep freight off the rails
27. I have a libertarian streak so i don't like it

Honestly, to me a lot of these are silly, but I thought you all would get a small chuckle.

The reasons for a mileage tax would be to push people into really thinking about how far away from work and other amenities they are living. They are already paying the price for their decisions given that people in location efficient areas can spend very little on transportation costs while folks in the worst sprawl spend up to 25% or more, but with a mileage tax, they'll be thinking about it even more. As that TXDOT study said (it's subsequently been taken off their site), a heavily traveled road in Houston would need $2.22 a gallon in taxes to actually pay for it. Many of the arguments for an increased gas tax would never likely get up that high, and that is actually the low end of what is really needed according to TXDOT, and that is just for federal and state roads, not bike lanes, transit and sidewalks/city streets.

I'm not saying that we don't need to make people pay for the negative externalities of the weight of thier vehicle or the gasoline they guzzle, but people need to start connecting the dots on housing and transportation costs that are killing family budgets and they lifestyles and driving patterns that lead to them. I'm not going to toss the mileage fee out yet. It might be a good idea or a bad idea. Let's just wait and see when the trials in Oregon and other places are completed instead of just throwing it out right away. There are plenty of arguments each way, I look forward to seeing them all.