Freeway Swing

Ryan dug up a paper by Baum Snow that was reblogged by Matt Y. While the numbers are interesting in themselves, the swing was most dramatic to me. It wasn't just 18 percent drop with the introduction of freeways into the urban fabric but if we are to believe that city population would have increased by 8 percent that is a 26% swing in population for cities.

This is no small chunk of life and as we have seen, it was devestating to the economic vitality that cities would have maintained. As Scott Bernstein always says, urban places are the way we can build wealth. Unfortunately a whole lot of wealth was transferred and reallocated. It might be interesting to see what that 26% swing meant over time for the economics of the United States considering how much of the population lives in metro areas. We might be having different discussions today about sustainability.

When Road Engineers Do LRT

I mentioned in a previous post that I don't believe freeways are places for stations. I stand by that remark and worry that here in the United States, we're worried so much about the lowest cost we don't really care about the outcome on ridership, as long as it hits a target for cost effectiveness (the FTA kind) that makes us marginally happy.

Unfortunately using this cost index we're not maximizing our opportunities when we decided that the freeway is the place to be all the time outside of the CBD. I don't disagree with folks like Jarrett when they say that rapid transit has its best opportunities to run fast in the freeway. But at the same time, there are similar opportunities to leave the freeway ROW when it comes time to have a station and connect the places that people ultimately want to go, and the parcels that should be redeveloped into walkable districts.

I believe a perfect example of this is the Denver Tech Center. When they designed the T Rex project, why didn't they go forward with the option that would have allowed direct access to the center of the employment district? I imagine it was perceived cost compared to running time. It didn't matter that its where people wanted to go, when the train was moving it was running fast, so stopping on the other side of the freeway was a better option for the ridership modelers and the engineers designing the road.

It doesn't look like anyone was thinking of people when they designed the interchange. I'm sure they are happy with the way the light rail and freeway interchanges look and operate, but unfortunately the engineers did nothing for people riding the train to work in the second largest employment center in the Denver region. Now the line is on the other side of the freeway, away from the largest market forces in the area and not available to change the parking lots over because of the continued utility of the car. In the cold of winter people get to walk over an overpass above a bunch of cars driving at 65 miles per hour.

The map below shows a routing that would have been very easy to build in my mind and not cost much more money. You could have surface stops and a few cut and cover tunnels would be needed but nothing huge. It likely would have brought over time a jump in tens of thousands of riders over the long term. Simple ideas like this is why I don't like the idea of freeway running. It gives designers a free out when it comes to designing for people instead of cars. The map below also shows where the videos below that I took came from.


View Denver Tech Center in a larger map

Video 1



Video 2




I also still believe that its possible to have fairly rapid transit on arterial streets, we just need to do it right. Sometimes such as in Charlotte you get lucky with a freight ROW that runs parallel to a major arterial and a major freeway. In this instance, you have the best opportunities. But for the most part, major highways don't lend themselves to going places where people want to go on foot. While it might seem like a nice compromise, I think that we're selling ourselves short if we continue to build stops in the center of the freeway.

And ultimately in the United States where we don't seem to know how to design rapid transit, its perhaps best to keep it away from the freeway all together, especially if this mistake will continue to be made where it seems cost is more important ultimately than connecting major employment districts directly.

Gaming the System for Roads

EPA is basically worthless in light of this:

City transportation planners changed data that essentially took one in three cars off the road, enabling them to show less pollution. They also have made overly optimistic forecasts about how often people would use mass transit.

And despite evidence that building more highways causes people to drive farther, the city has told the EPA the opposite: Building billions of dollars of new highways will cause Charlotteans to drive less, and create less smog, than if they weren't built.

Not that it doesn't tell us something we already knew. Non attainment is a joke and all regions are going to continue to build more roads and game the system with the main goal of "reducing congestion" so they can say that they reduced pollution. But what they are really doing is increasing growth on the periphery which increases VMT at a higher rate than technology can reduce the emissions. It's not rocket science to know that building roads leads more people to drive.

But in Charlotte, some of the improvements from cleaner vehicles have been offset by the region's population growth and an increase in how many miles the average Charlottean drives. Vehicles account for up to 70 percent of Mecklenburg's ozone-causing pollutants, according to a county estimate.

70%! They also got a pass because the figured they would have three rapid transit lines by now instead of one. So it's kind of funny that the environmental process for transit makes building the lines slower when roads can run free until they hit non-attainment, even though those transit lines would let them go further faster.

Two Types of Approval

There's a dustup in Seattle over a voter approved streetcar on First Hill. Candidate Mallahan thinks it's not so smart and would oppose it on the grounds of its expense. Of course he's showing his true colors faster than anyone expected but his even bigger mistake in my eyes is stating that the tunnel deal between the city, state, and county is more of a done deal because of the years it has taken to come to agreement. As if voter approval was just something for the plebes. While its nice that they came to agreement, it's not what voters even wanted and shows a disconnect between what voter approved means and what politician approved means.

"Secondly, when voters vote for something and fund it, as they have with the First Hill Street Car, we should build it. And Mr. Mallahan doesn't seemto think that's the case. But he also seems to think we should build a tunnel that 70 percent of Seattle voters oppose."
...
Mallahan's campaign shrugged off the attack and accused McGinn of inconsistency and hypocrisy because he wants to thwart the $4.3 billion Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel project that took years for the state, City and King County to agree on.

I don't quite understand the inconstancy, but this is coming from someone who believes unfunded backroom highway deals are more important than voter approved funded transit deals.

The Politics of Status Quo

Richard Layman covers all of the city races where transportation issues are downing candidates and opposition candidates are making hay of driver unrest and fear of breaking the status quo. Greg Nickels is taken out due to the tunnel and candidates in New York City are already saying Janette Sadik Kahn is out if they are elected. That would be a crime in itself but it shows the fear of change is real.

A Shotgun Wedding?

Meteor Blades has a post on teh Orange Satan that goes more towards the middle of the cash for clunkers argument. He believes that even though our goal should be moving more towards better transportation systems and land use, we're still going to have automobiles until we get those systems in place. He then ties the idea of cash for clunkers with transit.

Money for the CARS program should have its own budget, not taken from spending for renewable energy projects. And every dollar spent should be legislatively tied to a matching dollar added to the federal mass transit appropriation in the following year. Funding for both these projects should come from increased taxes on gasoline.

While the cash for clunkers program that actually makes people double their mileage instead of letting them off the hook might move us towards more efficient vehicles, transit and land use is so far behind that I don't believe a 1:1 add to the fund won't really help much. It seems to me like keeping the status quo, because outside of that funding, 80% of federal monies still goes to cars, plus the other side of the 1:1 cash for clunkers, which is still subsidizing people to buy cars. I can appreciate that people are still going to drive cars. But we didn't get to be a single minded car driving society by the free market alone. There are a lot of subsidies that made it so and the pendulum swung too far, and we're still pushing to that side, when we should be aiding a swing back to the center on both transportation and land use.

The Short End of the Stick Is Still Long

The transportation bill is stuck and as its written might increase transit's share of funding by a whopping 2% and the road people are already going nuts.

Utah transportation officials fear a proposed six-year federal highway-spending bill will siphon money from new roads in growing states like Utah and reward transit systems instead.

Why these strikes extreme fear into their hearts I don't know. Perhaps because they know that people are starting to change their minds about the great freeway subsidy experiment. What I do know is that it's a little bit funny that on the same day that the Moving Cooler report came out supported by government agencies including the Federal Highway Administration, a new website from AASHTO came out as well touting 'REAL' solutions to climate change that include cars, cars, and did we mention cars? Their big suggestion? Reduce annual growth in driving through smarter driving. But initially they were on the committee for Moving Cooler but were conspicuously absent from the final report pages. It seems as if someone decided to take their ball and go home because the results didn't cater to them.

But it's interesting that AASHTO was trying to cut them off at the pass after being part of the team. It's also likely that groups like AASHTO are more aligned with county and state DOTs than they are with cities, which means that if AASHTO exerts its power on congress, it's likely to push further away from the interests of cities. In the stimulus and in the climate bill, cities have been getting the shaft even though they are the nation's biggest economic engines and have the most to lose.

Washington's omission is troubling to metropolitan areas like New York City and Chicago because they are the dominant source of carbon dioxide in their regions and will face the earliest impacts.

Those in the status quo of road building have much to lose as well if we are to believe thier howls, even if the opposite of Transit expansion will benefit places like Salt Lake more.

Utah's reluctance to embrace more transit money puzzles him {Rob Puentes}. The Wasatch Front's train system is growing, he noted, and he believes it makes no sense, at a national level, to fight carbon emissions with energy policy while ignoring them in transportation policy.

The Utah Transit Authority finds the bill a possible upgrade because it streamlines the grant process for new projects, spokesman Gerry Carpenter said Tuesday, although it's too early in the legislative process to comment on details.

Yeah, you know that broken new starts process. Congressman Oberstar gets this which is why I'm glad he's on our team:

"When highway planners sit down to build a roadway," Oberstar said today, "they don't go through the gymnastics of a cost-effectiveness index," as transit planners are currently required to do. "They sit down, get the money, and build a road." Expanding transit, the House chairman concluded, is difficult "if you've got a millstone around your neck."

But all of this leads to the fact that Salt Lake City and other regions need to do something other than the status quo proposed by AASHTO (people are already lowering driving habits because of the economy), because on many days of the year, look how well the AASHTO way works out for them:

A Letter Against a $4 Billion Freeway

Cavan from Greater Greater Washington sent a link to a form letter urging leaders in Montgomery County to stop the nonsense of ever expanding the freeway there. It's really quite insane that they can't see what happened last time they did this. I urge any locals send letters and push back against this 1950's expansion pack.

A Day in the Life

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.

Fear and Loathing in Los Angeles

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Ask Hunter S. Thompson about LA traffic and growth in 1965.

Crushload to Death

Check out the video of crush loaded Indian Railways at the City Fix. It's no wonder more people die on Indian Rails than anywhere else in the world.

Yearly more than 3,500 people die on the Mumbai suburban railway track due to unsafe riding on trains or trespassing on railway tracks.
...
Central and Western Railway was forced to release under the Right to Information Act that at least 20,706 people have died in the last five years; an average of 10 each day. The request was filed by Mumbai activist Chetan Kothari.

Obviously we wouldn't tolerate that here, unless it was in cars.

Where's Your Parachute?

I agree with Ryan, Glaeser seems to forget all his own research when he wants to become Randall O'Toole's cousin. Here's the quote that gets me though:

For most workers in America’s sprawling metropolitan areas, no train is going to drop them within walking distance of their home or job. In Greater Houston, only 11.6 percent of jobs are within three miles of an area’s center and more than 55 percent of jobs are more than 10 miles away from the city center.

And your point is? No airplane will either. Unless we finally get our flying cars. Isn't that what HSR is competing against? 500 mile or less trips that could be made by train instead of plane? Especially in smaller cities between that don't have plane service. There is a huge untapped market out there.

I still think people don't quite get what HSR is supposed to do. They think train and think transit. I guess that's good because airplanes are basically flying buses. At least in a train you might have some room to yourself where the person next to you won't have his elbow in your ribs.

LaHood on the Silly Juice?

Those poor drivers and suburban apologists (or sprawlagists), they've been neglected for so long...

"We cannot let the cynicism of old ideas get in the way of what people really want," LaHood said about his vision of Americans on foot, on bikes and in trains and buses. How about letting the facts on the ground get in the way of a well-intentioned pipe dream?

They just can't quite understand why people might want alternatives to thier suffocating cancer/asthma causing habits. But transit and biking is only 2.5% of trips they say. There's no wonder people can't take transit or walk, because it isn't offered in a competitive fashion to the automobile trip. When it is, people take it. According to the CTOD database, over 40% of people living near Metro Stations in DC walk, bike, or take transit.

These people all need to wake up and stop throwing around these stupid statistics they don't understand. The newspaper industry and it's "Entitled Driving Journalist Syndrome" is dying a slow death because they don't understand there is a whole other world out there people are craving. I for one am glad that Ray is finally speaking for the other half after being ignored for half a century.

A Public Health Issue

There is a lesson here for pregnant mothers. Stay away from freeways.

A team from the University of California, Irvine, has shown that pregnant women living within 1.9 miles (3 kilometers) of a major roadway in Los Angeles are 128% more at risk of giving birth prematurely.

Giving people options is a public health issue. Don't let people tell you otherwise.

Knew It Was Gonna Happen

I've been waiting for that day. The day when the Busway in Miami is handed over to the cars. We knew it was gonna happen...somewhere.

Now they might get their wish if county commissioners and other local elected officials approve a proposed plan to convert the Busway into -- among other alternatives -- a four-lane highway with express toll lanes where private vehicles would share the road with buses. The revenue would then be used to fund the cash-strapped county transit agency.

This is one of the things I fear with BRT boosterism, that eventually the road will revert to cars. To some degree my fears are unfounded, but this should give us caution.

Always Someone Cooler Than You

Supervisor Chiu and others have called for a second Freeway revolt. This time its a bit more passive, but its good to have people start speaking out in favor of even more spending on transit. What is also shows is how clueless MTC is when it comes to the United States as a whole.

In response, Randy Rentschler, a spokesperson for the MTC, called the RTP "the most transit-friendly plan of any metro area in the entire country."

I'm sure it's not as friendly as New York City. As Ben Folds says, always someone cooler than you.



But the bigger point that even if you were the most transit friendly plan in the United States, that isn't really saying much, considering how regions in the United States treat transit.

Links for Night Owls

I often wonder what proponents of BRT mean when they say BRT. Apparently so will people in Minneapolis.
~~~
I haven't quite gotten my head around Yonah's funding idea but check it out.
~~~
Shocker! Only 17% of downtown shoppers drive to San Francisco. Now can we stop playing the car game?
~~~
Tucson orders 7 cars from Oregon Iron Works. More American Made Streetcars! Boise might have an order in soon too.
~~~
Apparently the recession hasn't beaten down Charlotte's LRT too much. It might be that lunch crowd I saw when I was there.

Not About Just Buildings, Cars

CNT has released another Affordability Index update that shows transportation emissions is 70% less in cities than in the suburbs. Why is this? Because people don't have to drive as much. You can see already the benefits and it isn't all about electric cars. Yet some in Southern California think that SB375, the landmark climate change bill can be addressed with electric cars alone. Sorry guys. It doesn't work like that.

Schuiling challenged the idea that land use changes are required to meet the state’s GHG reduction goals because the goal cannot be met by making cleaner vehicles, as the California Air Resources Board has suggested. “That is simply not true,” Schuiling said.

But its not just transportation, it's building as well, but we need to look at this as a complete system. This singular focus on one method is somewhat maddening. I know there are a lot of people who are hoping for a magic green car or a magic green building but we're also forgetting our water usage and population growth among other things. We can't keep building lanes on our roads and we certainly can't keep growing out over all the farmland in the Central Valley or Napa. The best thing we can do is look for solutions to all these things and I feel that is compact development and transit options.

Triple Standards for Transit

One wonders why people must always be forced to vote for light rail but not roads. But yet the Columbian is editorializing just that and being very blatant about it:

Whatever the answer, a more general light-rail question should be presented to Vancouver voters, to cover all bases. There is no need for a vote on the new bridge itself (transportation infrastructure routinely is decided by transportation officials) or tolls (voters generally don't vote on user fees), but the light rail question is different. As we editorialized on Feb. 24, "Light-rail critics have complained loudly — and correctly — that people should be allowed to vote on the matter."

Really? Why is light rail different? Why shouldn't transportation officials be allowed to decide about this transportation infrastructure? And why are critics the only reason to vote? I'm sure there are plenty of critics of the CRC. Why not let them vote as well if you really believe in such deep democracy. The answer is that the Columbian doesn't believe in anything except for the George Will doctrine. If its not a car, its not transportation.

George Will Despises You, Livable Community Advocate

Really, how out of touch with America do you have to be to hate jeans and Portland simultaneously. Never mind the fact that roads don't pay for themselves or suburbanites want city amenities, usually without having to pay for them.

Of the 32 percent of respondents who live in the suburbs, 51 percent said they wish their community had a wider variety of offerings.

The top three amenities desired include access to convenient public transportation (23 percent), a broad array of housing options (22 percent) and a more walkable environment (22 percent). More than half (52 percent) of suburban residents say they would move to a community that offered more of those characteristics.

Look Georgie boy, if you want to waste your wealth on transforming that corn field into a single family home go ahead, but last time I checked, the Great Society Subway has created actual tangible wealth in the parts of DC it touches. So give me a break about freedom, especially when the freedom you espouse costs me more as a taxpayer than the "behavior modification" you're so fearful of.