Thursday Night Notes

Some notes for the weekend...

If road projects like this one had to go through new starts they would never get built. This road like all other ring roads is about development. But you're not allowed to build a transit line and let ridership grow. It has to be on target! Double standard.

~~~

Ed Glaeser floats the "We should invest in NE Corridor for HSR only" meme that's going around. See post below. Also, how can you say we shouldn't be building major city pairs for places that do already have the density? I never understand the idea that we should just wait until conditions are just right everywhere. That's just a stall tactic.

~~~

If transit were all designed to look this good maybe more people would ride.

~~~

THIS is the reason for my skeptical nature on BRT. People in Berkley or in West LA are going to screw the whole plan to make it worthless. You spent all that time to get what? A red bus that skips a few stops?

Giving Up and Release Valves

So it seems as if the Port Authority in Pittsburgh is giving up on a rail trip between the two largest employment centers in the region. Perhaps they'll get real BRT but given that opposition always goes to the lowest common denominator such as in Berkeley, you can bet there will be a fight over dedicating the lanes.

I'm disappointed because I feel like this is a travel corridor that could benefit from a direct link from the existing light rail system. However no one wants to actually invest in transit infrastructure these days. I can hardly blame them, once it gets built they have to fight for every penny to operate the thing. If we're ever going to get a real mode share out of transit, we're going to have to start investing in something real. Not necessarily in big projects, but real headways and dedicated lanes for places that will never have rail.

~~~
I guess I'm in a pessimistic mood tonight. New Jersey is thinking about stopping the ARC tunnel for road projects (blech) and the Twin Cities is thinking about how they are going to serve the suburbs of tomorrow when people can't drive. Newsflash! Peak oil isn't our only problem people. What about those folks who can't drive because they are too old! Paratransit is expensive.

~~~
This article irked me for some reason. In it Mary misses the major point about development and land value around transit and even "urban renewal" lessons. She complains about the high rises around transit close to single family neighborhoods.

That, of course, is precisely the problem with Charlotte's love affair with too-tall transit-oriented development zoning smack next to low-scale, historic Dilworth or - this will come - NoDa. Even if nothing's demolished, making land values so high so swiftly via zoning encourages large, expensive projects that will drive out small-scale enterprises.

You want to know why that property becomes so valuable? Because it is scarce! Contrary to popular belief, there is not enough supply of urban housing to meet the demand, so the speculators come in and jack up the prices. I bet you wouldn't have this problem if transit was built out such that neighborhoods didn't gentrify because people wanted the quality locations and access. In places like New York City or Chicago that have extensive transit systems to all kinds of neighborhoods, you see that transit stations are the more diverse income places than the region as a whole.

This is the problem with our thinking here. We complain about the results of our actions but don't think about the underlying actions themselves. Given that Charlotte is building its system line by line, you'll see development speculation and value increases acting as a release valve on the downtown market. If you built all the lines at once, that pressure gets relieved five or six ways instead of one way.

Right now this is just my theory, but when Denver and Houston open up their lines at relatively the same time, I am going to say that you are going to get a more diverse housing type in new stations than we've seen along corridors that are a first big transit investment in a city. The reason being is that they will meet the actual demand, instead of be a small rock in the pond.

So if regions are feeling for local businesses and the skyrocket land values around transit, the escape valve that creates greater opportunities in places that want to change is to build greater transit networks. More escape valves means greater distribution of different development and less pressure and speculation.

Monday Night Notes

Have you ever had a picnic on the grass on a major bridge?
~~~
Officials in India are calling for high rises. I'm surprised they didn't go up before.
~~~
Businesses in the UK are starting to use carshare companies instead of keeping their own fleets.
~~~
Integrating BRT with a Metro should be a no brainer.
~~~
I can see why folks in East LA wanted a subway. Its a dense area and it would have been nice. But whining about it and getting upset right before it opens seems a bit lame to me.
~~~
Lots of regulation of safety on commuter rail are causing a strain.

Disappointing CAP

I'm a bit disappointed that the Center for American Progress would be pushing natural gas BRT as a strategy instead of electrification with clean energy. They also have the fun generalizations about BRT such as "And construction of BRT systems cost 30 times less than a subway system" and "which operates like a subway system". I believe we've discussed this before in that once you get to the point where you're building real BRT the costs are much much higher than these 30 times claims.

If we're going to assume that BRT is a solution for heavy traveled corridors that aren't dense enough in riders for light rail, there is a case to be made for electrification and trolley buses in terms of public health (particulates) and energy (one power plant vs many). While CNG is much better than diesel, zero particulates should be the goal. We continue to see fossil fuel based solutions when we should be looking even further down the road.

We Don't Want Faster Transit

In a recent meeting with Merchants on Geary street, they believe that access would kill their businesses.

The first of their reservations is that construction will scare away customers; and second, that faster transit will encourage bigger buildings which will spell disaster for small businesses. Reservation number one is reasonable; but number two is whaaaaa? Is your argument seriously "we need slower buses because small businesses can only survive if nobody can get to where they're going on time"?

Really? That's the exact reason why I never go to the Richmond. Because it takes to freakin long to get there without a car! Seriously people, how long do we need to go in these circles before we realize that rapid transit in San Francisco would facilitate the movement of not just people, but money into merchants wallets from other neighborhoods. There are many nights when I think I might want to go to the Sunset or Richmond to get a bite to eat but I don't want to waste 2 hours on Muni. Might as well cook at home. Fast transit does not kill business, slow transit does.

More Notes

Not sure if you all enjoy the shorter link posts but they can be easier when I'm short on time.

A really cool look at how the Bell Red corridor could develop over time with LRT.
~~~
An off topic but related issue, how Berkeley is paying for the city's solar panels is pretty innovative.

the city itself just issues a bond to pay for the upfront costs of installing the panels, and the homeowner then repays the government over the course of 20 years via a small line item on the property-tax bill. (This way, if the home is sold, the costs of the panels get passed on to the new owner getting the benefits.)

Not sure how this relates to transit but there must be something we can learn from this, especially since better access increases property taxes.
~~~
Germany is looking at speed limits on the autobahn. It's good for the environment, even if it is fun to drive so fast.
~~~
El Paso is looking to redevelop a strip mall infested street with BRT. No definition of BRT included.

Kinda Late Posted News

Getting Sleeeeepy...

Jarrett continues with the streetcar mobility argument alone. Starting to look like a manifesto on why cheap buses are better than "expensive" streetcars. Sorry, I just don't see it in that kind of a vacuum. After riding the 51 last week, I wish there was a streetcar on Broadway. Sure would keep me from having to hold on for dear life when the driver smashes the gas pedal or hits a bump in the road.

I love how engineers and others always try to be quantitative instead of qualitative. It's like everything has to be put into number format or measurable box. That's what got us our fun cost-effectiveness measure at the FTA. It's almost like Lord of the Rings. One number to rule them all!!!! Except when people know that number was created using BS four step transportation models that don't catch land use and externalities. But hey we've been doing it since forever so why stop now. - end late night rant.
~~~
"I can eat breakfast now"
~~~
No zoning huh? We should start calling Houston's regs car zoning instead of land use zoning.
~~~
More BRT boosterism about third world transit systems coming to your first world country. Does anyone really think Transmilenio is as smooth as the subway? Give me a break guys. And why are no subway systems applying for carbon credits?

In recognition of this feat, TransMilenio last year became the only large transportation project approved by the United Nations to generate and sell carbon credits.

And more BS from Walter Hook. Three times as much to maintain? Where did that number come from? Is that with Columbian Bus wages?

Subways cost more than 30 times as much per mile to build than a B.R.T. system, and three times as much to maintain.

Sigh.
~~~
And not quite transit, but transportation and land use law. Apparently if you buy parcels and land airplanes on them without a permit, people don't like that. Go figure.

How I Learned to Love the B...Geary

A number of San Francisco websites including SFist and Curbed have posted on the Draft alternatives screening report, which I suppose is a pre-alternatives analysis analysis to get the project into preliminary engineering for either small starts or new starts funding.

SFCTA, or TA throughout this post, has basically closed out all hope of getting new starts funding for a rail line instead opting for a process for which they already have one project in and which under the new administration is likely to get changed back into a streetcar fund with more projects that got pushed to BRT under Bushco likely to get hopped by rail projects such as the recently funded Portland Eastside Streetcar extension because of their livability component. The next administration isn't going to be looking for projects on cost effectiveness alone but rather on what that project contributes to the community. When we take a long hard look at each of the things we hold important below I think that we'll come away with a sense that this is a project that could be better and should take the high road instead of the current low one.

But you all know I have a bit of a bias. I like riding the rails and advocating the construction of lines I think are worthy, especially those that others seem to contend should be BRT lines or Bus Repackaged Transit but should really be rail. The TA has tried to lay down some reasons why they can't build rail but really it just comes out looking and sounding like a little kid saying "It's just too hard". Since when did something being hard have anything to do with doing what is right? No is not the right answer here. Kind of reminds me of the SF Chamber.

Now this isn't to say that I don't have multiple thoughts going through my head about this stance. For one thing, BRT on the surface and a BART subway might not be such a bad thing for Geary. But then again my thoughts on that have some, as SFCTA puts it, "fatal flaws" (who uses that type of framing and language for a transit report anyway? Apparently the TA). The biggest one being the Geary Merchants who in their own self interest have (Again, similar to Market) opposed any kind of rapid transit whether it be BRT or rail for fear of the construction effects . So if they let it happen once, what is the likelihood of them letting it get ripped up again? What is the likelihood of going back with more funds to an area that already got an improvement of any kind? Likely never. My hypothesis is that if rail doesn't get built on Geary this time or an agreement is reached to press regional agencies to push it to the front of their priorties, rail will not be constructed in the corridor where it makes the most sense out of any other in the city for another 40 years. Perhaps when I'm 70 they'll consider it. That is just not acceptable and I'll tell you why.

There are a number of things I believe are important considerations that we are leaving out of the discussion when we just think of this BRT line as a transportation project. In fact, that's the sick math that is done in every city around this country when considering transportation impacts. It's often siloed away from land use and the people themselves and its impacts on quality of life are not really considered. A five minute decrease in travel time from end to end doesn't really matter to average joe (a 20 minute decrease would) but what does matter to him is money in his pocket,clean air to breathe, and the ability to step off of transit at his destination every day without hating Muni, which is often the case when you read the twitter feed for Muni. It's usually followed by "sucks" or another complaint. Instead of being the ones that own the system, we the people are often seen as customers to be served with a place setting of whatever the waiters are looking to serve on that day. Don't like it, go to the other store. The problem here with public transit is, there is no other store, but in fact, we the tax payers own this store.

So as owners of this store, what are we getting in return? Are we getting 5 minutes reduction in travel time or are we getting a healthier environment, a return to the greater community, more money in our own pockets for spending? Let's look at what WE should get out of this.

1. Environmental Impact

The Geary line currently carries ~55,000 a day on a number of limited and local bus lines that run under the number 38. Because the TA report doesn't actually give us ridership estimates on the alternatives because BRT is a foregone conclusion in their minds, we have to somewhat guess. They do give a clue as to what the percentages are for ridership in the subareas (p14) along the corridor and they are pretty low to what they should be. 28% of trips non auto is really good for any other part of the country. But can you believe that 72% of trips in the Outer Richmond are still made by car!? 61% of trips on the corridor are to other areas within San Francisco. That should tell you something about people feeling that they need to take the car because transit and their neighborhood sidewalk won't do it for them.

But with center running BRT, the prediction is that there would be 3,400 new riders on the corridor(including taking from the 5 and other parrallel lines) by 2015 (p26). This seems like a rather small number if the service were to be so much better. But if we're looking through the lens of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and particulates, pulling from other corridors and increasing your ridership by such a minimal amount doesn't seem worth it when you're talking about continuing to run on diesel instead of electricity.

But its not just the lack of skyrocketing ridership. It's the lack of access that keeps the demand for increased density on the corridor depressed. With greater access to downtown you're actually shifting the market outwards to an area that can support greater density on the commercial parcels that make up parts of the Geary corridor. And while it might look like it's all packed up on the corridor there are lots of parking lots and parcels that can change with the right incentives while preserving the surrounding neighborhoods. But with the shift in the market comes another reduction in GHGs. As Ed Glaeser often states, with our rather temperate climate and lowered energy use, it's actually more efficient from an energy standpoint to have greater housing unit allocation to places such as Geary and Broadway in Oakland than more to Antioch and Livermore.

Concentrating more jobs on the corridor(perhaps by getting the base of a Geary metro through SoMa) and granting faster access through a metro only reduces this further. With an increase in population also increases the specific base needed for neighborhood retail and restaurants including grocery stores. I know personally that the grocery store/dinner run is one of the trips that I take more than others. Perhaps not as much as the work trip but still a considerable percentage of trip making.

2. Resident/Merchant Impact

Aside from the carbon savings that would come with not having to use your car for more trips out on the Geary Corridor, there would also be greater incentive to get rid of a car all together and use a car sharing service such as Zipcar. Many more residents getting rid of their cars and pooling into zip cars would be a realistic result of more efficient rapid transit. Not only does this reduction allow you to cut your carbon, you're also moving around $10,000 a year into your wallet from insurance companies, auto repair shops, and those evil oil companies.

Consider the increase in ridership discussed above for BRT. About 3,400 new riders for the BRT option. Since we don't have subway or Muni Metro numbers I don't want to speculate too much as to make you roll your eyes at my point but with a Subway, I would guess a rise of at least 10,000 riders. Now I feel as if that is being conservative. And it's likely that if you built a BART line under Geary you could get that many more very easily. So think about all the money those people are saving and all the money that pumps back into the local economy. It's not going offshore to some oil country or to that insurance company in another state. It is likely that a large percentage of it will stay on Geary boosting local merchants and giving the city what Joe Cotright called the Green Dividend. This dividend increases when there is greater walking, biking, biking and transit.

The money that isn't spent on the Green Dividend can also be spent on housing. We all think of subsidized housing in the sense of inclusionary zoning and fee based funds for affordable housing but with such a great number of people saving money through quality transit, this investment we make in the city also acts as a subsidy for more affordable housing. It doesn't necessarily open up the market and lower prices but it does allow a renter or first time buyer to meet a greater threshold for what is affordable to them on their income. If we are giving people quality access, we're allowing them to have choices in where they live that allow them access to work.

Let's not also forget the neighborhoods as well. Many residents could feel threatened by such an investment providing better access to their neighborhood. The access granted will increase property values and shift/increase demand up the corridor from closer to downtown where transit access is better. It will also bring more density which people often equate with more traffic. But if we look at places like Arlington County in the DC region which chose to build a Subway, they were able to protect the surrounding neighborhoods on the corridor by defining a strict zone for dense development. The pattern has also created almost no new traffic on many of the streets because people have such great access to services and a direct line downtown and to other parts of the corridor. In fact, 72% of people who use metro in the R-B corridor get there by walking.

3. Access to Jobs

There is also the issue of connecting citizens to jobs. The faster you can get them to jobs in other parts of the region on transit, the more likely they will be to use transit to get there. Much of this was addressed in a post on San Jose's BART to San Jose project and another post that featured a report by Strategic Economics that I'll post the most interesting information about below again:

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.

This means that the broader group of incomes that lives in the Richmond would likely have better access to jobs outside of San Francisco without having to drive their cars. The difference is made in the speed that would be attainable underground from this area rich with residents to areas outside of the city.

4. City Fiscal Impact

Another reason for pushing for a subway would be the shifting of greater expense to the capital of this project rather than the corridor operations which as we all know around here tend to be stolen or used as an ATM machine. If this line is a Muni Metro subway, then operations costs on the corridor should go down with the allowance of 3-4 car trains. Two cars will not do it with the current fleet operating as we've seen from the recent data that shows the cost per passenger mile being higher for Muni Metro than the city buses.

With lower costs on the corridor than for buses or BRT, this should mean that more service can be obtained for less money. With BART you would likely see a similar finding but an even greater operational cost savings. In addition, greater density provides way to capture greater receipts from sales and property taxes for the city.

~~~

These are just a few of the reasons why I think we should start earlier rather than later on a Geary Subway. As I continued to write this ridiculously huge post (mad props to the Urbanophile who writes posts like this all the time), I started to think no one would read. Congrats if you got this far. I imagine that BRT on this corridor is a done deal because all the TA and everyone else for that matter is cared about is the up front costs instead of the long term value created by such an INVESTMENT. I'll have to get around to how I think we might be able to pay for this, and I have some ideas, but its definitely doable...hopefully before I turn 70. Let's stop neglecting the urban corridors in this region for the suburbs alone.

I was also going to go into the whole issue of how the TA's estimates for the current project are BS, how the BRT is underestimated and compared to a light rail line that they likely estimated based on reconstructing the whole street. But I'm not sure that's a detailed fight I want to get into right now. I'm sure it will come up later. My only comment today is that we need new people to do cost estimates and design these things, because it shouldn't cost this much to put back something that was there just 50 years ago.

Some fun reading:

TA Memo
Enviro PPT

Finally, my long term dream for the corridor which makes me think that BRT on the surface would be perhaps ok if we actually got a Subway from UC Berkeley to Geary.

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.

Silver Lie Continues

People still aren't happy with the Silver Line BRT in Boston. They want the replacement for the rapid transit line they were promised.

“Why not invest in the light rail system as the community has been asking for 20 years,” said Robert Terrell, a member of the Washington Street Corridor Coalition, a group of organizations that have been fighting to replace a segment of the Orange Line that was removed in the 1980s.

Sound familiar San Francisco??? Oh yes. The Geary Subway that was promised after the B Geary line was ripped out is going to be a BRT line now as well. Will we ever learn?

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.

Bounce on the Bus Goes Up and Down

While riding the 704 Rapid on Santa Monica Blvd in LA two weeks ago, I took a video. There were a number of times where I almost fell down and many more times where I became unbalanced trying to keep my suitcase upright and my body off the floor. I tried to keep the camera level. But here's the result of a 40 second stretch.

More Silver Line

Bumped Post

Update 12.11.08: The Boston Globe is reporting that the Silver Line is getting down-rated to a Medium Low in the next New Starts report coming in February. This means that it would not be able to get funding because a medium rating is required. It's primarily due to the debt load of over $8 billion that the MBTA is carrying. Bill also mentions the atrocious ridership of the existing Waterfront Silver Line segment, half of which is going to be cut. It costs $9.16 per boarding in subsidy versus the Washington Street Section which is 48 cents. Amazing.

Bill reports that the folks at Boston Common don't like the Silver Lie BRT tunnel. Why would you tear up an existing usable tunnel that held rail vehicles for a poorly thought out bus tunnel? It just doesn't make any sense. But alas I'm sure it will continue to go through its approvals...

Thanksgiving Links

An article on California's new land use law.

Essentially the law, which will take years to implement, uses incentives and requirements to encourage local governments and builders to concentrate growth in urban areas or close to public transportation hubs, in an effort to reduce Californians' use of cars and lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

~~~
I find it hard to believe that the light rail line on the Central Corridor will cause as much noise as these folks are claiming. It's not like they didn't have tons of cars and buses going by before.
~~~
Eugene has acquired federal funding for the next part of its BRT line.

The federal government on Wednesday formally announced its $32.5 million contribution to the project, which adds a second leg to the Lane Transit District’s EmX system. The U.S. Department of Transportation previously had agreed to provide the money, but it’s still reassuring to get the formal award, said Andy Vobora, spokesman for LTD, which is developing and will operate the new transit line.

~~~
There weren't a lot of interesting articles today, but hopefully everyone will have a Happy Holiday. Posting will be light the next few days.

New Poll: Worst Rail Project in Planning

Thanks for all the input. It seems like we have a few projects that are pretty bad. Again I'm not going to let you choose more than one. You have to choose what you think is the worst. So here are the contestants based on feedback. I added in two specifically nefarious BRT projects as well.

BART to San Jose
NJ Access to the Regions Core
LIRR East Side Access Project
San Francisco Central Subway
Montreal Train de l'est
LA Gold Line to Montclair
Toronto Spadina Extension
NY Subway 7 Line Extension
Metro to Dulles (Silver Line)
MBTA BRT Silver Line Phase 3
US 36 Denver BRT
Miami Metrorail North
Anacostia Streetcar

So those are the list. Usual week for voting applies. Vote for Other if there is a project not listed.

Tolls Would Pay for BRT

Does anyone feel like if they tolled downtown San Francisco, that BRT would be able to carry the load on Geary that would swell with new riders? It already seems like a sardine tin. I hope Tom's comments pertain also to Geary, not just the Muni Metro tunnel.

Drivers interviewed said that better transit service will be necessary if the plan is to work. Tom Radulovich, a BART director from San Francisco, told the board that trains are already crowded and urged investments in BART and Muni Metro as part of the plan.

"We've already reached our design capacity," he said, "and are going to need to make investments in expanding rail capacity."

How Long Does It Take to Build a Road?

Apparently more than 7 years. Give me a break. What is wrong with this picture? It's not just BRT, it's all transit. I guaranty that if this were a road without a bus on it, it would be done next year. Why is it so hard? It's not like they haven't been working on it for years already.

Meanwhile, AC Transit officials have released a proposed timeline that has completion of the Environmental Impact Report process by the 3rd quarter of 2010, final design for BRT by the 1st quarter of 2011, beginning of construction by the 2nd quarter of 2012, with completion of the project tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2015. But the project still has to complete a complicated approval process involving winning federal funding grants, approval by city councils in Berkeley, San Leandro, and Oakland as and final project approval by the AC Transit board.

Not a Train, Never Will Be

BRT is not "rail-like". It is not a replacement for rail but rather an upgrade on a specific corridor from what exists. Buses in their own lanes are better, but they are not "rail-like".

In addition, the opposition needs to stop whining about the bus bringing higher densities to the corridor and reducing parking spaces. Parking is not free and the pavement has a better use than storing your car. You live in the East Bay on the best corridors to reduce VMT and oil dependence, and I imagine you talk about being green all the time. Yet you oppose density and better transit that will help that goal.

Cunradi agreed parking space losses are a serious issue. To offset the impact, the transit district will consider developing parking lots or garages, or installing parking meters on commercial side streets so the spaces turn over faster, he said.

Greg Harper, an AC Transit board member from Emeryville, said the fear of denser development is an underlying fear that has fueled opposition to bus rapid transit.

The transit district should not be responsible for replacing parking. The city should not be responsible for paying for parking for specific merchants or anyone for that matter. Parking is not free. Losing a number of parking spaces is a small price to pay for better transit.

Also a bit of warning to those who think that BRT is "rail-like". BRT will never be replaced by light rail. There is no example of BRT ever being taken out and replaced by rail. Once its there, that's it. Buses. That is not to say that it doesn't have its place in the network, but if a corridor needs rail, and buses are used, an upgrade is a long time coming, if ever.

Too Easy to Build Roads

The Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake City is a freeway to nowhere. It's basically a sprawl inducer and didn't have to go through any rigorous alternatives analysis to be built or have a cost effectiveness measure attached to auto trips, it also didn't need to prove that future residential infrastructure could pay for itself. And already, they are admitting the fault of freeways in general by paying for mitigation for local elementary schools. Well only little kids are in those schools and only a certain amount of time during the day. When are we going to figure it out?

The state also compromised with groups fearing the freeway's placement near several schools endangered children's lungs. UDOT will spend $3.1 million to filter air inside the schools and $1 million to monitor the air outside. It also will pay to relocate Hillside Elementary if school officials request that.

They are putting bus rapid transit in a separate parallel corridor which was a concession to environmentalists but instead of building a freeway up the corridor, why not just build a boulevard that could be used for better development and transit integration in the future. This is extremely short sighted and not very innovative. Another blown chance for a smarter way to grow.

A Blank Canvas

So many people are expecting that their agendas will be possible in an Obama administration. Even folks looking to expand roadway capacity and bring tolling schemes to bear. Now tolling is not all bad, but it's not as some feel, the solution to everything. And bus rapid transit is not the solution to everything just like rail isn't the solution to everything.

Michael Replogle, transportation director for the Environmental Defense Fund, told the group that with revenue from gasoline taxes in constant flux, leaders need to start thinking about adding tolls to existing roads and opening rapid bus transit lines.

The transportation expert also suggested that technology will lead to GPS-based pay-by-the-mile taxes, or an all-toll-road system that changes fees based on real-time traffic volume.

"We're at the cusp of a new era," Replogle said, adding that President-elect Barack Obama's administration will likely embrace such changes.

Do we have any evidence that Obama or his administration would be behind these types of measures? I feel like this is something he hasn't signed on to, at least not that I have seen. But as people had said before the election season even started, folks see him as a blank canvas to project their hopes and dreams. I heard he's going to give everyone a star wars lego set. Can I expect to see that soon?

As an aside, can we stop calling freeway buses in HOV lanes bus rapid transit? We need to define what BRT really is so people understand what others mean when they say BRT.