Local Control and Negotiation Politics

In 2000 a man many people called the Hammer decided that Houston Metro wasn't going to get any funding for a light rail project that scored very high on the FTA's cost effectiveness index because he didn't like it.  Tom Delay kept Metro from getting money that would have saved Houston local funds.  The city decided the line was worth it and built it anyway.  The line now has the highest ridership per mile of any new light rail line in the country.  Later on Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison got Houston some money for credit, but the precedent had been set.  Conservative House members were now going to insert language in appropriations bills against individual transit projects they didn't like.  This was the precursor to last weeks THUD appropriations bill which featured not one, but three transit projects which had individual language against them. 

This morning I got an email this morning from a friend pushing back against Cincinnati area Representative Steve Chabot who had put language in the T-HUD appropriations bill that forbids the Cincinnati Streetcar from receiving federal funding.  While I understand the rabid Tea Party sentiment that wants to kill transit projects, I don't quite understand the need for suburban representatives to write riders in bills that would keep locally popular projects from moving forward.  I guess it means they can say they tried to kill the project, but that Senate was just too much for them.  If you live in Ohio, contact Senator Brown to say this isn't cool. 

But Cincinnati is not the only place this is happening.  San Francisco's Central Subway, which isn't anyone's favorite project yet still zombies forward with the support of Chinatown merchants and big time DC politicos, is also under attack from Rep McClintock.  While I'm no fan of the project, I'm also not a fan of wasting more money on the project by delaying it even further, especially since we know it will get built. It's also annoying to have someone representing Tahoe to the Oregon border getting involved in San Francisco transit issues.  I don't think Rep. Nancy Pelosi would ever step in because some road project in Truckee wasn't to her liking.  But if these guys really cared about keeping costs down, they would do more to stop building worthless freeways and subsidizing endless sprawl.

But this THUD bill individual project hate doesn't even stop at Cincinnati and San Francisco!  No our old nemesis Representative John Culberson is at it again and put language in the bill that would deny funding to the University Light Rail Line in Houston.  Where did he learn how to do such things?  Why Tom Delay's great example of course.  Now Culberson's district is on the edge of this line, but he and the neighbors can't stand the fact that it would go through a major employment center.  This has been going on with him for at least 6 years and he can't let it go.  In fact, the first post on this blog was about Culberson being a jerk.

Some things never change, and lots of transit opponents apparently don't want cities making their own decisions about transit projects.  Even though many of those projects go through stricter approvals in the New Starts process than any freeway ever built.  But get ready to see more and more of these riders with a Tea Party slanted house.  Like with the transportation bill, they are just going to throw more stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.  And we end up happy that they didn't cut transit, when all the crazy stuff they tried to pull was just a way to rig the negotiating table.  The more times an individual project can get stuffed into a bill, the easier it is for them to use it as leverage against things that transit backers want.  Perhaps we should start throwing stuff against the wall as a counter bargain.  Where is my Geary Subway?

Loop Roads or Bust

It's been open season on long term capital improvements for fixed guideway transit.  First there's Minnesota Republicans looking to hack into transit by stealing operating money.  Then you get the fun times in North Carolina where Republicans are trying to cut out funding for the North Corridor light rail line.  But I found the article a bit funny, especially when they were saying, we don't have enough money for transit but more than enough for a completely un-needed beltway.  

...it would kill Gaston County's proposed Garden Parkway toll road, using money from that project for urban loop roads, perhaps including Interstate 485.

You know, that loop road that developers really want for their sprawl. And then...

"We wanted to target more dollars to maintaining the system we have - as opposed to building new roads, new bridges, new parts of the system," said Senate Leader Phil Berger, a Rockingham County Republican.

How the reporters didn't see this and do a double take on the building loops and not spending on new roads is beyond me.

Density Lobby Uncovered!

So according to Joel Kotkin (only go to the link if you have to), the Density Lobby is made up of the following nefarious groups:

Then there’s what might be called the “density lobby” — big city mayors, construction firms and the urban land owners.

Even Tom Rubin, a self proclaimed train lover and "transit expert" who has never recommended a train in his Reason Foundation consulting history, gets in on the action.

“High speed rail is not really about efficient transport,” notes California transit expert and accountant Tom Rubin. “It’s all about shaping cities for a certain agenda.”

Why would Mayors of big cities surrounded by suburbs ever want to promote density or a (gasp!) agenda!? I mean San Francisco has so much room to grow. The Pacific Ocean is endless! Also, damn those "urban" land owners for wanting to make money. As opposed to the angel pure "suburban" land owners and road construction firms. Seriously Joel? Is Siemens wanting to build more trains not as bad as Ford wanting to build more cars?

I'm also a member of the density lobby as are many other amazing bloggers and activists out there who share a love of density. Perhaps these mayors, construction firms and urban land owners would like to become card carrying members.


Also, this article mentions boondoggle for the third article today (see post below). This must be one of the talking points sent out by the RNC this weekend along with the "Obama is so out of touch he wants to spend money on trains" meme that showed up on the weekend talk shows and in various seemingly random articles this weekend.

This is a Boondoggle

This is a boondoggle. It's a craft project that we used to do in Boy Scouts so that we had something to put our keys on.

via Etsy Crap

Now, the overuse of the term boondoggle to describe projects that may or may not be bad but rather the writer doesn't like because its a hefty investment is epic. I find that its mostly writers and columnists who also use the phrases:

Streetcar Named Desire - Seriously. Stop it. It wasn't cool the first time you thought of it for an article headline, what makes you think its original the millionth time? Searching for an article on streetcars shouldn't bring me every mom and pop production of a a Tennessee Williams play.

19th Century Technology - So was the car. Karl Benz is the originator of the four stroke engine we know today in 1885. Frank Sprague made electric traction (electric railways) usable en masse in 1887. Also Portland Cement that we use in concrete was from the 1840's.

Driving pays for itself - I'm not going to waste time typing what people that read this blog already know.

If anyone has any other terms that the opposition uses that drive you nuts because of their truthiness, please use the comment section below. I saw boondoggle for the umpteenth time today while reading some articles, and it kinda made me want to hurl. But I wrote this to vent instead.

I Am a Card Carrying Member

Recently Joel Kotkin wrote an article that accused everyone who likes rail transit's ability to shape communities of being part of the "density lobby". We've heard similar lines before from Randall O'Toole about the light rail cabal in Portland. We never hear about the road building lobby (You know, AASHTO, Highway Users Alliance, et al.) from these folks but what do you expect from the libertarian fun zone.

Also, I really wish these guys would do at least a little research before they write stuff and print it. This quote was pretty funny considering Houston already has a rail line between Downtown and the Medical Center that has 45,000 riders a day.

Some other urban routes--for example between Houston's relatively buoyant downtown and the massive, ever expanding Texas Medical Center--could potentially prove suitable for trains.

But we can have more fun with those guys. I am now a card carrying member of the density lobby. In light of the madness, I decided to go over the edge. Anyone who wants to be a card carrying member of the density lobby, shoot me an email and I'll make you one to display proudly on your site. Of course its a big joke, but so are people that say there is a big UN bike conspiracy or actually believe there is an organized lobby for "big density". If you meet anyone that wants to fund our cabal let us know. I'm sure there is someone out there who is rich and nefarious enough to take over the world with affordable TOD!

Email me at theoverheadwire at gmail | Send your name (real or fake), specific office (ie density integration), and location of choice. I will assign a member number and join date. Also if you just want the illustrator file I can send that along as well.

Even better, if I make you a card and you show it to me at the Rail~Volution blogger meetup in Portland in October, I'll buy you a beer. Cheers to density forever!

Bus LOS

I thought this comment by Engineer Scotty over at Portland Transport was quite adroit.

Imagine if a transit agency acted like (and had the political and financial resources to do so) ODOT or WDOT. There would be "bus levels of service", ranging from A to F or so, allocated as follows:

Level A: Everyone can sit where they want.
Level B: Passengers have to occasionally say "excuse me" as they walk past other (seated) passengers while boarding or disembarking.
Level C: Someone has to sit next to a stranger, without an intervening empty seat.
Level D: Passengers have to look real hard to find the few empty seats that are remaining; the aisle may occasionally be blocked.
Level E: The bus is SRO.
Level F: The bus is crushloaded.

Any level of service below C would be considered an unacceptable level of service, and would cause planners to add additional buses to the route. But since this is the DOT thinking, they would be adding buses ALL THROUGHOUT THE DAY, not just during the AM and PM rush.

It says a lot, I think, that transit agencies are frequently encouraged to increase usage of existing services (i.e. add congestion), but DOTs are permitted to try and build their way out of it.

Similarly, Jarrett made a comment about how if all your favorite restaurants were empty, you'd likely not have a restaurant to eat at anymore. The ensuing comments are likely to be of interest.

A Madison Strain of Crazy

I'm always a bit surprised (but shouldn't be) when I read an article like this about how extreme conservatives believe that folks interested in smart growth and livable communities are trying to push their lifestyle on everyone else. They raise the specter of the iron curtain and soviet apartment blocks that were designed and built in the same era as Pruitt Igoe and other poorly thought out urban renewal projects that followed the ideas of Le Corbusier in the United States and around the world. I would hope those mistakes would not be repeated, and all urbanists know better.

But everyone who reads here knows the histories and the market distortions of sprawl which has absolutely dominated the market over the last 60 years. If anything, its they who are forcing everyone to live their lifestyle, a sick distortion of the actual desires of at least some Americans such as myself who want to live in an urban walkable environment. By not providing a choice in living, or transportation, the opponents of livable communities are telling us that the actual market doesn't matter and that they know what is best even though they would like us to believe that their way is the choice of the people, even those who don't have a choice.

We know that not all in their circle believe this way and ultimately building cities shouldn't be a partisan issue. The road towards transit and walkability is a sustainable one from a fiscal and environmental standpoint. I think many times we overlook the power of fiscal arguments for the movement at our own peril. The research on sprawl is not good, and people are starting to get it, a bit late, but at least they are starting to see how value is created by cities and urbanism is a fiscally responsible choice.

For those who still believe we're forcing a move towards urbanism, if they continue down the same path, spending money in ways we can't afford to continue, they might find that they have less choice in the future rather than a real choice now.

Southwest Airlines CEO Fires First Shot

And so it begins. the Southwest Airlines CEO believes that the federal government shouldn't give it a competitive advantage.

After his speech, I asked Kelly whether his company would likely oppose high-speed passenger rail, given how precious every dollar has become to the airlines. Southwest's opposition years ago was a key reason a previous effort to build a high-speed line linking Dallas, Austin and Houston died. (Trains are seen by many as likely to compete with and in some cases perhaps eliminate short-haul flights.)

He said it's too early to oppose any particular plan, but said federal support for bullet trains shouldn't put airlines like his at a competitive disadvantage.

Perhaps if you can't beat them, you should join them. But airlines aren't looking that far ahead yet. Perhaps they'll start screaming when gas prices go back up again. I don't quite understand why they can't see the future in which higher oil prices make life for airlines hard. If last summer wasn't a wake up call, they'll be getting water splashed in their face soon.

Unhinged

Wow. Can you say jump the shark?

"The problem with Los Angeles is not that it's the epitome of sprawl," he says. "The problem with Los Angeles is that it's the epitome of smart growth."

The whole article is a big whopping expose on the arguments he's been making lately. He goes on to say that Smart Growth advocates are mad that middle class people are moving into their neighborhoods and they resent that. It basically shows how unhinged and out of touch with reality this guy is. The problem though, is that people actually listen and he still gets into papers like the New York Times. I guess its fair and balanced or something. But I guess the best we can hope for right now is an article that features the qualifier "tries".

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.

More Regressive Progressives

You know the type, those who think that having a hybrid car alone will help their environmental credentials but don't do much else. They are also the ones that push against new development just because they don't like how it looks or feels, and they'll cry traffic! Those are the folks that got called out in the aptly named article: You're Not an Environmentalist if You're a NIMBY. So true. The hardest part is taking folks seriously who want to stop growth on high capacity transit corridors or in the core cities themselves. Yet with the climate that we have, San Francisco and Oakland are the best suited for emissions reducing development.

I Wear My Sunglasses At Night

Over at Politics and Place they're talking about the effect of train goggles with an excellent discussion on this issue that I mostly agree with. Yes I have them too. Apparently I'm a Choo Choo Head. I won't go into the dog whistle effect that the term choo choo has for rail transit opposition but it's there and it's strong. But as Paz states:

Munch on this for a second. If all of the sudden every streetcar and commuter train that ever ran was to suddenly reappear, would we still need buses? I would argue "absolutely, yes".

Ditto. As Bruce McF always says, buses and trains should be friends.

Links & CNU Coming

The Reconnecting America site will have updates from the CNU this week on its twitter aggregator for the CNU17 hashtag. If you use twitter, I'll be tweeting from @reconnecting.
~~~
Jarrett at Human Transit asks if Sim City rotted our brains. I've been playing since the early 90s and I'm pretty sure that if I didn't go to planning school I would have no idea that zones didn't need to be separated.
~~~
Poor drivers, they just get no respect. No one loves them anymore. The Heritage Foundation is trying so hard its sad to see them twist the statistics without giving a full picture.
~~~
A group files a civil rights suit on the Central Corridor. How much should be spent on gentrification mitigation on rail lines? Is there a limit?

Oh the Memories...

Anyone remember these comments in February?

Hartgen said he thinks ridership will drop further because uptown layoffs are only starting, and that the drop in ridership should spur CATS to consider halting its ambitious plans to build more rapid transit. “We should be saving for our operating budget,” Hartgen said.

Ridership seems to be doing ok to me.

The Lynx Blue Line averaged 15,121 weekday trips in April – surprisingly high ridership given the severe recession. Charlotte's light-rail line had been averaging roughly 14,000 trips for much of the year, and the Charlotte Area Transit System expected it to decline because fewer people are working. But the Lynx carried 380,186 passengers for April, up more than 10 percent over the same time a year ago.

That's good, because expansion is going on as planned, they'll just have to find more funding.

On a seven-to-four party-line vote City Council Wednesday kept the eight million dollars set aside in the budget for engineering work on the streetcar, which Councilman Andy Dulin wanted to strip from the project. Dulin wanted to use the money on road resurfacing. Others who voted for Dulin's proposal did so because they said there's no concrete plan to fund construction.

We've got to think long term and invest in the future. I'm glad to see Charlotte continues to look ahead, even amidst tough economic times.

Light Rail Kills Babies

This is a pretty old story from 2006, but I'm glad we're past this type of rhetoric.

Americans have not always embraced public transport. “We had people carrying signs saying ‘Light Rail Kills Babies’,” recalls John Inglish, head of the Utah Transit Authority, which has 19 miles of track around Salt Lake City. Proponents were likened to communists, he says.

Well, we're not called baby killers, but we still get called communists.

Another Reason California is Messed Up

When someone litigates a transit vote that won by 62%. That is insane. A clear majority, 69%, in both counties voted for the SMART train. When the minority rules like it does here, things are really broken.

Former Novato councilman Dennis Fishwick - acting on his own behalf without an attorney - filed the lawsuit in Marin Superior Court against the district and SMART board, saying they stripped the right of Marin voters to reject the quarter-cent sales tax with a less than two-thirds approval. State law requires a tax increase to receive two-thirds approval from voters.

Measure Q received 73.5 percent approval in Sonoma County, but only 62.8 percent in Marin. That caused confusion among some Marin voters, who thought the measure had been defeated.

Houston's Loony Bin

Perhaps it's a bit of self interest that energy traders will do everything and anything in their power to kill electric transit.

Hooper, an energy trader, said he would keep trying to “dog” Metro. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see it pop up on somebody else’s legislation in the dark of night,” he said Tuesday. Hooper said the Legislature “can take away Metro’s condemnation ability and their ability to tax people. I’m going to try to do all those things.”

This is just a really shady way to do business. Christof, you really have your hands full down there...

Intervention of Fools

So the losers of the Richmond fight in Houston are at it again. Now they've gotten a lawmaker from El Paso to insert language into a bill that takes away eminent domain from Houston Metro. And its again blatantly obvious what they are doing, trying to kill the whole light rail system plan.

The restrictions mirror the rhetoric of rail critics, who say the location of the controversial University Line down Richmond and Westpark doesn’t conform to the referendum.
...
The El Paso Democrat said they convinced him that the transit agency hadn’t complied with the referendum. He said he hadn’t talked with the agency, though, before adding the language. At issue is whether it’s lawful to build a line partially on Richmond when the ballot described it as being on Westpark.

Why is this El Paso Democrat trying to fight a battle that is already over? With all of the lines approved and the ridership estimates dependent on the whole system being constructed, this push against the University Line would effectively kill the system's expansion. While I'm sure that is what these folks intended, it shouldn't even be considered. Specifically because these critics are, as they always have, making things up.

Off the Kuff has more and urges those in the Houston area to contact Rep. Pickett to let him know what you think.

Update: The amendment has been removed.

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.