Democratic Convention Misses Opportunity

Update 7.17.08 7:30PT: In the comments, Toast tells us that credential holders will be allowed to take light rail to the Pepsi Center, but not Union Station. Still bad for locals.

This is another case showing that most of the time, no one cares about transit or transportation from any political party. Sure democrats talk all nice about transit but this is super dumb. A few years ago when Al Gore won an Oscar for an inconvenient truth, the subway stop below the venue was closed because of the Oscars event. Say what?! All those stars that are now touting their green cred but where were they then. And it's happening again.

Now for the democratic convention in Denver, they are going to close the light rail stops at the Pepsi Center and Union Station. Visitors will have to walk from the mile high stop. It's not that half a mile is that far, but people should at least see the trains and how they transport people. And the best visibility is from the outside of the arena.

Security. Why? I don't get it at all. People that get off the train are just as dangerous as people walking from Union Station if people are dangerous at all. Isn't this why they screen people at the doors. I mean if we're this worried about the station, we shouldn't ever leave our houses.



Anyone else want to pound the DNC over the head for this? A lot of talk and no action, even symbolic ones.

If Ridership Is Up, Why Service Cuts?

My friend Nick was wondering, if ridership is way up, why are some places cutting routes and service. Wouldn't the increased ridership pay for it? In theory I guess it should but there are a number of factors that are specific to the economy and transit funding which need to be addressed.

Part of the problem is that most transit agencies are primarily funded through sales taxes. The problem with this is that when the economy is down and people need to take transit more, transit suffers more because revenue comes down due to that already existing gloomy market. Also, ridership only pays a fairly small amount for most transit system's budget. An article in the Boulder Daily Camera covers this quite well:

But, therein lies the terrible Transit Paradox. It turns out the same factors that are driving a spike in demand for transit services are having an unfortunate negative impact on RTD finances.

Fuel costs, roughly 9 percent of the RTD expenditure budget, have risen 47 percent over last year's rates. At the same time, sales and use tax income, which accounts for approximately 66 percent of RTD operations revenue, is coming in at about 5 percent below projections. The cumulative impact of these two economic factors, alone, is expected to be a hit of about $23 million to RTD's total operations budget.

Adding insult to injury, the fares transit riders pay only cover a portion of the cost of each bus or train trip. Thus, the unprecedented 9 percent increase in transit ridership that RTD is welcoming into the system is actually creating a substantial additional financial burden.

What needs to happen is a better way to fund projects and operations than the sales tax. While it seems the most common form of funding for transit, it often creates these problems with the shrink swell of funds and service. Tri-Met funds transit through a payroll tax. I'm not sure if that is much better but its something different. And then there are development fees for capital expansion and perhaps carbon taxes for operations. Another idea thats used is parcel taxes on estimated value. Anyone have ideas on this?

So also there was an article in the Rocky Mountain News that tests the water for another increase, the idea of just 4 years after Fastrax was passed, having to go after more money to pay for the program. This is somewhat of a problem from an advocates standpoint. It gives opponents a lot of fodder, even though none of them really complains when freeway projects go over, which they almost always do. See Katy Freeway in Houston and I-485 in Charlotte.

Even though the Denver Projects (T-Rex, SW Corridor) have been on time and on budget, its hard to predict the amazing increases in materials that have happened since the initial project budget was created in 2004. It's also hard to predict what the costs are going to be in the future when the lines hadn't even been engineered yet. I think that is kind of the problem with engineering projects. There is generally a standard and other projects, but all projects have different challenges and difficulties. While I think cost/benefit analysis is good, people getting super upset if a big project doesn't meet its exact budget is a little bit out of order. But unless its a project like the big dig which was a ridiculous overrun, people see the benefit in freeway projects, but chide transit projects...why? Most of the time they have no alternative plan, they just don't like transit for some reason.

The New Patriotism

Denver's Mayor Hickenlooper says: Taking Transit is the New Patriotism. More from NBC Nightly News.

Media Framing on LRT Expansion

In the last two days the media narrative in two cities on light rail expansion hit me as odd. Immediately the framing from the title hit against the rail line, without going into the basics of the story or being somewhat neutral.

In Phoenix it was the light rail "displacing" homeowners, as if there was a train booting out the owners with its foot, ...er pantograph. We later find out at the bottom of the article that the homeowner didn't really have to leave and that about 15 feet was being taken from the property, more than likely not where the line was going to be running. That and he asked that the transit authority buy the whole property, which they did. It seems to me that leaving out those points until the end of the article is a bit misleading.

A buyer told Goodrich that he would buy the house if it were rezoned as commercial property. Goodrich approached the city to change the status and found out it was interested in buying 15 feet of the front yard that faced 19th Avenue. Goodrich petitioned the city, asking they buy the entire property. They agreed and bought the house.

Then there's a story in the Rocky Mountain News in Denver where the Light Rail Line again by itself is "forcing" the business to close. Reading down further in the article, the local transit agency is just saying that the property owner won't be able to use the RTD ROW that it has owned and kindly allowed the business owner to use as a crossing.

But an RTD spokeswoman Sunday said Crespin's business is caught up in an unfortunate crisis of access. RTD has allowed access to the property over its right-of-way for years. But now the agency needs the route for light rail.

"RTD for many years has kept that offer going, and we've allowed them to cross the tracks, which are our property, to have access to the (business)," said RTD spokeswoman Pauletta Tonilas. "Last July we sent them a notification letter letting them know they were going to have to cease doing that."

This is the kind of narrative we've had to go through for a long time, the idea that the new transit lines are the problem. No one (well no one in the news) discusses the insane displacement that occurred during the construction of the interstate highway system. Putting it into perspective, during the time of Moses, half a million people were displaced by the New York freeway system construction.

I wish CNU had put together a youtube video of that speech Robert Caro gave at the Congress in Austin about his book about Robert Moses, The Power Broker. It was very moving and showed the pain and suffering that went into building the interstate highway system.

But back to the above. If we're going to change the idea that transit is second class, there needs to be a framing and narrative change. I'm not quite sure how to go about it, but I thought I would at least start by pointing it out.

Cost Rocket

The Denver Transit Stop discusses how expensive roads are going to be to us in a few years.

Focusing just on CDOT, Governor Ritter's Blue Ribbon panel for Transportation Finance and Implementation found that there is a $51 Billion gap just in sustaining the infrastructure we already have. By 2030 that gap is expected to be $104 Billion. What does that mean exactly? According to CDOT, by 2016 if you spend an hour on the highway, about 40 min of it will be on rough pavement (currently it's 20 minutes).

But then again it will cost a lot for transit as well. Krugman jumped on the transit talk express, so Robert Reich joined up.

Even though it’s a hundred times more efficient for each of us to stop driving and use trains and buses, there’s not enough money in the public kitty for us to do so.

So are we gonna keep funding what helps people spend more money, or save it?

Denver Bill Could Allow Public Bonds and Joint Development

The Denver Transit Stop has a post up alerting folks to a new bill passed by a house committee in the Colorado legislature that would allow the Regional Transit District to sell tax exempt bonds and loan the money to contractors building PPPs.

Another twist is that the bill would allow the private entities to use the money to develop at the stations. I'm not sure if this includes eminent domain but it does allow joint development which would be a way to offset some of the costs of the overall project.

The bill language states:

...political subdivision may, in connection with a mass transportation system project financed by private activity or exempt facility bonds issued by the district, lend or grant money or any other form of real, personal, or mixed property directly to a private business developing or operating the project or indirectly to such a private business through the district and may enter into contracts to make such loans and grants, all upon terms and conditions the district or private business and the state, state agency, county, municipality, (etc)...

Very interesting.

Transit Space Race 202: Who's On Top?

Every once in a while we have to review where the TSR is going. Today let's take a short look at the leader board. Previous TSR update for the whole race can be found here. Keep in mind legacy cities are expanding transit as well, but the cities in the TSR are those which have pushed off transit until recently and are trying to bring it back.

The leaders are far ahead of the other cities, many of which are either just building as funds come available or still in the initial stage of denial. That doesn't mean there's not time to catch up, but these leading cities are still the reason I started covering the space race. Because they were accelerating expansion far beyond the line at a time doctrine and capturing the hope that things can change and people are ready for it.

Denver - Fastracks is still the granddaddy of expansion. The West Corridor has begun construction and the 119 new miles of rail are expected to be completed by 2016. That seems so soon, so awesomely soon in fact that folks are starting to look at the next round of possibilities.

Houston - While not as publicized as much as the Fastracks expansion, the Metro Solutions expansion was actually voted on before Fastracks. However it wasn't seen as such a big deal until it was looked at in the context of all these other expansions. It's more of a central city circulation system but works with existing HOV bus lanes to allow people in the dense core of Houston to get around. I wonder what the weighted Density is inside the loop. AC?

Salt Lake City - Fast on the heels of Denver and Houston, Salt Lake City passed a sales tax measure to expand on the initial success of their first line, which opened in 1999. The expansion is called Front Lines and will build 70 miles worth of rail in 7 years.

Minneapolis - While there isn't a plan in place for expansion like the other cities, there are lines that will get the money when it comes. The DFL party in Minnesota passed a sales tax expansion for capital transit expansion and overrode a veto by vice presidential hopeful Gov. Pawlenty. This doesn't include a possible center city streetcar network under discussion.

These four cities are in the fast lane. Other cities are building network expansions but at a slower pace. Charlotte passed a half cent sales tax in 1998 but is expanding their 5 line system slowly. There are considerations for further tax increases for expansion in other cities as well including Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas and Sacramento among others. We will be watching as gas prices goes up and the call for expansion increases. It wouldn't hurt either to have a more friendly administration in the White House.

Oh, and let's not forget the godfather, Portland. 4 lines and a streetcar exist. Two lines are under construction while three other lines are in waiting with a center city streetcar network looking more likely. They are still the leaders and set the standard but the next generation is gaining.

Space Race Update: UTA Vehicle Purchase

UTA, the transit agency on Utah's front range which includes Salt Lake City has started up the PR campaign and purchases for its Front Lines 2015 program. The plan is to build 70 miles in 7 years. So to keep on track with that, they are buying up 77 Siemens SD70 Avantos for $277 million or $3.6 M per vehicle. The same type used in Charlotte and Houston.

To make the order cheaper, buy in bulk. And that bulk includes an option for 120 more. My best guess is that either Houston or San Diego is going to be exercising those options with San Diego's cars reaching the end of their 25 year life and Houston embarking on the metro solutions plan. It might also be split up into smaller orders if cities that are running low based on this most recent ridership surge.

Siemens' news release about the contract lists an option for 180 more rail cars, though UTA General Manager John Inglish said the agency most likely won't use that many. It's common practice to secure more than needed at a good bulk price, he said, then offer the excess to another transit system that needs the cars.

Looks like the Siemens plant in Sacramento is going to be working overtime. Glad that these vehicles are all being built here. Imagine the economic impact if every city was building new LRVs and transit networks. Jobs Jobs Jobs.

Update: a Railway Gazette Article states that the Siemens vehicles will be a bit shorter than the Charlotte and San Diego Cars in order to accommodate 4 car trains.

Bills, Codes, and Engineering...News Update

The Colorado legislature looks like it will pass an eminent domain bill that will leave the ability to take property for parking lots but will not allow any other development on the land. The Rocky Mountain News has an editorial on the matter.

Dallas is looking to update its zoning code. This would enable more transit oriented development and better street design. In addition, the development at Las Colinas which will have 3 light rail stops on the new Orange Line, is really taking off.

The state of North Carolina is looking to create a fund for transit projects around the state that would provide a quarter of the capital cost for new high capacity projects. Also included are improvement funds for intercity rail and bus improvements.

Michigan Tech is going to open a new rail engineering school. This includes both freight and passenger rail. It's amazing but we've lost a lot of knowledge about how to engineer these systems over the years. Apparently we've also lost welding prowess. In an article in Der Spiegel engineers at Siemens describe their first foray into building light rail vehicles in the United States. They had to fly in 50 engineers from Munich with the skills needed:

Hauck knows what he's talking about. He runs German engineering giant Siemens' streetcar manufacturing plant in Sacramento. But when the German company showed up in the California capital more than two years ago with its plans to build trams there, it found little evidence of craft or even skill. Hauck couldn't find a single welder with the right skills for the job anywhere in the region.

Making meter-long welds across thin sheet metal without the car "bending like a banana," says Hauck, takes talent and sensitivity. More important, it takes good training. To provide that training, Siemens flew 50 welders from its Munich locomotive plant to California, where they spent six months retraining local welders. Now the Sacramento plant is up and running.

Hopefully this is a sign of growth in the industry.

West Corridor Could Be in Trouble

I wrote a post previously about the takings issue in Denver. It looks like things are getting a bit heated and the line could be in trouble if it loses its ability to build parking garages. These folks think that parking garages aren't part of building the line, but the FTA thinks otherwise and without them, the ridership models drop and the Cost-Effectiveness measure kicks the Full Funding Grant Agreement out.

House Bill 1278 would allow RTD to acquire property by eminent domain only for "public transit purposes." Under the bill, RTD could not take land for park-n-Rides or retail or residential development near train stations. Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, a House sponsor of the bill, said legislators introduced it because "of significant concerns about the misuse" of eminent domain by RTD.

An RTD plan to acquire properties at Wadsworth Boulevard and West 14th Avenue in Lakewood has galvanized landowner opposition to the agency's power of eminent domain. If RTD can't acquire land for parking, FasTracks cannot proceed, said RTD general manager Cal Marsella.

Hopefully this gets worked out, but the way things have been going recently I'm cautiously optimistic.

Property Rights, Transit , and Urban Design

Property rights activists in Denver are fighting hard to curtail the eminent domain abilities of the Regional Transit District. While I do personally believe that the government shouldn't be able to just take your property and redevelop it at random, I also believe that there are certain urban design considerations that should be allowed when land must be taken for transit. At issue here is what happens after RTD takes land and builds a parking garage which is an allowed transit use. The second part is the ability to wrap that parking garage with retail which is what property owners do not want their land taken for, what they call economic development. This taking for economic development was the subject of the recent supreme court case Kelo vs City of New London.

Now this is a very thin line drawn in the sand, but what is the difference between pure economic development and good urban design? I don't think RTD is trying to take the property to build a casino or shopping mall. I do think they should be able to do as much with the land as they can to make it pedestrian friendly and a part of the surrounding neighborhood. No one wants a hulking parking garage on their street face or as a next door neighbor and RTD should be doing as much as it can to get a return on their investment, which in transit is ridership and revenue.
In order to get a return on investment, they need to create an environment that supports transit usage from modes other than the automobile and trip reductions.

In my dream world I wish that transit authorities had real estate departments that could buy up key pieces of land at fair market price (not through eminent domain) and lease them after the line is built when value has been created. I've actually wondered at times if a non-profit entity could be set up that raises money for the transit agency's capital projects. At one time the way streetcar companies made money off of land was by building lines to it. In Hong Kong and Japan, the rail lines make money off of developing property more than operating the trains, but they operate in a symbiotic way generating ridership and demand as well as an efficient means of transport.

I'm not sure how this is going to end up, and I'm not sure how you can legislate the difference between economic development and proper urban design issues, but there must be some way to strike a balance between ugly and nothing.

LRT Vehicle Design Elements

There have been many discussions recently about light rail but not much about vehicle design. Well there are a number of elements that make a tram attractive to passengers, not just from a visual standpoint, but also from a physical comfort standpoint.

Visual Appearance:

Whether its a Porche designed tram from Skoda to one of the older PCC's that used to run in most american cities, appearance has mattered a great deal to patrons. Recently tram designs have gone from functional designs that served tram companies from the 50s, 60s, and 70s to the more stylish models that are seen today. Some will say that today's designs aren't as classic. Below are a few examples.



The Trams in Prague are functional and to those who ride them familiar. Many of you know my favorite below, the Siemens Combino Supra "Caterpillar". It's a bit boxy but others such as the Siemens SD70 Avanto used in San Diego, Charlotte, and Houston are much more streamlined.





Seats:

Now some don't think this is very important, but there are a few who push the need for soft seats every chance they get. It's important to be comfortable, especially as Light Rail travels further out of the city and people need to sit longer. I noticed that seats in Denver had nice cushions while the Muni LRVs here have hard seats that I wouldn't want to sit on for very long and don't. I usually stand, but its not uncomfortable for the few minutes I'm on. The PCC seats remind me of school bus rides in 9th grade. They aren't super plush but they aren't uncomfortable either.


Flickr photo of Muni Metro Seats by Digiyesica.

Flickr Photo of PCC Seats by Jef Poskanzer.

Complaints about trams aren't just for folks in the United States. A blogger in Prague has been complaining and for some of the commenters, it seems a bit like sour grapes. There is also a facebook group against the new trams as well which my dad happened to take a photo of this fall in Prague.




Accessibility:

This is a major issue and drives a lot of decisions in planning for new light rail lines, streetcars and tramways. Buses, even low floor, have ramps that can be flipped up and down. Many light rail vehicles have level boarding which means they pull up next to the platform and there is no need for a ramp or bridge plate. This makes the train more accessible, especially since in trains, wheelchairs don't need to be strapped in with belts as they do in buses.

Flickr photo of Level Boarding in Seattle. Photo by Bejan.

Portland Streetcar Bridge Plate. Photo by the City of Albuquerque.

This brings up another important consideration of LRV design which is aisle width. Moving around inside of the vehicle is important. A currently cited issue with many BRT vehicles is that the aisles where the wheel wells are very narrow. Light rail of the low floor variety is rather wide in the center.

Flickr Photo NJ Transit LRV Interior. Photo by Manish Karnik.

All of these things are important. Depending on the length of the trip, some are more important than others. More standing room in streetcars is better because there are lots of ons and offs while LRVs need more seats for longer distance passengers. And then there is the future. What will future designs bring? I've only covered a few of the most discussed elements but does anyone have more of what they look for in a LRV?

Local Money for Starter Lines

There has been a lot of news lately on the federal process in Kansas City and in Houston. Kansas City is floundering and their leaders have about 10 different ideas as to what to do. Some say streetcar (please no), others say rapid streetcar or LRT (yes) and others are even calling for subways (perhaps but not likely). Aside from that, the debate is also about whether to go with federal funding or not. Some argue that it needs to be done with federal funding because then the starter line will get 50% funding (It should be 80% like freeways but that's another post). I'm going to argue that cities today should start on their own. The reason? Time and Politics.

What has time got to do with it? Everything. Because time means political will and citizen backing, time means money and time means solutions. The shorter amount of time that occurs between the start of the idea and operation of the first line, the better off the city is and the more people see tangible results.

Charlotte just opened its first light rail line and used federal funding to build it. The CATS experience serves as a warning to new transit cities who take the network view on transit expansion. When we look back at it now, it does not seem like such a long time, but the 10 years or so it took to build caused a lot of trouble and roadblocks along the way. Charlotte escaped but others have not been so lucky.

The time it took for this project to be completed led to cost overruns because of inflation and a referendum that almost stopped expansion. The Seattle streetcar (This is just a time comparison, not technology) took from idea to opening only five. The Seattle Streetcar didn't seek federal funding, didn't have to wait for the federal government to approve the process. Phoenix's Light Rail system first showed up in the federal process in 1999 and will be completed next year 2008.

But why is this important? The time it takes to build a line is not and should not be ten years. Whole interurban and street transit networks were built in 10 years at the end of the 19th century. The wait for federal funds in todays highway centric government is not worth the wait in

A. Cost
B. Political Will.

The cost issue rears its ugly head when calculating for inflation. You can't calculate that far ahead of time as to what inflation is going to bring. And you don't start buying materials until later on in the process. Charlotte saw this happen as are other projects, not just rail. And recently the Light Rail to Milwaukie in Portland has a high cost estimate, I'm guessing because the planning is keeping up with the federal timeline (Now 10 years standard). Not that this is a starter line, but its been under planning for so long, its no wonder the cost keeps getting higher.

Another issue is political will. The longer the process is, the less people who were involved at the start are likely to still be involved and 10 years in politics is eons. Charlotte was lucky to have the same Mayor and Transit Chief throughout the whole ordeal. I would say that is one of a few reasons why Austin moved to commuter rail, because they lost pro rail leaders along the way like Kirk Watson who now happens to be back as the head of CAMPO.

But not only do leaders matter, the opposition solidifies behind mistakes and as we saw in Charlotte can led to a referendum or a no vote for more funding. Salt Lake City has been the beneficiary of good news and good moves when it comes to politics. And we saw they will be rewarded with a huge 70 mile expansion and 5 new lines. This is after a starter line and very short extensions that have surpassed ridership expectations by leaps and bounds breeding confidence in the system and creating a mostly (there will always be naysayers) positive political environment.

So the time issue is important. The next issue is the expansion. Generally large cities are trying to build expansive transit networks instead of just one line. So the starter line is really just that, a start. But its an important step again because of the politics aspect. Cities such as Houston and Minneapolis are enjoying pro transit political will because of their great ridership numbers and community benefit. Minneapolis went with federal funding for the first line and is going for it again for the Central Corridor. If they keep up at this rate, they will have a transit network in 50 years with 5 lines. Remember, 50 years is the total amount of time it took to build the national federal highway system and all they are going to get through the federal process is 5 lines and maybe a city center streetcar?

Houston on the other hand, along with Salt Lake City and Denver will build 5 new lines in the next ten years. Why? Because they got political will from their starter lines and have forged ahead with local and federal funding for expansion. Salt Lake City signed a deal for the FTA to pay for 20% of their expansion after upping their sales tax for new transit while Houston will likely get 50% funding for two lines. Houston was able to build light rail on its corridors because they also got their rail bias ridership set and networked the corridors in the modeling. This means that any cities first line might be able to qualify for federal funding because its a good candidate, but it will be even better for expansions to other areas of the city which might not have as good of numbers. Cities might also be able to spend a little more money on the starter making sure everything is right instead of letting the feds take out elements that increase ridership like an extra station here and a subway segment there. The rail bias adjustment makes the extensions better able to qualify for federal funding under the cost effectiveness measure.

So if we are playing by the current rules set by the FTA and current funding levels, you can bet that cities will be waiting even longer for transit money. Especially if cities that already have starter lines are starting to ask for money for expansions making the field even more crowded than it is currently. In short, if you want it done fast and you want to build out fast, build it yourself, and come for help on a network later.

Photo Flashback

When I was at the Bellview Station in Denver a few months ago I snapped this photo. Would have been cool if I got an LRV to shadow the sun...perhaps next time. Also, Richard Layman mentioned the Siemens Combino Ultra in a recent post about streetcar vehicles. Here is a photo you all have probably already seen of the Combino Supra in Budapest I took while I was there in October.

Why The Decision in Houston is a Big Deal for Everyone

While the decision to go with Light Rail for 5 corridors caught a lot of people by surprise in Houston, it might have opened up a floodgate for cities to get funding for new transit projects. I can't stress enough how big this network effect is to cities who want to build new rail transit networks. Because the federal funding process is getting tighter, cities that want to build rail networks are going to have to get creative and Denver, Houston, and Salt Lake City have so far done that in their quest for funding.

It's interesting to note that some folks around the country might have been paying attention. Mayor Funkhouser in Kansas City believes that its a regional plan or nothing for his area. Some have thought it was a bit heavy handed of him to declare Clay Chastain's plan dead, but if he's thinking about really getting federal funding for a new transit system, he needs to lead the region towards a solution that will eventually get funding. Through the current rules, it looks like a high ridership starter line that can pass the current administration's cost effectiveness test (which Chastain's plan might not have) is how it should start. The other reason is that you'll need this first line to fund an extended network later.

But because the current rules are geared towards low end BRT projects, (The Orange Line and Euclid BRT projects would have not passed the required Medium cost-effectiveness rating rule the administration wants) Houston's recent deal might breathe new life into the application process for new expansion lines in cities that want to drastically expand their systems. Currently cities like Minneapolis are building a line every 10 years, meaning a simple 6 line network could take 40 more years. A problem might arise however with cities that don't have a starter line so that the rail bias can be attained for ridership measures.

It's been pretty easy to get extensions funded by the FTA in the past and they are generally the best modeled in terms of ridership. But the FTA has been making projects cut down their costs to make the rating. The Central Corridor has had a cap on how much it can cost meaning the locals don't have complete control over some of the decisions including a tunnel under the university because of that cost. This is a project that should have been built about 30 years ago but people are just starting to get it. But Minneapolis has plans for two more lines, the Southwest Corridor and the Northwest Corridor. So if cities are going to get serious about building expansive transit networks, Houston has shown the way to go for the time being. With a new administration who knows what could happen, but if you have to dance with who brung ya, it seems like Houston has opened the door to the ball.

Breaking Development in the Transit Space Race

Something big happened today. The Utah transit authority and the FTA signed an agreement that would allow the federal government to pay for 20% of Salt Lake Cities 5 line rail expansion. I'm not quite sure yet who got the better deal, but I think it was the Utah Transit Authority. According to the Deseret News:

UTA general manager John Inglish said the letter of intent, known as a memorandum of understanding, was an unprecedented agreement between a state agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Normally, transit agencies approach the federal government for funding on projects one-by-one, not as a package deal, he said.

Because the letter of intent applies to all five projects, Inglish said his agency will save what would have been years of waiting through a lengthy federal funding process.

So instead of going through the New Starts process while waiting for the FTA to reject their projects or cause cost inflation and change station locations to fit the ridership model which favors bus projects, they can actually plan to come in under budget and on time and with the projects the voters wanted. The memorandum of understanding states that UTA will fund two light rail lines and a commuter line on it's own while the FTA pays for 80% of two other light rail lines.

Ever since the New Starts program started, the federal share has been dwindling for fixed guideway projects. Starting out on the same footing as highways, federal funding began at 80% of the project cost but has since dwindled to 50% with a 10 year waiting period. While 20% overall might be a little low, the signing of the document today by the UTA has opened up options for cities that want to get into the transit space race. Cities that have been able to raise local money yet have a master plan to build a transit system. This fits into one of the reasons why I started this blog, which is to document the transit space race.

This might be a good model for cities that are just now looking to build light rail networks or who might want to get back into the hunt. Now it should be said that in keeping up with Denver and Portland, Salt Lake City had a referendum to raise their sales tax to fund their rail extensions. I know there have been a few thoughts that this might be happening but UTA was traveling under the radar until this announcement. Other cities might take notice and see this as an opportunity to make a deal with the FTA. Minneapolis is looking to build 3 more LRT lines, Tampa just announced a new rail plan and Birmingham is starting to think about it.

Houston tried to do this a few years ago but the idea got blocked by former Rep Tom Delay and John Culbertson. They asked that the FTA fund the first two rail lines while they built the next two locally. They were asking for 50% of the total and before that they were trying to use the main street line as a match. Because they couldn't get it through though, they had to downgrade some lines to BRT.

As I said before, this is a pretty big deal. It might signal a big change in how transit expansion is going to get funded. Hopefully it moves back up from 20% and perhaps the death of the process that has caused so many problems by taking quick decision making away from local jurisdictions.

Will Streetcars Replace Buses on the 16th Street Mall?

Denver's 16th Street mall might undergo an extreme makeover. An article in the Denver Post via Denver Infill Blog states:

As Denver's 16th Street Mall approaches its 25th anniversary in October, local officials and business leaders are exploring upgrades that could include replacement of granite pavers in the bus lanes with concrete or even swapping out buses for streetcars.

That would be very cool and would allow the streetcars to be extended eventually to points all over the Denver first ring. Denver Infill even sees a web of streetcars (It would be cool to see a map of this)

Another solution discussed in the article is replacing the Mall shuttle busses with streetcars. This is ultimately the best solution for several reasons. Installing a streetcar line along Colfax has been gaining strong momentum over the past few years, and upgrading the Mall shuttle to a streetcar line would be the logical first step in that direction. With the 16th Street Mall ending right at Colfax, future streetcar extensions east and west along Colfax from Civic Center Station could easily follow. Next, the proposed Downtown Circulator along 18th, 19th, Broadway and Lincoln, could be implemented as a streetcar or, at least, upgraded to a streetcar line as soon as possible, as has been discussed.

RTD is also considering replacing the Welton Street light rail line with a streetcar line, running from the planned 40th & 40th Station down to the 20th & Welton Station, if not all the way to Civic Center Station. RTD also proposed (but dropped from the FasTracks program) a transit connection between the Broadway Station and Civic Center along Broadway/Lincoln. An extension of the Downtown Circulator streetcar line from 12th Avenue to the Broadway Station would be a no-brainer.

Very cool. It will give some of the closer in neighborhood some rail options and possibly connect some of the more vacant large parcels. I also heard something about a perpendicular bus mall to the 16th street mall this week when I was in Denver. Might be an interesting addition.

Also as a side, here are some photos from my few days in Denver.

Here is a sunset picture I took from the Bellview Light Rail Station.



Another At Bellview in the tunnel that goes under the road to the elevators. This was really fun with a flash camera.



A lot of people use the C Line to get to special events. These folks were coming from a Rockies Game.



Man I wish the Bellview Station was on the other side of the road. There would have been some great Transit Orientation. You can see the freeway at right. In the photo after, it shows the view from the station (with a cool cloud formation) to the development the transit might have served better.





There is also no gambling on Light Rail, suprisingly

Go Electric Young Man!

RTD has done the right thing in going with electric over diesel for two of their commuter lines. From the Rocky Mountain News:

But faced with staff research that showed the upfront savings would be overwhelmed by the higher operating costs of a diesel system, the few board members left who supported going diesel joined their colleagues in voting 13-0 to stick with the current arrangement. The DIA line is expected to be completed in 2014; the Arvada line in 2015.

If that wasn’t enough, 26 speakers led of by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper unanimously urged the board to back the communities’ choices. No one spoke up for using diesel cars; many of the speakers demanded RTD abandon current plans to use diesel power on two other FasTracks lines, Northwest Rail to Boulder and Longmont, and North Metro to Commerce City and Thornton.

The other two lines should be electric as well. With rising fuel prices causing many of the nation's transit agencies to raise fares, there is no reason to think that this won't continue to happen when they choose diesel. Hopefully what they have learned from these two lines shows up in the other two. They are also going to be saving money on the Union Station by digging a trench for the lines instead of having a subway tunnel.

Tampa Not So Fast in Space Race

David Pinero over at Tampa Rail mentions the second coming of a Tampa rail plan. It's ambitious and according to the St. Petersburg Times, a vote on a half cent sales tax might come in 2010. 2010 however is three years away, which could be long or short depending on the outcome. Personally I don't think its fast enough. They need to plan it up and strike fast and hard. Unfortunately during that time period, they are still going to be building more roads and congestion is going to get much worse. They might have rail by 2020 at this rate.

- A primary rail line with four main stations: downtown St. Petersburg, the Gateway-Toytown area, West Shore district and downtown Tampa. It would cross the bay on a new structure between the Howard Frankland's two spans. The current bridge was designed with that in mind, although it would be expensive.

- Radiating out from that primary "spine," you'd have "ribs" - railways and express buses to the beaches, Clearwater and the University of South Florida, eventually reaching as far as Brooksville, Lakeland and Sarasota.

- Ferries traveling between downtown St. Petersburg, Tampa, Bradenton and possibly Apollo Beach.

Train, boat and bus fares would cover only a fraction of the costs. Local transit officials think the most realistic way to start paying for these things is to follow the lead of numerous other cities, including Miami and Jacksonville: Ask voters for a half-cent sales tax.

By that time, the initial space race will be over. Denver, Salt Lake City, and Dallas will each have over 100 miles of rail lines and Tampa will have a small starter line. As my old track coach Bubba used to say, Pick It Up!

Denver Ridership

In the months since the TRex project (aka Southeast Rail Line) opened, all signs point to success. An estimated 32,000 riders on the line is getting close to the 38,100 projected riders for the year 2020. A total of 61,000 riders used the Denver light rail lines. During the last few years TOD has been driving development along the corridor as well. Below is a graphic from a Denver Post article that printed in October of 2006



In their 2006 TOD Status Report, RTD-Denver, the local transit authority, reports that...

Some 3,704 residential units, 460,000 square feet of retail, and 300,000 square feet of office space have either been built or are currently under construction...An additional 3,713 residential units, 600 hotel rooms, 440,000 square feet of retail, 860,000 square feet of office space have been proposed. When added to projects at the I-25/Broadway transfer station, these 15 proposed projects have been an estimated value of approximately $1.7 billion.

That's a good amount of TOD and I'm sure that some of the completed units have contributed to the elevated ridership.