The Caltrain Precedent

We know that transportation funding is in peril and even good projects like Caltrain seem to be in trouble.  But we must not freak out when we hear the President's budget just like we shouldn't have gotten too excited when a budget from President Obama came out.  Remember this?

Boosts Transit Funding: Obama proposes a large increase in transit funding, budgeting $23 billion in 2016 and a total of $123 billion to transit over six years. That would represent a 75 percent increase over current levels. The would go toward both expansions and the maintenance and improvement of light rail, BRT, subway, and commuter rail networks.

Ha! Never going to happen with a Republican Congress right? But the flip side is worse. Because we know what that Republican Congress wants to do with a transit budget. A new classic quote via CityLab.

After all, the Republican Party’s official platform calls for a total elimination of federal subsidies to public transportation.

CityLab covers even more issues that might arise from "sanctuary city" pushback too.

But if I may add something more to the conversation, the move to stop Caltrain from getting transit money through the New Starts or even Core Capacity funding programs seriously puts a damper on any future capital projects whether they are repairs or new.  Caltrain in particular has been 4 years in the New Starts program showing how long it takes to go through the federal funding process only to have it cut out. 

I think those saying "silicon valley is rich, they should pay for it" are missing the point. First is that we pay a significant amount of of tax to the federal government and should be able to recover that money.  It's not like the region is building new huge ass freeways all the time sucking up our tax outlay, Doyle Drive not withstanding. 

Second is that this is the process that has been laid out and the rules were followed and have been since 1991.  The process to get federal transit funding is way more rigorous even than getting highway funds.  Do I think it's perfect?  No.  But neither are state or local programs that prioritize projects like BART to San Jose or HOT lanes over needed transit connections and upgrades.  We must do better, but don't hang us out to dry on good projects because of a stupid grudge. Once the central valley Rs start a Hatfield McCoy, who knows where it ends.

The reason why I started thinking about this was seeing planning begin for a project in Norfolk and an alternatives analysis for a Pittsburgh to Oakland BRT line that has been discussed forever.  These projects haven't decided on funding yet but its possible they could go local.  Though that is unlikely to happen.  If federal funding dries up, so do these projects.  They are not in California, a place that values transit spending but rather states that aren't so keen on funding capital projects and regions that have somewhat tempered pasts on active transportation.

And sure you can argue for devolution but what are we devolving to?  States that don't give a damn about cities?  Regional MPOs dominated by the suburbs? In a perfect world we have a balanced transportation system funded by regional governments that know what needs to be done to facilitate travel.  But here in the real world, federal funding is necessary to cut through some of the crap cities have to go through to do projects they think are valuable. 

Moving the goalposts is a dangerous precedent to set on a project everyone agrees on except those who believe in loyalty over a pretty solid measured process.

Transit Trends Episode 10: Electric Vehicles and the Environment

Drive Oregon's vision for electric mobility includes more than just electric cars. We sat down with Jeff Allen, Executive Director of Drive Oregon, to discuss electric mobility innovation and the challenge of connecting with consumers.

More Electroexecution

This might be a little more gut reaction than normal but why in the heck would you get rid of trolley buses in Seattle? Honestly when everyone else is looking for ways to get on renewable energy and figure out ways to lower carbon footprints, you're going to really add more ghgs to save a little coin? When do we start pricing carbon so that these actually make Metro money?

This is a case where the bean counters are counting the wrong beans. The metrics they used are out of touch with what's going on in the world today and the whole host of externalities that bean counters are not generally meant to measure till they are forced to. I can tell you that the dismantling of the Milwaukee Road was the dumbest thing right before an oil crisis. He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. I find it interesting that these studies keep coming out decade after decade against electric transport on cost or other issues. Edison's battery for cars seemed to be taken out this way, the Milwaukee Road got taken out this way, and now the Seattle Trolley buses might get taken out this way. I want to see a diesel vs. trolley bus test up a hill. Stop the insanity.

One More Electric Transit Mode

The electric trolley canal boat. What?

Sunday Night Notes

I wish there were more time in the day. I have some land value and transportation reading to catch up on.
~~~
Senators driving buses? Electric ones?
~~~
If the Corridor Cities high ridership route is so circuitous, then why does the model say it will get more riders? When do we get to blow up the new starts process? And when do we get to stop wasting money on sprawling development that creates these situations?
~~~
It's quite an intense process to secure rights of way especially in Dallas on the way to the airport.
~~~
Richard Layman posted this about innovators. I thought it was worth the read.

I'll Juice You Up

In St. Paul the utility company is going to have to rip up the streets anyway for light rail so they are trying an innovative energy rebate program and testing smart grid technology. Sounds pretty interesting.

The area is being dubbed “the Innovation Corridor,” says James Lockwood, a spokesman in Mayor Chris Coleman’s office. “Since all the utilities have to get in there to move lines because of the installation of light rail, they saw this as a great opportunity to figure out what to do to create smart grid technology to improve energy efficiency for businesses and homes,” he says.

I just hope they aren't asking for free cable...

A Small Charge

I thought this article on ultracapacitor buses was interesting in that they have been used in China for a number of years. One of the surprising things to me was that they didn't recharge for much shorter intervals at more charging stations but for a long time at a single station for 5 to 10 minutes. It seems to me that with improvements this type of tech could also be used for trams. It will come at some point, but I still don't think its worth discharging overhead wires.

Catenary and Trolleywire

Sorry if I left people hanging with the trolleywire vs. catenary article. Essentially, as Arcady explained in the comments of the last post, catenary suspension uses two or more wires to suspend the contact wire between poles. The term catenary comes from the curve created by the sagging of a wire or chain between two points. In overhead contact systems, the catenary curve is seen in the support wire while the contact wire is connected to it by suspenders.

Some versions can be pretty ugly such as New Jersey Transit's catenary:

Photo Courtesy HeritageTrolley.org

Here's a crossover in Charlotte and a long straight stretch.





Unfortunately this is sometimes the ugly that people think about when they think about overhead wires. While it's music to my lungs, many other people don't feel the same way.

The catenary differs from a simple trolley wire suspension in that there are more wires as well as generally more visual obstruction. The catenary is used for higher speed lines because the tension created in the wire is great enough to keep the pantograph from bouncing up against the wire which can cause great damage. Ultimately trolleywire is perfectly good for streetcars in cities and I would generally believe that it's probably the first consideration of designers of modern streetcar systems.

Below is a Combino Supra under trolley wire.



More Budapest



Some fun images from 1924's Electric Railway Handbook

Why the Catenary Talk?

After overriding the Mayor's veto, URS is going to look at how to bring the streetcar to the city. One of the issues, how to power them, will be fun to consider. Though the question asked in the article seems wrong:

"Do you want to be one of the last streetcars with a catenary system, or the first with a new system - that's the dilemma," Nadolny said.

What streetcar actually needs catenary? Simple trolley wire will do. Some interurban lines could run up to 90mph on trolleywire. I don't see why we have to always over-engineer these things. If you want to ugly things up, go ahead and build catenary. Perhaps that is the goal since the idea of wireless streetcars is all the rage.

Midweek Notes

Arlington is the largest city in the United States without transit, but will run trains through the city for the Superbowl coming in 2011.
~~~
Vancouver does Granny Flats in high rises.
~~~
Seattle Mayoral candidate McGinn is floating ideas for another light rail election in two years. But by light rail does he mean rapid streetcar or light metro?
~~~
A dustup over trolley buses in Seattle. I'd be interested to see if the bean counters actually did a lifecycle analysis considering how long electric trolleybuses actually last. Anyone who takes away existing hydro powered transit and replaces it with diesel needs a head check. It's unfortunate that it is even being discussed at all.
~~~
The economy isn't being so kind to mixed use projects in Atlanta.

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.

The First Electric Railway?

While Richmond VA is still the first electric transit system proved in 1888 by Frank J Sprague, apparently Montgomery Alabama was the city with the distinction of the first electric streetcar line in 1886. Or was it? The often unsung electrician was Charles Van Depoele and he opened 11 electric railway lines before Sprague opened his network in Richmond. The first being a demonstration line in Chicago in 1883. However these systems were prone to breakdowns and were often in need of fixing.

Another electrician, Leo Daft, had built electric lines on Pico in LA and in New Jersey, only to have issues with trollers coming off the wires and reliability. It wasn't until Frank J Sprague that systems were finally reliable enough and the invention of the spring loaded trolley pole (with the help of Van Depoele's first troller idea) kept the wire and trolley in constant contact. However Mr. Sprague recognized himself that the first regularly operating trolley line was Mr. Daft's in Hamden Line in Baltimore, constructed in 1885.

Mr. Sprague himself opened a line in St. Joseph Missouri in 1887 but proved himself when he electrified and ran 40 cars in Richmond VA in 1888. He also proved to investors that the vehicles would still work when they were backed up end to end, all pulling electricity from the same wire. He shouldn't get all the credit since there were many that came before him, but he's often credited with being the father of electric transit.

So which was the first? Are we going by reliability? By first operating date? By demonstration? I would say they all win since they all contributed to the cause. It's just unfortunate that they haven't gotten the recognition they deserve for their contributions.

H/T Streetsblog Cap Hill & Urban Mass Transit

$eeking A Green Funding Scheme

Congress is looking hard for a funding source for all things transportation. With the gas tax woefully inadequate, they are looking for other sources. One that continues to come up is the VMT tax. While this is a promising idea, no one likes to think further or beyond the box. I was actually surprised when people immediately let an idea like DeFazio's oil futures tax even sit for a while. But for the most part, congress is boring. It's like people are stuck going in circles.

But in the Streetsblog article there are some ideas that have floated before, in other forms that might be a bit innovative. For example the tax break idea has been floated before and discussed here, albeit for a somewhat different cause. Alan Drake has been proposing for a long time that we use property tax breaks to electrify the main freight lines across the country. This is just an addition.

Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) touted his bill to provide tax credits for companies that build new freight tracks or terminals. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) suggested levying a freight fee of 0.075 percent per shipment, with a maximum of $500, on goods that arrive at the nation's ports.

But what about other ways to find funding for transport. Are there any other innovative mechanisms for a national scale? The Transport Politic says we should take it from the general fund. How about if we can carve out some of the income tax for transportation. Perhaps you can see how much you're paying into it on your weekly statement, kind of like FICA. Especially since everyone uses transportation to get to work where they get income. And if they don't, they are living at home and should get a break for that.

Or one of my favorite ideas is an electric bill surcharge, perhaps one for commercial electricity and one for residential. This might accomplish two goals, one being a reduction in energy usage from higher price points and another being when more electric automobiles and other vehicles start coming, they will be paying into the transportation fund. Obviously not completely thought out, but there's something in there somewhere.

I really wish we could throw all kinds of crazy ideas on the table and see what might stick. Any other ideas out there we should know about?

Some Notes

USA Today has an article about intensifying suburbs in the Hong Kong style. Interesting they mention the tall buildings but not the massive transit infrastructure needed to move these people to where they want to go.
~~~
Jarrett at Human transit was wondering early on what would get comments and a discussion going. I don't think he has to look anymore. In fact he's even got the ears of major newspaper reporters. Now if only they actually understood what he was saying or if newspaper reporters actually gave the public credit for knowing more than they do. This Dallas Morning News post is exactly why print media is dying. Calling your readers stupid works every time.

Further, would the public understand the dual systems? Is there a city today that has a combination of light rail and streetcars in a downtown area where there is demonstrated demand for both?

I'm tired of Texas (or from any state) transportation reporters who don't know transportation.
~~~
The Evergreen Line gone?
~~~
Swimo pops its head out of the water again. It's like a cute little penguin, an electric penguin that runs on rails without wires. When we all have Zed PMs we'll be golden.
~~~
Fort Worth is hoping for Streetcars sooner than planned.

A Challenge

I challenge any city to draw lines in the street and run a bus, then run a streetcar and see what happens. And again, why are we so worried about overhead wires? Lungs don't care about your aesthetic.

Saturday Sacramento Links

It was nice to see everyone at the NJudah shindig last night. I'm in Sacramento for a family reunion this weekend so posting might be light.

Looks like Phoenix is pausing its first extension due to funding issues.
~~~
I think people like Barbara Boxer still don't get the climate, transport, land use connection. I am glad that folks are talking gas tax, but there has to be a better way.
~~~
LA is building an Orange Line extension that connects the Chatsworth Metrolink station to the Warner Center, which is kind of like LA's Tyson's Corner. I think this is a great connection that obviously should be updated as soon as possible. With the Warner Center thinking about densifying, the connection to commuter rail is key.
~~~
I like this quote from Rep. John Mica:

"if you're on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you're a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it's so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it's good for energy, it's good for the environment – and that's why I like it."

~~~
Some interesting information on traction motors in Europe. Kind of continues on our electrification theme of late.

Electroexecution of the Milwaukee Road

Every once in a while I'll stop reading articles and pick up a book. Sometimes its a book I started but put down for reasons unremembered. Recently I opened up Internal Combustion again. I highly suggest the read, especially the chapters on the Milwaukee Road. It's fascinating to see how efficient and cost effective the Road was before you factored in the corruption and construction mischief.

An ICC investigation concluded that the total cost, more than quadruple the orginal estimate, could not be justified by any adequate engineering or traffic surveys that were made. On the contrary, everything indicates that the project was the result of rivalry between powerful groups. Competitor railroads immediately began snatching up land to sell to the Milwaukee at severely inflated levels or started calculated bidding wars to drive up the prices.

It's sad really that more lines hadn't been electrified and that the true sustainable value of this route was not emulated in places inside of the United States. Ultimately it was in Europe, and they enjoy the success they built after our lead with the MR.

But here are a few key passages on pg 188 that stood out in the book to me on how the Milwaukee died after its tough beginning.

JP Kiley was a Milwaukee vice president determined to eliminate all electric lines. The reasons, Kiley presumed, would be cost, technological obsolescence and lesser capability. This was the assumption.

Laurence Wylie was an electrical engineer devoted to clean, electric trains. Wylie was appointed by Kiley in 1948 to oversee to oversee the dismantling of all electric. Having worked with electric rail since 1919, Wylie balked. On his own volition, Wylie ordered comparative studies of electric trains versus diesel. His finding contradicted Kiley's theories. The old electric could outpull the new diesels and run cheaper, dollar for dollar. In fact, on one typical run to the West Coast, three diesels were shown to annually cost more than $104,000 extra. In mountainous terrain, diesels fared even worse. Newer electrics constructed by GE in the 1950's for the Soviet Union showed still better results. These powerful new GE electrics, nicknamed little Joes for Joeseph Stalin, were almost twice as economical and powerful as the GM diesels, especially on long runs.

For example, six Electro Motive Division F diesels were needed to haul 3,300 tons, and five electro motive division GP9s were required for about the same chore. But that same tonnage was easily pulled by just four old GE freight electrics. The electrics also beat the gas burning locomotives on flatter terrain. Kiley dismissed Wylie's findings and instead relied on his own engineering tests. in large measure provided by the Electro Motive Division. Whylie, who had worked his way up from a Montana trainmaster to a district superintendent, could not understand why the engineering reports did not jibe. In his campaign to replace electrics with GM diesels, Kiley was constantly butressed by GM's glowing engineering reports. Finally, Wylie realized the newest diesels were being compared not with the newest high speed electrics, but thirty year old electrics. Moreover, other data from General Motors Electro Motive Division was constantly being skewed in favor of Diesel.

Who was heading up GM's Electro Motive Divison efforts in the late 1940's? It was Dana Kettering, the son of Charles Kettering, and the same inventive genius who'd helped Gray and Davis Electrical Engineers develop the starter battery array that mysteriously undercut Thomas Edison's attempt to create an electric vehicle with Henry Ford. In that instance, the testing had also been challenged as disingenuous.

It's amazing what you can do when you don't have to carry around your own powerplant. It's also amazing how comparing apples and oranges continues to allow people to make decisions.

New Tech & Electrification

If you were a city, would you want to be the first to implement an unproven technology whether it's hydrogen streetcars or super fast charging streetcars? I know that makes it tough for innovation but it seems like a lot of risks and on a political level it means career death if the program crashes. That being said, there are lots of interesting ideas out there that might deserve a look. In addition to the two above, the inductive motor looks interesting as well.

One thing though, I really really don't get the hate of overhead wires. They have been proven since 1888 and create no point source emissions. Get over your personal aesthetic people. If you were so concerned with wires, you should also be concerned with that smog stuff as well. As I've said before, it may look bad to you, but my lungs don't care.

On a similar note, some Railroads are considering electrification as well as allowing corridors to be used for wind power transmission. This idea has been around for a while and I'm glad they are finally catching on.

Of Montréal Electrification

Looks like Montreal could reap the benefits of electrification sooner than others.

Agence Métropolitaine de Transport and Hydro-Québec agreed on May 5 to invite proposals for a study to determine the feasibility of electrifying four of Montréal’s commuter rail routes totalling 250 km.

In Calgary they ride the wind. Here they could ride the wave.

Where's the Transit in Electric Grid Discussion?

I'm all about this rethinking of the national energy grid. But why are we not looking further into connecting the grid back into transit. Why not more money for trolley buses and that connection to the grid? It seems to me that it would be a great for two reasons... seeing the wires reminds you that you're being clean and we also forget that transit used to be directly tied to the electric companies. It's possible that this could be the way to fund transit as well. Back again to Scott Bernstein's guest post on how to bring back the streetcars:

As we've discussed on this list, only by switching from liquid fuels to non-motorized and electric transportation can we meet any of our energy independence or climate goals.

And only by reducing dependence on individual vehicles to a greater reliance on mass transportation can we transition to a nation of great cities and regions.

Here are some tools to think about in framing methods of getting there--

1. Local electric distribution utilities never lost the legal right to power electric transportation; all 50 states have a common method of enabling electric distribution utility financing of all or part of the necessary systems, which is a rate filing to help finance these systems. This offers opportunities for cities, transit operators, developers, metropolitan planning organizations and states to build new kinds of financing mechanisms to more systematically support local and regional surface transportation infrastructure. A similar case can be made for local governments and special service districts (which own and operate almost all of the nation's airports outside of NJ, MD, Alaska and HI) to partner with the electric utility industry to support the infrastructure necessary for inter-city high speed rail.

2. Deregulation of the electric utility industry has been a mixed bag, but in over a dozen states a fait accompli. So in a sense this is an opening to partner with contemporary holding companies too. These companies need to re-certify their "market-based" rate making authority every three years with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, another opening for the new administration to address potential urban consequences of energy and climate policies.

3. PUCHA was repealed in the 2005 Energy Policy Act ( one outcome has been at least 100 municipalization efforts, 20 successful, most recently Winter Park Fl, but the repeal also opens up the potential for other kinds of ownership too)

4. A national debate on the future shape and location and purposes of the electrical grid has started and needs an urban voice, no less than does the analogous debate about transportation infrastructure.

5. A push by leaders in the public accounting profession and in the investment community for more transparency in State and municipal accounting led to the creation of the Government Accounting Standards Board in 1984, and their rules on accounting for infrastructure investment, aka Statement 34, implemented from 1999 to present, lay a first-time basis for disclosure of the life-cycle costs associated with different types and patterns of major capital investments. More recently, a push for better state and local disclosure in the waning days of the Bush administration, has been taken up in the Senate and House Banking committees. This is a real opportunity to show well how the hidden assets of cities and urban places perform.