This week on the podcast we're joined by Jay Crossley of Houston Tomorrow who discusses Houston's new general plan. It was the largest city without on in the United States, and we'll talk about how it will guide future decisions in the Bayou City. You can also find it at Streetsblog USA.
Showing posts with label Houston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Houston. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2015
Friday, August 1, 2014
Is Good Urban Form Slowing Us Down?
There has been a lot of chatter recently on the issue of fast vs slow transit. This week is the perfect time for this discussion as two major United States transit projects of differing stripes opened up; the Metro Silver Line in Washington DC and the Tucson Streetcar.
Last week, Yonah Freemark wrote a post discussing the benefits of fast transit specifically calling out the Green Line in Minneapolis for running 11 miles in about an hour. Now, this line has parts of what people are always asking streetcars to have; dedicated lanes. "They get stuck!" Yet this line, as well as the T-Third in San Francisco and others mentioned in the post are still "too slow". Yonah goes on to discuss metro expansion in Paris leaving a discussion of politics and costs of rapid transit to the very end.
To me this points to the first place where urbanism and fast transit disagree with each other, block sizes and stop spacing. By trying to maximize connections to the community, the transit line has to stop more often, slowing speeds. And if built into a legacy urban fabric, this also includes negotiation with tons of cross streets where designers don't give priority to the transit line. This happens in Cleveland on the Health Line BRT as well as the Orange Line in Los Angeles, even though it has its own very separated right of way. The Gold Line Light Rail in LA and the Orange Line originally had the same distance, yet one was 15 minutes faster end to end. A lot of this had to do with less priority on cross streets given to the Orange Line, not because it was a bus or rail line.
We continue to talk as if dedicated lanes are magic, but its a suite of tools that helps speed transit along inside of our wonderful urban fabrics. Transit is directly affected by urbanism, if we let it be.
But then there is the other side of this discussion. Transit's effect on urbanism. Some New Urbanists believe that slow transit is necessary for building better urbanism. Rob Steuteville of New Urban News calls this "Place Mobility". The theory goes like this:
To increase the viability of streetcars in a world dominated by a "cost effectiveness" measure dependent on calculations of speed, the "Trip Not Taken" was refreshing. Many transit lines were being built without regard to neighborhood or were cheap and easy. But they were fast! You can see how the "cost effectiveness" measure intervened with elevated rail through Tyson's Corner (yes I'm still annoyed) or the numerous commuter rail lines on freight rights of way in smaller regions that probably should never have been built. But they were fast!
Yes the streetcar helps with creating place in the minds of developers and urban enthusiasts, but no it doesn't do the whole job. The Pearl District and Seattle's South Lake Union were perfect storms of huge singular property ownership, massive investments in additional infrastructure, proximity to a major employment center, lack of NIMBYs, and a strong real estate market. But look at the results. It's hard to argue that the streetcar didn't help develop this massively successful district in one of planning's favorite cities. But it's also hard to give it all the credit.
The crux of the argument is that place making should be the ultimate goal and slowing things down makes things better. And many cities see the streetcar as some sort of fertilizer that makes it grow and a reason to change zoning code. Because of very stringent local land use opposition (read NIMBY), this makes a lot of sense. If a streetcar can lead to the restructuring of land use or the fulcrum of a district revitalization, I see that as a benefit. But again, don't give it too much credit.
From a safety standpoint this slowing down idea makes sense. The Portland Streetcar has been in collisions, but no one has died or been seriously hurt, unlike a number of high profile collisions in places like Houston, where drivers can't seem to follow the rules. Our society also puts up with over 30,000 deaths a year to get places faster on interstate highways as well.
But...
Ultimately the base success of a transit line isn't in the amount of development it has spurred or the zoning it has changed. It's the ability to get a lot of people where they want to go, in a timely fashion. A commenter on Jarret Walker's Human Transit Blog says it best.
But if we are going to spend so much money, we might as well figure out a way to transport the most people possible. Sometimes that might be streetcars. Other times it's not.
But back to urbanism and transit.
In Portland, dedicated lanes on the North/South parts of the line wouldn't make as much difference because it has the same issues we mentioned with the Green Line above and narrow streets. Streetcars have to deal with urbanism. I think streetcars are ok as a circulator in downtowns, because these are the trips that help people get around dense places that are proximate. You can bring your groceries on when its raining and disabled folks can load their wheelchairs with dignity. Tourists like the certainty of the tracks and little kids love the ride. We see that even on 20 minute headways, 13,000 riders are on the line every day. It's hard to argue with that, given it's more riders than many first choice bus lines in some major cities without rail.
However for linear route based transit operations, we need dedicated lanes and signal priority to at least make the expenditure worthwhile and play nice with our urbanism. Once you get outside of a district, people want to get places. I like subways and wish we had more, but it seems politics and money seem to get in the way like Yonah mentions above. Some might even argue that before we even think about building fixed guideway lines, we should focus on our buses. Perhaps we should have a threshold system ridership before putting in rail, to determine whether all options for increasing ridership have been exhausted. Houston's new network plan could be a good guide. And personally, I don't think BRT should be special. It should be the norm. Luckily the new 5339 bus facilities funding guidance could allow for BRT and Rapid Bus funding (they are NOT the same thing).
But there's a new report out which discusses which factors drive ridership for fixed guideway transit once we decide to go that route. Employment and residential density around transit lines, the cost of parking downtown, and grade separation were found to be the most effective measures when put together to drive ridership according to a recent TCRP report released earlier this month. Individually employment had an r squared of .2 while the others had negligible impacts. Only taken together as a whole did these measures drive the most ridership as seen below.
The report goes on to say "The degree of grade separation is likely influential because it serves as a proxy for service variables such as speed, frequency, and reliability that may lead to greater transit ridership."
But determining success is hard. In fact, its so hard that of the transit projects surveyed, the only thing that transit agencies seemed to agree on (it has dots in every project below) was that the line would be cheap! We discussed this briefly above.
So all of this is to say that Streetcars are not the worst transit ever and urbanism will affect transit, and transit will affect urbanism. We just need to decide what the appropriate ways are for intervention such that we maximize people's ability to get to the places they want to go and build great communities. Let's not swing the pendulum too far to either side, it might tip the balance against us.
Last week, Yonah Freemark wrote a post discussing the benefits of fast transit specifically calling out the Green Line in Minneapolis for running 11 miles in about an hour. Now, this line has parts of what people are always asking streetcars to have; dedicated lanes. "They get stuck!" Yet this line, as well as the T-Third in San Francisco and others mentioned in the post are still "too slow". Yonah goes on to discuss metro expansion in Paris leaving a discussion of politics and costs of rapid transit to the very end.
To me this points to the first place where urbanism and fast transit disagree with each other, block sizes and stop spacing. By trying to maximize connections to the community, the transit line has to stop more often, slowing speeds. And if built into a legacy urban fabric, this also includes negotiation with tons of cross streets where designers don't give priority to the transit line. This happens in Cleveland on the Health Line BRT as well as the Orange Line in Los Angeles, even though it has its own very separated right of way. The Gold Line Light Rail in LA and the Orange Line originally had the same distance, yet one was 15 minutes faster end to end. A lot of this had to do with less priority on cross streets given to the Orange Line, not because it was a bus or rail line.
We continue to talk as if dedicated lanes are magic, but its a suite of tools that helps speed transit along inside of our wonderful urban fabrics. Transit is directly affected by urbanism, if we let it be.
But then there is the other side of this discussion. Transit's effect on urbanism. Some New Urbanists believe that slow transit is necessary for building better urbanism. Rob Steuteville of New Urban News calls this "Place Mobility". The theory goes like this:
When a streetcar -- or other catalyst -- creates a compact, dynamic place, other kinds of mobility become possible. The densest concentrations of bike-share and car-share stations in Portland are located in the area served by the streetcar. That's no coincidence. You can literally get anywhere without a car.In Portland parlance, this is the "Trip Not Taken". When you build up the urban fabric of a city, many usually induced trips disappear. That car trip to the grocery store becomes a walk and that streetcar trip to Powell's Books might be a bike trip now. Or in the world of the web, that trip might change hands, from you to the delivery truck. In Portland at the time they calculated a 31 million mile reduction in VMT from the housing units built along the streetcar route.
To increase the viability of streetcars in a world dominated by a "cost effectiveness" measure dependent on calculations of speed, the "Trip Not Taken" was refreshing. Many transit lines were being built without regard to neighborhood or were cheap and easy. But they were fast! You can see how the "cost effectiveness" measure intervened with elevated rail through Tyson's Corner (yes I'm still annoyed) or the numerous commuter rail lines on freight rights of way in smaller regions that probably should never have been built. But they were fast!
Yes the streetcar helps with creating place in the minds of developers and urban enthusiasts, but no it doesn't do the whole job. The Pearl District and Seattle's South Lake Union were perfect storms of huge singular property ownership, massive investments in additional infrastructure, proximity to a major employment center, lack of NIMBYs, and a strong real estate market. But look at the results. It's hard to argue that the streetcar didn't help develop this massively successful district in one of planning's favorite cities. But it's also hard to give it all the credit.
The crux of the argument is that place making should be the ultimate goal and slowing things down makes things better. And many cities see the streetcar as some sort of fertilizer that makes it grow and a reason to change zoning code. Because of very stringent local land use opposition (read NIMBY), this makes a lot of sense. If a streetcar can lead to the restructuring of land use or the fulcrum of a district revitalization, I see that as a benefit. But again, don't give it too much credit.
From a safety standpoint this slowing down idea makes sense. The Portland Streetcar has been in collisions, but no one has died or been seriously hurt, unlike a number of high profile collisions in places like Houston, where drivers can't seem to follow the rules. Our society also puts up with over 30,000 deaths a year to get places faster on interstate highways as well.
But...
Ultimately the base success of a transit line isn't in the amount of development it has spurred or the zoning it has changed. It's the ability to get a lot of people where they want to go, in a timely fashion. A commenter on Jarret Walker's Human Transit Blog says it best.
But the romantic impulse towards slow transit wears away quickly if you have no choice but to rely on it all the time! I don't have a car, so I rely on buses that travel excruciatingly slowly, wasting much of my time.As someone who has gotten rid of my car and considers myself a walking, bike riding, transit loving (and sometimes zipcaring) urbanist, I find it very annoying that it takes an hour to go three miles here in San Francisco on the bus. And if I need to get downtown, I take the Subway which is a half mile away versus the streetcar which is half a block away because time does actually matter. We see this decision play out every day when people choose to drive cars over using transit.
But if we are going to spend so much money, we might as well figure out a way to transport the most people possible. Sometimes that might be streetcars. Other times it's not.
But back to urbanism and transit.
In Portland, dedicated lanes on the North/South parts of the line wouldn't make as much difference because it has the same issues we mentioned with the Green Line above and narrow streets. Streetcars have to deal with urbanism. I think streetcars are ok as a circulator in downtowns, because these are the trips that help people get around dense places that are proximate. You can bring your groceries on when its raining and disabled folks can load their wheelchairs with dignity. Tourists like the certainty of the tracks and little kids love the ride. We see that even on 20 minute headways, 13,000 riders are on the line every day. It's hard to argue with that, given it's more riders than many first choice bus lines in some major cities without rail.
However for linear route based transit operations, we need dedicated lanes and signal priority to at least make the expenditure worthwhile and play nice with our urbanism. Once you get outside of a district, people want to get places. I like subways and wish we had more, but it seems politics and money seem to get in the way like Yonah mentions above. Some might even argue that before we even think about building fixed guideway lines, we should focus on our buses. Perhaps we should have a threshold system ridership before putting in rail, to determine whether all options for increasing ridership have been exhausted. Houston's new network plan could be a good guide. And personally, I don't think BRT should be special. It should be the norm. Luckily the new 5339 bus facilities funding guidance could allow for BRT and Rapid Bus funding (they are NOT the same thing).
But there's a new report out which discusses which factors drive ridership for fixed guideway transit once we decide to go that route. Employment and residential density around transit lines, the cost of parking downtown, and grade separation were found to be the most effective measures when put together to drive ridership according to a recent TCRP report released earlier this month. Individually employment had an r squared of .2 while the others had negligible impacts. Only taken together as a whole did these measures drive the most ridership as seen below.
The report goes on to say "The degree of grade separation is likely influential because it serves as a proxy for service variables such as speed, frequency, and reliability that may lead to greater transit ridership."
But determining success is hard. In fact, its so hard that of the transit projects surveyed, the only thing that transit agencies seemed to agree on (it has dots in every project below) was that the line would be cheap! We discussed this briefly above.
"Provide fixed guideway transit in corridors where inexpensive right of way can be easily accessed"Which is many times why we end up with slow transit. It's cheap. We're cheap. Streetcar costs are below that of light rail or subways and since its in a mixed traffic right of way, it will be cheaper politically than BRT. Commuter rail on freight rights of way is the best to them though even though its the worst at creating ridership. To me it's is even cheaper because it usually ignores the chart above with the focus on employment and residential density.
So all of this is to say that Streetcars are not the worst transit ever and urbanism will affect transit, and transit will affect urbanism. We just need to decide what the appropriate ways are for intervention such that we maximize people's ability to get to the places they want to go and build great communities. Let's not swing the pendulum too far to either side, it might tip the balance against us.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Grating on a Curve
I was in Houston for a work meeting last spring and went on a tour with our good friend Christof Spieler who has taken a hiatus from blogging
at CTC Houston while he is an active member of the board for Houston
Metro. He was kind enough to take me around to a lot of the new
construction going on to complete Houston's three newest light rail
lines. I must say I was blown away at the progress and opportunities
that the system holds.
Houston's Light Rail Plans via Christof Spieler
I know there is a lot of consternation in Houston from certain congressional parties that if they had it their way would never have let the city build its first line. But I'm sure glad they did because it's allowed them so much political support to push forward with the system they are installing now. While even that had its fits and starts as well as issues with general managers and vehicle orders, I firmly believe that this will be the most European system in the United States when completed.
North Corridor Construction
Unlike any other LRT system in the United States, they eschewed existing freight rights of way and made the conscious decision to run in the major corridors with dedicated guideways. This is going to bring unprecedented mobility to the newly served areas as well as perhaps a few issues as well.
While many say that Houston has no zoning, what it really means is that Houston has no use restrictions. Unless your neighborhood has existing deed restrictions, anything is fair game as long as it pencils in your pro-forma. Making that pro-forma more difficult is all of the setback and parking regulations that are required from the city. It costs a lot of money and changes development dynamics but the lack of use restrictions allow development such as the housing below. Townhouses on small lots that would never have been allowed in any other single family neighborhood.
Southwest Corridor in East Downtown (EDO)
This also raises the issue of affordable housing. While the lack of building restrictions keeps prices fairly low, extremely low in fact when compared to SF or NYC, it doesn't mean that neighborhoods won't see some drastic changes coming to their neighborhoods.
If you would like to see a few more of the images from the trip, check out my Flickr page
Houston's Light Rail Plans via Christof Spieler
I know there is a lot of consternation in Houston from certain congressional parties that if they had it their way would never have let the city build its first line. But I'm sure glad they did because it's allowed them so much political support to push forward with the system they are installing now. While even that had its fits and starts as well as issues with general managers and vehicle orders, I firmly believe that this will be the most European system in the United States when completed.
North Corridor Construction
Unlike any other LRT system in the United States, they eschewed existing freight rights of way and made the conscious decision to run in the major corridors with dedicated guideways. This is going to bring unprecedented mobility to the newly served areas as well as perhaps a few issues as well.
While many say that Houston has no zoning, what it really means is that Houston has no use restrictions. Unless your neighborhood has existing deed restrictions, anything is fair game as long as it pencils in your pro-forma. Making that pro-forma more difficult is all of the setback and parking regulations that are required from the city. It costs a lot of money and changes development dynamics but the lack of use restrictions allow development such as the housing below. Townhouses on small lots that would never have been allowed in any other single family neighborhood.
Southwest Corridor in East Downtown (EDO)
This also raises the issue of affordable housing. While the lack of building restrictions keeps prices fairly low, extremely low in fact when compared to SF or NYC, it doesn't mean that neighborhoods won't see some drastic changes coming to their neighborhoods.
If you would like to see a few more of the images from the trip, check out my Flickr page
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
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?
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?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Off the Line in Houston
Houston has been studying constructing a commuter line down the 249 corridor but if it plays out as usual, it's going to skip a number of employment centers because the freight right of way just skirts them. Currently the study done by the HGAC states that its not one of the main corridors and that ridership will only be about 5,000 riders. This is a miniscule amount but the reasoning is simple, it doesn't connect the center of the most important trip destination on the North End, the former headquarters of Compaq computer.
Since these buildings are going to be the central piece of a redevelopment strategy for the area, it would also be good to start thinking about how to develop the rail line to connect this place.
Since these buildings are going to be the central piece of a redevelopment strategy for the area, it would also be good to start thinking about how to develop the rail line to connect this place.
But how would that even be possible? They are so close yet so far apart. This is part of the problem with focusing on commuter rail in existing freight rights of way. In this instance, is a freeway alignment better than the freight? It sure looks like it, because it then becomes at least a little walkable, meaning more workers would use the line. I'm not holding out hope that this will actually happen though.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Thursday Night Notes
Some notes for the weekend...
If road projects like this one had to go through new starts they would never get built. This road like all other ring roads is about development. But you're not allowed to build a transit line and let ridership grow. It has to be on target! Double standard.
~~~
Ed Glaeser floats the "We should invest in NE Corridor for HSR only" meme that's going around. See post below. Also, how can you say we shouldn't be building major city pairs for places that do already have the density? I never understand the idea that we should just wait until conditions are just right everywhere. That's just a stall tactic.
~~~
If transit were all designed to look this good maybe more people would ride.
~~~
THIS is the reason for my skeptical nature on BRT. People in Berkley or in West LA are going to screw the whole plan to make it worthless. You spent all that time to get what? A red bus that skips a few stops?
If road projects like this one had to go through new starts they would never get built. This road like all other ring roads is about development. But you're not allowed to build a transit line and let ridership grow. It has to be on target! Double standard.
~~~
Ed Glaeser floats the "We should invest in NE Corridor for HSR only" meme that's going around. See post below. Also, how can you say we shouldn't be building major city pairs for places that do already have the density? I never understand the idea that we should just wait until conditions are just right everywhere. That's just a stall tactic.
~~~
If transit were all designed to look this good maybe more people would ride.
~~~
THIS is the reason for my skeptical nature on BRT. People in Berkley or in West LA are going to screw the whole plan to make it worthless. You spent all that time to get what? A red bus that skips a few stops?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Trax Siemens Debut
Ok so two posts on this is a bit much but I wanted to compare the Charlotte and Utah vehicles side by side. These are for you Gordon. It looks as if the UTA vehicles are even shorter than the Charlotte LRVs and much shorter than the Houston LRVs which are all the same series. I had read before that this was done to accommodate four car trains.
Utah Transit Authority
Courtesy of UTA
Charlotte CATS
Via Willamore Media Creative Commons on Flickr.
Houston Metro
Via Word Junky Creative Commons on Flickr.
Bonus video footage from today's car unveiling and wow is it going out into the boonies. Better do it right.
Utah Transit Authority
Courtesy of UTACharlotte CATS
Via Willamore Media Creative Commons on Flickr.
Houston Metro
Via Word Junky Creative Commons on Flickr.
Bonus video footage from today's car unveiling and wow is it going out into the boonies. Better do it right.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Double Vision
While it's great that the Chronicle and others are calling on Houston Metro to have a regional vision with goals, it means nothing without a tandem city land use and development infrastructure strategy. While Houston has no zoning in the usual sense, it does have everything else needed to regulate development (restrictive covenants, parking requirements, setbacks etc). The region can't just keep building HOV lanes and even light rail/commuter rail lines to chase development. Chasers never prosper, but leaders do.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Movement Depression and the Way Forward
It's been a bit rough lately. With the economy in the tank and people not wanting to spend any money, I've had great hope that some places were continuing to move forward with their urban rail plans. But the opponents fight harder than ever because they see the threat or people don't plan things enough to go forward with any confidence. Just today, the list of articles that show how hard we have to keep working was a bit much for me to handle.
Houston - The Mayor questions whether there is money to pay for two lines of the new five line light rail expansion in the city.
Austin - The Mayor decides its not time to have a bond election to pay for a future urban rail line.
Scotland - The company building Edinburgh's tram wants to delay 30 months after the rough ride they have already had.
Tampa - Ballot issue for rail dead for now due to lack of decision in how much of the funding would go to the rail project.
Bellevue: The city council is a bunch of morons there and don't want to run the line through a dense employment center.
There is a ray of hope out there. The Mayor of Los Angeles made me feel a bit better recently when he decided that he was going to ask to get things done faster. Ask for a loan so you can save billions in construction costs and have something built for your money faster. I would like to think that is how we work in the United States. But sometimes reading all the news I do just gets so depressing. At least someone has suggested a way forward. Whether we follow it or not is up to us.
Houston - The Mayor questions whether there is money to pay for two lines of the new five line light rail expansion in the city.
Austin - The Mayor decides its not time to have a bond election to pay for a future urban rail line.
Scotland - The company building Edinburgh's tram wants to delay 30 months after the rough ride they have already had.
Tampa - Ballot issue for rail dead for now due to lack of decision in how much of the funding would go to the rail project.
Bellevue: The city council is a bunch of morons there and don't want to run the line through a dense employment center.
There is a ray of hope out there. The Mayor of Los Angeles made me feel a bit better recently when he decided that he was going to ask to get things done faster. Ask for a loan so you can save billions in construction costs and have something built for your money faster. I would like to think that is how we work in the United States. But sometimes reading all the news I do just gets so depressing. At least someone has suggested a way forward. Whether we follow it or not is up to us.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
More Urban Form
In an attempt to go a little deeper into the previous post I went looking for more pictures of Rotterdam and Houston and found even better comparisons and interesting views than the photos I posted before.
It should also be said that I don't mean to discount the devastation of war to people and property. There is a difference between choosing to build parking lots and having your life and possessions destroyed.
First Rotterdam:
This from scientific psychic:
And this from the special collections of the Wageningen Library:
Next Houston:
Clearance of housing to build US59 via TexasFreeway.com, an amazing resource if you want to see how freeways were built in Texas.
Also via TexasFreeway.com, a view of Houston from the same angle as the previous post's shot:
This is from Aerial viewpoint. A historic shot from 1945 compared with today. Notice the freeway intrusion. Also notice the downtown getting taller. Finally, where Union Station used to be is where highway 59 rockets through on the east side of downtown and Minute Maid park now exists with a token train filled with oranges.
It should also be said that I don't mean to discount the devastation of war to people and property. There is a difference between choosing to build parking lots and having your life and possessions destroyed.
First Rotterdam:
This from scientific psychic:
And this from the special collections of the Wageningen Library:
Next Houston:
Clearance of housing to build US59 via TexasFreeway.com, an amazing resource if you want to see how freeways were built in Texas.
Also via TexasFreeway.com, a view of Houston from the same angle as the previous post's shot:
This is from Aerial viewpoint. A historic shot from 1945 compared with today. Notice the freeway intrusion. Also notice the downtown getting taller. Finally, where Union Station used to be is where highway 59 rockets through on the east side of downtown and Minute Maid park now exists with a token train filled with oranges.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Assume the Risk
There have been a lot of issues recently over cost estimates that are starting to rub me the wrong way. I had never mentioned it before but in my head I kept thinking to myself that the cost for LRT in Norfolk seemed awfully low. The most recent estimate was $232 million for 7.2 miles. Compared to most LRT lines that would have been a steal. Phoenix was upwards of $80 million per mile while Norfolk was hovering around $32 million. Now it's $340 million which is still ok at $47 million a mile, but everyone is going crazy.
But today I saw something interesting out of Houston. The city is going to pay up front an extra $100 million for their contract and the bid winner will assume liability for any cost overruns during the project (assuming it doesn't cause them to go out of business). My question then becomes, how come we don't make all contractors stick to their cost estimates?
While I understand that things change and work orders change, shouldn't the company which came in with the chosen bid be responsible for seeing through with their magic eight balls? Perhaps that is asking too much or asking in some instances for disaster. Cutting corners leads to bad things and I certainly wouldn't want a contractor to go cheap on materials because they were trying to make money. In any event, with all these cost overruns on projects that are making LRT look bad, I don't see why more isn't being done to make the bidders more responsible for their bids.
But today I saw something interesting out of Houston. The city is going to pay up front an extra $100 million for their contract and the bid winner will assume liability for any cost overruns during the project (assuming it doesn't cause them to go out of business). My question then becomes, how come we don't make all contractors stick to their cost estimates?
While I understand that things change and work orders change, shouldn't the company which came in with the chosen bid be responsible for seeing through with their magic eight balls? Perhaps that is asking too much or asking in some instances for disaster. Cutting corners leads to bad things and I certainly wouldn't want a contractor to go cheap on materials because they were trying to make money. In any event, with all these cost overruns on projects that are making LRT look bad, I don't see why more isn't being done to make the bidders more responsible for their bids.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Playing with Matches
It looks like an amendment was put into the federal transportation budget that would allow Detroit to use a LRT line that it builds with its own money for a federal funding match of the next segment. The funding for the initial segment would come from foundations. While lines have been funded philanthropically before such as Galveston's trolley, I believe this is a first to be funded primarily with foundation money.
The interesting thing about this amendment is that it would allow the Woodward Ave LRT to be constructed much faster than it would have otherwise under the usual new starts process. The general wait time for funding is 10 years and many cities find that such a time commitment increases costs and stretches political will. But there is a catch, the amendment doesn't say anything about the NEPA environmental process which could hamper the project. The amendment reads as follows:
Initially Houston looked into using the Main Street Line as a match for the next projects but that idea smoldered. Metro did however get an investment "credit" in the form of an Earmark for future fixed guideway construction. What happened to this money is unknown, though it seems as if it was just put into the pot for the five line expansion.
In 2005 Kay Bailey Hutchinson sought to fund 100% of two lines in Houston through the same mechanism while the city saved up for three others. This was blocked by Tom Delay and John Culbertson (who is still blocking the University Line) because they didn't feel it was following the law. Of course this was just a good excuse to block light rail for those two jokers. Houston eventually put the lines into the New Starts process and is seeking 49% of two out of five lines. Because they weren't able to use the first two lines as a match, they are likely leaving $270M on the table because they are not going for funding on two they are building on their own.
Salt Lake City looked to build their five lines faster by creating a memorandum of understanding whereby 20% of the total projects cost was funded by the FTA. This would fund the Mid Jordan Line at 78% federal and the remainder of the Draper line while UTA built the others as a match. However the office of management and budget rescinded this deal in 2008 when they felt that it was in violation of NEPA. It is believed that the feds decided that this wasn't legal because when the MOU was signed all of the lines entered into the contract with the federal government. Because not all the lines went through the NEPA process, it was thought that they would be constructed outside of the rules set forth by the federal government for environmental process. The FTA is said to still be honoring the deal, even if it is outside of the MOU document.
This was also worrisome to the FTA because it was seen as a precedent that would set off a wave of deal making which it eventually did with Charlotte. In 2008 Charlotte tried to make a deal that would have funded the Northeast Corridor at 80% while platform extensions for the South Corridor and the Northeast Corridor were constructed with local funds. This deal never came to pass. Finally San Francisco built the T Third line with local funds but went through the NEPA process therefor allowing it to be used as a match legally within the federal process. Nancy Pelosi still had to put an amendment in a spending bill but the line is currently being used as a match for the Central Subway project.
With all these examples, the federal match amendment still doesn't address the NEPA issue that came up in Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Ultimately it would be nice for cities to make big deals so that they can build transit networks faster than they would ultimately be able to under the current rules that keep lines in planning for ten years. So while Detroit might have gotten this match language, I would expect the OMB to jump in at some point and derail it because once the match project is seen as part of the whole deal, it is likely that they will believe the first segment would be subject to the rules of the new starts process including NEPA as well.
The interesting thing about this amendment is that it would allow the Woodward Ave LRT to be constructed much faster than it would have otherwise under the usual new starts process. The general wait time for funding is 10 years and many cities find that such a time commitment increases costs and stretches political will. But there is a catch, the amendment doesn't say anything about the NEPA environmental process which could hamper the project. The amendment reads as follows:
SEC. 173. Hereafter, for interstate multi-modal projects which are in Interstate highway corridors, the Secretary shall base the rating under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States Code, of the non-New Starts share of the public transportation element of the project on the percentage of non-New Starts funds in the unified finance plan for the multi-modal project: Provided, That the Secretary shall base the accounting of local matching funds on the total amount of all local funds incorporated in the unified finance plan for the multi-modal project for the purposes of funding under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code and title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That the Secretary shall evaluate the justification for the project under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States Code, including cost effectiveness, on the public transportation costs and public transportation benefits.But the reason why the amendment had to be created is because federal funding has lots of strings and these matches are quite tricky. And while many cities would like to skip the new starts process initially by building the first line themselves, the NEPA rules are not structured to allow this. Several different cities have tried successfully and unsuccessfully to do something similar with their match process however the key sticking point is always the NEPA process and following the environmental rules.
Initially Houston looked into using the Main Street Line as a match for the next projects but that idea smoldered. Metro did however get an investment "credit" in the form of an Earmark for future fixed guideway construction. What happened to this money is unknown, though it seems as if it was just put into the pot for the five line expansion.
In 2005 Kay Bailey Hutchinson sought to fund 100% of two lines in Houston through the same mechanism while the city saved up for three others. This was blocked by Tom Delay and John Culbertson (who is still blocking the University Line) because they didn't feel it was following the law. Of course this was just a good excuse to block light rail for those two jokers. Houston eventually put the lines into the New Starts process and is seeking 49% of two out of five lines. Because they weren't able to use the first two lines as a match, they are likely leaving $270M on the table because they are not going for funding on two they are building on their own.
Salt Lake City looked to build their five lines faster by creating a memorandum of understanding whereby 20% of the total projects cost was funded by the FTA. This would fund the Mid Jordan Line at 78% federal and the remainder of the Draper line while UTA built the others as a match. However the office of management and budget rescinded this deal in 2008 when they felt that it was in violation of NEPA. It is believed that the feds decided that this wasn't legal because when the MOU was signed all of the lines entered into the contract with the federal government. Because not all the lines went through the NEPA process, it was thought that they would be constructed outside of the rules set forth by the federal government for environmental process. The FTA is said to still be honoring the deal, even if it is outside of the MOU document.
This was also worrisome to the FTA because it was seen as a precedent that would set off a wave of deal making which it eventually did with Charlotte. In 2008 Charlotte tried to make a deal that would have funded the Northeast Corridor at 80% while platform extensions for the South Corridor and the Northeast Corridor were constructed with local funds. This deal never came to pass. Finally San Francisco built the T Third line with local funds but went through the NEPA process therefor allowing it to be used as a match legally within the federal process. Nancy Pelosi still had to put an amendment in a spending bill but the line is currently being used as a match for the Central Subway project.
With all these examples, the federal match amendment still doesn't address the NEPA issue that came up in Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Ultimately it would be nice for cities to make big deals so that they can build transit networks faster than they would ultimately be able to under the current rules that keep lines in planning for ten years. So while Detroit might have gotten this match language, I would expect the OMB to jump in at some point and derail it because once the match project is seen as part of the whole deal, it is likely that they will believe the first segment would be subject to the rules of the new starts process including NEPA as well.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday Night Notes
Design of train stations is important. My favorite airport in the US is Austin, because when you get off the plane, the high ceilings make you feel free from the cramped space. I think good train stations can give that same feeling.
~~~
Salt Lake City is looking at Streetcar network plans. Just another arrow in the quiver.
~~~
The Houston Chronicle interviewed the outgoing chairman of Metro. From afar, it seems like he's done a good job at moving the network forward. I hope he gets replaced with someone as good. Another interesting thing to note is the opposition from the congressional delegation. Sometimes I have to wonder why cities get represented by the suburbs, which seems to happen a lot, especially in Texas.
~~~
Salt Lake City is looking at Streetcar network plans. Just another arrow in the quiver.
~~~
The Houston Chronicle interviewed the outgoing chairman of Metro. From afar, it seems like he's done a good job at moving the network forward. I hope he gets replaced with someone as good. Another interesting thing to note is the opposition from the congressional delegation. Sometimes I have to wonder why cities get represented by the suburbs, which seems to happen a lot, especially in Texas.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday Night Notes
China is having the same issue with urban growth that we have with VMT. It seems as if they are growing so fast that it negates their sustainable development goals. This is just like driving in that we increase it so much that its likely to negate any fuel economy gains we make.
~~~
Tampa is looking at a transit tax in 2020. By the time they implement it and build something, I'll be 50. When I think about all the things that happened between 1950 and 1970 I'm amazed that we can move with such sloth these days.
~~~
Houston residents are getting ancy about their lack of euclidean zoning regulations. I kind of like the lack of definitions inside the loop. It's a nice experiment in what can happen, even though there really are parking and setback regulations.
~~~
Tampa is looking at a transit tax in 2020. By the time they implement it and build something, I'll be 50. When I think about all the things that happened between 1950 and 1970 I'm amazed that we can move with such sloth these days.
~~~
Houston residents are getting ancy about their lack of euclidean zoning regulations. I kind of like the lack of definitions inside the loop. It's a nice experiment in what can happen, even though there really are parking and setback regulations.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Heeey!!! Houston Gets a FONSI
Houston gets into the final design phase for two of its five light rail lines and gets development codes changed to promote pedestrian access to the stations. Not bad for the Texas home of oil industry giants.
On a somewhat related note, the new starts process acronyms that come with the announcement today are numerous and might as well be their own Klingon language. If we were speaking in transit nerd, we would say: "The two Houston corridors passed their NEPA test after they received a FONSI on their FEIS and obtained a ROD from the FTA. This allows them to enter into FD en route to an FFGA." No wonder everyone is so confused over the process. It takes years just to learn all the acronyms.
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact
FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement
ROD: Record of Decision
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
FD: Final Design
FFGA: Full Funding Grant Agreement
The council unanimously approved changes in development codes intended to promote dense, urban-style development along the Metropolitan Transit Authority's Main Street rail line and five planned extensions.Apparently they could have done more. Now if only they can get those parking requirements out of the way and persuade land owners that their property isn't worth as much as they think it is. One of the issues I heard along the line a few years ago is that property owners with vacant land near stations believed their land was worth way more than it really was because of the line, thus stalling development around some midtown stations. An interesting dynamic without "zoning".
On a somewhat related note, the new starts process acronyms that come with the announcement today are numerous and might as well be their own Klingon language. If we were speaking in transit nerd, we would say: "The two Houston corridors passed their NEPA test after they received a FONSI on their FEIS and obtained a ROD from the FTA. This allows them to enter into FD en route to an FFGA." No wonder everyone is so confused over the process. It takes years just to learn all the acronyms.
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact
FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement
ROD: Record of Decision
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
FD: Final Design
FFGA: Full Funding Grant Agreement
Friday, July 31, 2009
Magical Matching Funds
It looks like Senator Murry pulled a Pelosi in setting the terms of her own matching funds which again shows how the New Starts system is broken. People will continue to write in these rule changes for specific projects if the system continues to not work for them.
Murray's provision requires the FTA to count money from tolls and state gas taxes as part of the expected 40 to 50 percent of the light rail line paid for from "nonfederal" sources.The historical precedent for this was set by Nancy Pelosi when she decided that the Third Street line could be the match for the Central Subway and wrote it into law. Supposedly Houston has a similar deal writing in the Main Street Line as a match for the future network as well, but it hasn't really been mentioned much.
Included language allowing Houston METRO to get credit for state and local funds already spent on the design and construction of the existing Main Street light rail. This means METRO will be credited an additional $324 million for future FTA-approved transit projects.The point is that if lawmakers are going to continue to toss these things in, it probably means they are ready for a cleaner transportation bill that allows regions to spend money on what they need, instead of what there is money for specifically.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Things Going On
Check out this really cool/not cool video of the swaying Manhattan Bridge. Kind of freaky when you think about how many full bends it took to break that really hard chewing gum in an old pack of baseball cards or a paperclip.
~~~
Tom Toles is a great cartoonist.
Via GGW
~~~
Matt Johnson has a map of ridership on the Washington Metro. Pretty informative and good lookin.
~~~
Saying yes to the ballot measure that would outlaw streetcars in Cincinnati also outlaws any type of rail. What were they thinking?
~~~
2/3rds in California is really annoying for tax increases. Over 62% of citizens in Marin voted for the train yet they are fighting about whether the Sonoma+Marin = 2/3rds rule applies. When do we get rid of prop 13 again?
~~~
Shanghai Subway to be longest etc etc etc. The Chinese are moving fast.
Via Metro Librarian
~~~
Houston one step closer to sprawl inducing road.
~~~
A New York woman who owns a house near Columbia Pike doesn't like what will happen (italics mine):
~~~
~~~
Tom Toles is a great cartoonist.
Via GGW
~~~
Matt Johnson has a map of ridership on the Washington Metro. Pretty informative and good lookin.
~~~
Saying yes to the ballot measure that would outlaw streetcars in Cincinnati also outlaws any type of rail. What were they thinking?
~~~
2/3rds in California is really annoying for tax increases. Over 62% of citizens in Marin voted for the train yet they are fighting about whether the Sonoma+Marin = 2/3rds rule applies. When do we get rid of prop 13 again?
~~~
Shanghai Subway to be longest etc etc etc. The Chinese are moving fast.
Via Metro Librarian
~~~
Houston one step closer to sprawl inducing road.
~~~
A New York woman who owns a house near Columbia Pike doesn't like what will happen (italics mine):
A streetcar line would encourage further development along the Pike, generating windfall increases in property values to adjacent homeowners. I am one of those homeowners and lived in Arlington from 1991 until 2007. As much as I like to see my home value go up, I do not consider this an adequate justification for the proposed system.Of course it's not the only consideration. But what happens when all that further development is walkable and lessens the need to drive everywhere for everything.
~~~
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Importance of Employment Centers
Jarrett has an interesting post on how LA is more like Paris with their polycentric form than a more monocentric place like New York City. I've been looking all week at LEHD data, mapping out job clusters and have noticed that many places in the United States are polycentric. This is also something Richard Layman talks about a lot as well, but in a slightly different way.
For example, the Twin Cities has a number of job clusters that could be made walkable if given a push. It's quite possible that this is a better way to look at transit possibilities, rather than the traditional hub and spoke. Jared makes this point, but the proof is in how our regions are laid out and how people already commute. I don't have the maps here now, but most of the major clusters in the twin cities draw residents from around that cluster. Meaning many people live closer to where they work than we might have thought, they just don't live close to the major center of the region, but rather thier own major cluster.
This all leads up to talking about how to fill in the centers and connect those people to thier cluster. Chris Leinberger talks about Walkable Urbanism and building up centers. You can see this in DC where places have grown up around the Metro lines. In other regions, places have grown up where there are metro lines such as Atlanta, but also have grown densely but not as walkable in other places. Many of these places could be added to and reconfigured for walking.
I once thought Phoenix would be hard pressed to change its ways. But it has really good bones and a regional grid that is almost unmatched in the United States. There are also two major places outside of downtown that could be even more dense than they are today with greater access. They could already support high capacity transit, the one area north of downtown just got attached to the new light rail line.
North Central
Camelback Road
But you also have to do it right. In my travels to Denver, I noticed that the Tech Center which has the most jobs outside of downtown has fairly lousy access to the light rail line. This place will not transform as easily as it might have with the line running straight through the center of the density existing, density you can tell was created by cars.
Denver Tech Center
These pop up in other regions as well, and usually represent the best place to connect downtown with another major job center. These corridors also make for the best starter transit lines, especially if you're having to work with the cost effectiveness measure, because you're going to get the most riders from them. Houston knows this for certain, because in connecting Downtown to the Medical Center, they were able to build the highest passenger density new light rail line in the United states.
Medical Center and Rice University
In Atlanta, it's Peachtree outside of Downtown on MARTA and Buckhead just a bit further north. The point I've been trying to make is that more of these places could be created and ultimately connected together in a web with better transit. But it's much easier to demonstrate in pictures than with just words.
Peachtree
Looks kind of like Arlington no?
Buckhead Station in Atlanta
Which kind of looks like Bethesda
The biggest thing I think we see here is how if there is a station, the density fills in between the lines. The Phoenix example is just density for cars, not people. This all can change though, and more centers could pop up around the region to foster more walkable urban development. These centers need to be connected by transit, and if connected, will follow Jarrett's ideal:
For example, the Twin Cities has a number of job clusters that could be made walkable if given a push. It's quite possible that this is a better way to look at transit possibilities, rather than the traditional hub and spoke. Jared makes this point, but the proof is in how our regions are laid out and how people already commute. I don't have the maps here now, but most of the major clusters in the twin cities draw residents from around that cluster. Meaning many people live closer to where they work than we might have thought, they just don't live close to the major center of the region, but rather thier own major cluster.
This all leads up to talking about how to fill in the centers and connect those people to thier cluster. Chris Leinberger talks about Walkable Urbanism and building up centers. You can see this in DC where places have grown up around the Metro lines. In other regions, places have grown up where there are metro lines such as Atlanta, but also have grown densely but not as walkable in other places. Many of these places could be added to and reconfigured for walking.I once thought Phoenix would be hard pressed to change its ways. But it has really good bones and a regional grid that is almost unmatched in the United States. There are also two major places outside of downtown that could be even more dense than they are today with greater access. They could already support high capacity transit, the one area north of downtown just got attached to the new light rail line.
North Central
Camelback Road
But you also have to do it right. In my travels to Denver, I noticed that the Tech Center which has the most jobs outside of downtown has fairly lousy access to the light rail line. This place will not transform as easily as it might have with the line running straight through the center of the density existing, density you can tell was created by cars.
Denver Tech Center
These pop up in other regions as well, and usually represent the best place to connect downtown with another major job center. These corridors also make for the best starter transit lines, especially if you're having to work with the cost effectiveness measure, because you're going to get the most riders from them. Houston knows this for certain, because in connecting Downtown to the Medical Center, they were able to build the highest passenger density new light rail line in the United states.Medical Center and Rice University
In Atlanta, it's Peachtree outside of Downtown on MARTA and Buckhead just a bit further north. The point I've been trying to make is that more of these places could be created and ultimately connected together in a web with better transit. But it's much easier to demonstrate in pictures than with just words.Peachtree
Looks kind of like Arlington no?
Buckhead Station in Atlanta
Which kind of looks like Bethesda
The biggest thing I think we see here is how if there is a station, the density fills in between the lines. The Phoenix example is just density for cars, not people. This all can change though, and more centers could pop up around the region to foster more walkable urban development. These centers need to be connected by transit, and if connected, will follow Jarrett's ideal:
If you want a really balanced and efficient public transit system, nothing is better than multiple high-rise centers all around the edge, with density in the middle, because that pattern yields an intense but entirely two-way pattern of demand. If balanced and efficient transit were the main goal in Los Angeles planning, you'd focus your growth energies on Westwood, Warner Center, Burbank, Glendale and perhaps new centers in the east and south, while continuing to build density but not necessarily high rise in the middle.This way we can accommodate the complete market for housing, not just the segment that is single family, and most can have access to quality transit. We can also cut down on VMT while serving our polycentric regions with quality transit of all types.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Kinda Late Posted News
Getting Sleeeeepy...
Jarrett continues with the streetcar mobility argument alone. Starting to look like a manifesto on why cheap buses are better than "expensive" streetcars. Sorry, I just don't see it in that kind of a vacuum. After riding the 51 last week, I wish there was a streetcar on Broadway. Sure would keep me from having to hold on for dear life when the driver smashes the gas pedal or hits a bump in the road.
I love how engineers and others always try to be quantitative instead of qualitative. It's like everything has to be put into number format or measurable box. That's what got us our fun cost-effectiveness measure at the FTA. It's almost like Lord of the Rings. One number to rule them all!!!! Except when people know that number was created using BS four step transportation models that don't catch land use and externalities. But hey we've been doing it since forever so why stop now. - end late night rant.
~~~
"I can eat breakfast now"
~~~
No zoning huh? We should start calling Houston's regs car zoning instead of land use zoning.
~~~
More BRT boosterism about third world transit systems coming to your first world country. Does anyone really think Transmilenio is as smooth as the subway? Give me a break guys. And why are no subway systems applying for carbon credits?
~~~
And not quite transit, but transportation and land use law. Apparently if you buy parcels and land airplanes on them without a permit, people don't like that. Go figure.
Jarrett continues with the streetcar mobility argument alone. Starting to look like a manifesto on why cheap buses are better than "expensive" streetcars. Sorry, I just don't see it in that kind of a vacuum. After riding the 51 last week, I wish there was a streetcar on Broadway. Sure would keep me from having to hold on for dear life when the driver smashes the gas pedal or hits a bump in the road.
I love how engineers and others always try to be quantitative instead of qualitative. It's like everything has to be put into number format or measurable box. That's what got us our fun cost-effectiveness measure at the FTA. It's almost like Lord of the Rings. One number to rule them all!!!! Except when people know that number was created using BS four step transportation models that don't catch land use and externalities. But hey we've been doing it since forever so why stop now. - end late night rant.
~~~
"I can eat breakfast now"
~~~
No zoning huh? We should start calling Houston's regs car zoning instead of land use zoning.
~~~
More BRT boosterism about third world transit systems coming to your first world country. Does anyone really think Transmilenio is as smooth as the subway? Give me a break guys. And why are no subway systems applying for carbon credits?
In recognition of this feat, TransMilenio last year became the only large transportation project approved by the United Nations to generate and sell carbon credits.And more BS from Walter Hook. Three times as much to maintain? Where did that number come from? Is that with Columbian Bus wages?
Subways cost more than 30 times as much per mile to build than a B.R.T. system, and three times as much to maintain.Sigh.
~~~
And not quite transit, but transportation and land use law. Apparently if you buy parcels and land airplanes on them without a permit, people don't like that. Go figure.
Monday, June 15, 2009
More Busway to Tollway
Reader Jon points us to this LA Times article discussing new tollways. They don't mention that those HOV lanes were once dedicated bus lanes. The El Monte busway to the East was opened in 1974 as a bus only facility. The Harbor Freeway Busway was expected to get over 60,000 riders yet ended up with just 5,000. Now it will be a toll road. How long until the Houston HOV lanes that carry 40,000 bus passengers a day get the treatment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)