Anti-Sprawl Transit Chief?

Former Charlotte transit chief Keith Parker has pushed San Antonio towards Streetcar and BRT faster than anywhere else I've seen in the last few years.  He had just moved in to that position back in 2009.  According to the Express News, he hopes to have lines under construction by January of 2012.

The best part isn't the streetcar push though, it's that they are taking funding to spend on urban projects that would have been spent in unincorporated parts of the county.  

“Removing $55 million from the county,” he [opponent] said, “diminishes our ability to provide infrastructure services in unincorporated areas of the county.”

For those of you not familiar with Texas land use issues, unincorporated areas generally have no zoning restrictions and very little subdivision restrictions.  Regions like Houston have areas outside the city limits that form Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) to provide water and sewer infrastructure but ultimately they end up sucking a lot of transportation funding away from cities given their peripheral nature. To be fair, I grew up in a place that was once a MUD and then annexed by Houston.  It was well planned for a burb but most of them are not master planned communities that end up with 65,000 people.

In planning school one year we had class t-shirts that said "In the ETJ, no one can hear you scream".  The extra territorial jurisdiction is a part of the county which the city can't zone but can annex, meaning you're going to get the worst sprawl you've ever seen from those parts of the region.  So with this quote I was quite happy to hear that the county wasn't going to get sprawl generating funds and that it quite possibly could be used for a streetcar.

Spinning the Dials

The state is stepping forward to do scenario plans for the State of California. It will be interesting to see what the wizards over at Calthorpe associates can put together. They've done similar work for Salt Lake City, Austin, and Portland. But I don't think anyone has seen it done at this level before.

But even if a formal state plan doesn't emerge, Vision California could affect state policy. The impetus to reduce carbon emissions is one example: State agencies eventually could draw on the studies to require local governments to allow additional high-density development near bus and train stops. "Once we build the base cases, we have a tool where we can spin the dials," Calthorpe said. "Let's just get the information together. That's a giant step forward in itself."

Ultimately the scenarios will show how much the path we are going down now will cost. My guess is that it will be shocking but educational to know how much we just toss away.

Kinda Late Posted News

Getting Sleeeeepy...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Sprawling Plug

My buddy Tim at Planetizen co-wrote the kid's book on planning. I think it's doing pretty well except for that demon looking picture in the New York Times. Sorry bud, had to call it out. :)

Now they have put together a DVD on sprawl that features some famous names talking about how it all went wrong. Check out the lineup and watch some previews at Planetizen.

Urban Planning for Kids

A quick shout out to my buddy Tim Halbur. Aside from introducing me to a sweet Chinese New Year Scavenger Hunt that we do every year, Tim and Chris Steins (both of whom work at Planetizen) have written a book for kids based on the transect. I haven't read it yet but the New York Times has a profile on it today that I suggest reading. Apparently planning is getting cooler than it used to be. Congrats Tim!

Taking or Easement?

Bernie at Orphan Road found an interesting article from Spokane. Seems as if the local government is looking to preserve right of way through zoning. Is there a way to preserve ROW that isn't a taking but doesn't cost the city money? I would have thought this qualified as an easement where the city can push for the land owners to allow the city to use the property for a specific use such as ROW, but the city has to get permission from the land owner.

In Portland, the Lake Oswego rapid streetcar would run on an existing easement that allows the rail line to run. If the current shoreline trolley stops operating, the easement reverts to the original landowners. This was discussed in recent comments at Portland Transport.

MLK Linkfest

It was a nice day today and I took a bit of a walk around my neighborhood looking for odd things, I'll get to that in the next post, but I had a few articles I needed to get out so here they are:
~~~
Steve at Urban St. Louis has an amazing set of three aerial photos that show the degradation of MLK(before it was called such) over time due to "urban renewal" among other things. Check it out.
~~~
Matt discusses the coming Metrocalypse during inauguration.
~~~
India is talking high speed rail.
~~~
Cleveland gets 6th annual ridership increase. Things going well.
~~~
Richard Layman reposts a comment he originally left here about the WRI Purple Line study. Apparently the Shell Oil* funded think tank has been working on BRT studies around the world, but has never recommended light or heavy rail.
~~~
An El Paso paper editorial states that a rail line should be on the cities to do list.
~~~
A Dallas Morning News editorial calls for new buses to be CNG. How about more trolleybuses? Figure out a way to integrate the restructuring of the energy grid and the highest ridership routes in order to facilitate the reduction in particulate matter on the corridors and the long term alternative energy strategy. Buses are a 12 year investment, what will happen in 12 years? my guess is a lot.

Transfer of Development Rights

I've always thought this could be used for TOD, but never knew exactly how it would be implemented. In any event, Greater Greater Washington has a meaty post on TDR.

No Chump Change

If only we could link land use and transit better here in the United States. In Hong Kong and other places, development is part of the transit plan. Vancouver is about to hire some real estate folks to take care of its property development strategy.

TransLink intends to appoint a committee of local real estate experts to advise it on how best to make money developing land along future rapid transit corridors.

It's the latest wrinkle in TransLink's strategy to amass a major real estate portfolio in partnership with local developers that officials hope would generate at least $30 million a year and possibly much more.

Restructuring Property Tax to Land Alone

I don't remember posting this when it popped up, but its something I remember a classmate discussing in grad school and I just found it again after the break. At the ULI blog:

How about restructuring the property tax across America to install a two-tiered system? More tax on those horizontal pieces of empty land and asphalt, less on the buildings. That is, reduce the tax rate on homes and other improvements, and substantially increase the rate on the site value. I think such a system would induce more compact development and more infill work.

Pittsburgh has used the system for years until problems arose with the way assessments worked out, as my colleague and former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy has told me. Nonetheless, if assessments are fair, the higher land tax would bring vacant or woefully under-used central sites into use, giving new life to inner cities and reducing sprawl. It would also stem land speculation, which is the big engine behind house price escalation, thus stabilizing neighborhoods and keeping sale prices and rents more affordable. The land tax returns to government--the values it creates with bridges, roads, and other infrastructure--helping to pay for maintenance and necessary improvements.

I think this is a very interesting idea. This would keep large swaths of downtown land from continuing on in life as parking lots. But it might also have the effect of having something built, but not quite to the density that it really should be over the long term.

When Chickens and Eggs = Omelettes

Some want reversible carpool lanes, City Council members want light rail. This discussion ensues:

Regional transportation planners want to remake Foothill Drive to help carpools and express buses speed students and workers to and from the University of Utah. It's not enough for some Salt Lake City Council members, who heard the plan Tuesday but said they want light rail -- and not just up Foothill, but all the way to Park City. "Anything that encourages more cars is short-sighted and yesterday's planning," Councilman J.T. Martin said.
...
Martin and others said the plan focuses too much on moving cars through. Switching to light rail could help reshape land uses, leading to denser housing and new development east of the road, they said.

"What a wasted opportunity," Councilman Luke Garrott said of the Wasatch Front study. He agreed that the plan would cement the current landscape and promote cars instead of using light rail to reshape a major gateway to the city.

I don't know if I would say yesterday's planning, more like Highway Era. If we go back a little further, we did do it right. But semantics aside, he's got the right idea. But then here comes the study.

But in its study, the regional council dismissed light rail for the foreseeable future, partly because current land uses wouldn't support it, said Wasatch Front Deputy Director Doug Hattery.

So which is it? Will light rail shape the gateway or is the land use insufficient for light rail? In my experience it's both. If they put light rail there and hope for growth without any other interventions in land use or development policy, the train will end up being a worthless park and ride route to the city and university (Congrats Utes BTW).

But transportation decisions drive development policy as well. If there is no light rail, there is no reason to get away from business as usual in development. The organizing principle and parking reduction impetus is gone. Express buses and buses in general are land use serving. That is, they will follow the development instead of shaping it. I'm not sure if there is enough of a ridership base to support light rail in this corridor so don't count me committed to one opinion yet and I really don't like light rail in freeway medians, but if they design intelligently with the future in mind, or figure out a way to get what they want, they'll smartly come out of it with something better than business as usual, scrambled eggs and chicken soup.

Planning for Kids

Our friends at Planetizen (Tim "Treasure Hunt" Halbur and Chris Steins) have put together a kids book on planning as a way to engage kids early on as to what planning is and how it works. Check it out.

Illegal in Tulsa

During a planning session in Tulsa, many people played the usual game of looking at maps and discussing what they thought the future should look like. The problem? Most of what they wanted is illegal, meaning the zoning won't allow it.

"What we got out of that (the citywide workshops) is a pretty different view of Tulsa than the forecast we've seen for Tulsa," Fregonese said. "In fact, what was put on the maps is in many cases illegal; in fact, most of it is illegal, most of it is not permitted, let alone not planned for and not anticipated and not desired."

As Ryan mentions, in order to optimize these changes people want, we need to make the institutional changes to the zoning codes and planning that backs up our infrastructure spending.

Related Comedy

Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy.

This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require building of a hyperspatial express route through your system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for destruction. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.

Oh, there’s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years. You’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint, and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.

Follow "The Market"

Let's keep doing what we've been doing and expect different results.

Pulling Together Land Use & Transportation

It passed. AB 375 got the votes it needed to move forward bringing together transportation and land use planning.

Senate Bill 375 – commonly referred to in the popular press as the “climate change smart growth bill” – is going to become a law. The newspapers have been calling the legislation “precedent setting,” but it’s got nary a new idea in it. If you peel back the layers, you’ve got what old-timers like me call a “growth management law” – one that ties transportation funding to growth patterns.

It'll be interesting to see how this works if it works. According to Bill Fulton, Contra Costa County has adopted similar measures, but that hasn't stopped the sprawl in Brentwood and other places or moved transit funding away from roads there. Much of the transportation funding is going to a 4th bore in the Caldecott tunnel.

In somewhat related news, the Governor changed his mind and decided that he will sign bills that will go to the voters, not wanting to withhold them from a public vote. This means HSR prop 1a will be on the ballot.