Can One Development Catalyze a District?

And is it right to be developing once vital industrial land? It's a question that often comes up that I don't quite know the answer to. Here in Oakland many properties in West Oakland have been deemed off limits to commercial or residential development. Many council members want to preserve the industries that provide much needed jobs and an economic boost.

In Denver, there are developers who are looking to revitalize the South Broadway area around the Evans station that is primarily industrial. Much of the project is a mixed use redevelopment on six acres that was once a superfund site. The developer is a single developer which also begs the question of how a market gets started. Once he proves that the area is changed and continues to build more and more projects, other folks will follow suit. But ultimately the developer is the one who will boom or go bust.

I find this interesting because everyone is always looking for the next big neighborhood or district. In the past improvements have been predicated on good bones. The gridded street network already exists and a light rail station is already near by. But at the moment the market isn't there. Could it be a single developer who creates a market? Or are markets organic and ultimately unpredictable. I guess we'll find out.

Pressure

Some telling comments from the Austin Chronicle:

Council Member Sheryl Cole sits with Leffingwell on the Transit Working Group; she had heard Allen say there he believed pressure to meet a November 2004 rail referendum deadline had shortchanged the design and engineering work on the Red Line. In Allen's assessment, inadequate early planning, design, and engineering work, combined with a failure to engage sufficient outside expertise, had led to an unrealistic budget and schedule.

I wrote about the quick switch from LRT to Commuter Rail in my Master's report. Capital Metro had only been working on the Red Line plan for a few months before they made the decision to put it before voters in the summer. They had been talking about LRT up until January of 2004. Contacts at UT had mentioned that Capital Metro had stopped talking to them cold turkey to pursue this other plan. From my Masters report (Thesis)

According to John Rishling, Vice President for Campus Planning at the University of Texas, light rail planning continued until January of 2004 when talks with John Almond, the lead engineer for the rail project, all of the sudden stopped. Rishling stated that the Pickle Research Center in North Austin between the red line and the Union Pacific line is being planned as a residential campus for students of the University of Texas and transit was needed to connect it to the main campus. Maps in Rishling’s office suggest light rail be built down San Jacinto Street but even by August he had not heard anything from the transit agency except for what he read in the news...In March of 2004 Capital Metro announced their proposed system.

From Doug Allen's account it seems as if they didn't have enough time to think this plan through before the election. More than likely they devised the plan for the Red Line in two months based on years of putting the alternatives against each other. In other words it smells of bad push politics from people like Mike Krusee, which we knew all along was spinning away from light rail and pushing for rail towards his district, not in Capital Metro's service area.

But even more hidden gold from interim CEO Doug Allen:

In October's meeting, Allen said the cost of the Red Line commuter rail system "probably could and should have" been $300 million (to build it out properly, with double tracking) to serve the transit ridership potential in that corridor – still a good price for a 32-mile system.

I don't think this should be hard for everyone to understand. 38,000 riders for LRT in 2000 versus 2,000 riders for Commuter rail in 2004. It's not rocket science. The politics was messy and Capital Metro allowed themselves to get pushed into it. This didn't start with the current contractor, this started back before 2000 with Krusee who was head of the House Transportation Committee. Again from my Masters Report:

Representative Krusee proposed a starter red line replacing the 1998 consultant’s green line light rail in 2000. Consultants in 1998 believed that the green line was a better route for ridership production however it was turned down by the voters in 2000. It seemed that commuter rail was on Senator Krusee’s mind even before the 2000 election. In a 2000 Austin American Statesman article, he was quoted, “I wish they would be more open-minded to alternatives to light rail”.

His fixation on that freight line led to a poorly planned line and here we are seeing the results in 2009. Thanks Mike, glad you had your revelations after you lost your power to do anything about it.

Half the Story McCrory

While it would be nice to believe that Light Rail changed the world in Charlotte, Mayor McCrory is doing a bit of oversell if this article is complete evidence of what he said to some streetcar folks in Fort Worth.

McCrory is credited with pushing through a transportation plan that, with the help of a $200 million federal grant for light rail, revitalized blighted Charlotte neighborhoods. On Friday, he visited with about 200 advocates of returning electric trolleys to the Fort Worth streets.

Now that light rail is on the ground in Charlotte, he said, "our bus ridership is not just people who have to have it but people who want to ride it. Bus ridership is all races and classes. The bus system is unbelievable now."

What happened in Charlotte was not only the construction of light rail and the planning for a rapid transit network, but most of the half cent sales tax went into improving bus service. This is what the referendum focused on back in 2007. If passed, it would have severely hampered the bus system as well as the LRT expansion. But as a reward for the investment, Charlotte has had substantial gains in ridership directly related to the upgraded network and improved service.

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:

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.

Tuesday Night Notes

I don't know if I want my buses to be described as “Quiet as a tomb”
~~~
If Oklahoma City builds a streetcar before much of the country...
~~~
The opposition in Madison wants to pull an Austin by having an election before all the facts are in. This happened in 2000 and things worked out pretty well....right?
~~~
Streetcars and traffic are tricky. Yonah is right that these issues should be dealt with but every place is different and will have different solutions.
~~~
Salt Lake City residents can have more bars! Put them near transit they say.

"Clustering bars near public transit, they agree, could reel in visitors, reduce drunken driving and send a signal that Utah's capital doesn't shut down after dark. "

What is "Economic Development"?

What comes to mind when someone says that light rail, streetcars, or BRT will bring economic development? My first guess is that people imagine that more buildings will be constructed along the route and the economic impact of that construction is what comes to mind. But what about other measures of economic development like worker productivity and connectivity to the regional employment pool?

I think too often economic development comes in one form when we're talking about transit, which I think might be going down the wrong path. We know that transportation decisions which provide or increase access to a place are likely to increase its value and ability to develop. But what about all the other benefits such as fostering denser employment clusters or connecting workers of all economic levels to regional jobs? Increases in the quality of workers that an employer has access to is another measure of economic development. Allowing workers to save money on transportation in order to spend it elsewhere is local economic development as well.

The related issue is who gains from this economic development. With the building construction based economic development, its easy to assume that developers and the people that buy the new condos are the only ones who benefit. This type of thinking creates a flash-point on which opposition to your project can zero in on to say you're not helping the people that need it the most. It's a valid concern but it's also missing out on the creation of tax base that goes back into the budget for the whole city to use. Denser areas for their part are huge economic engines. Not discussing this larger view of economic development is doing a disservice to the project, especially when you think through how the specific project will or will not help the situation.

If the main reason for a project is economic development, it would be helpful to describe the economic outcomes that you expect to achieve with the project. A streetcar or light rail line is going to provide a mobility benefit, but it is how we talk about those benefits that ultimately allow people to understand what the project is really about. Many projects don't do a good job at this and are maligned by the opposition. Many bad projects get oversold, hoping that "economic development" will save the day. I believe the key is to figure out whether the project is doing what its supposed to be doing, and move forward from there.

Light Rail Kills Babies 2

That's what the opponents told the folks in Salt Lake City. They've come a long way since then and are probably doing the best job of just getting things built of anyone in the country.

But now the opponents are going with the next common denominator attack. If they build light rail, say they should have built BRT. If they built BRT they would be saying only use buses such as is happening in Oakland. This is at the time when UTA is actually building out a real transit network with all different transit modes including streetcars, light rail, BRT and bus networks.

"I don't think it's done any great favors to transit down here," said Salt Lake City resident Stephen Pace, who led the anti-rail group Utahns for Responsible Public Spending. He said UTA should have focused instead on buses that have the same right-of-way preference over cars as trains, but are more flexible and require a less massive investment.

This is the ugly side of the mode wars where people who fight it don't think ANY money should be spent on transit, even if they say in public we should. It's not a nod to smart planning ideas but rather what is cheaper. It shows because these attacks come amongst vigorous transit expansion in all modes. It's also interesting that opponents are starting to attack the conservative credibility of UTA's leaders. A lot of the anti-tax folks are coming out to argue against any spending via taxes.

Pace rails against the "so-called" elected officials who champion fiscally conservative values but are "just as deep in the federal trough as anybody else" to fund TRAX extensions into their communities.

It makes me wonder, what is fiscally conservative anyway in terms of development and infrastructure expansion? Is it doing nothing?

This is also happening in Tampa where anti-tax conservatives are starting to feel as if they were left behind by their elected officials who understand that infrastructure is better funded collectively. The polarizing effects of the national debates are starting to trickle down to pure ideologies.

How ironic that Republicans, one of whom I first supported over 20 years ago, and one who pledged never to impose new taxes when he came seeking my assistance in running his first campaign several years ago, would be the leading proponents of a new tax that could siphon as much as $300 million per year from the residents of Hillsborough County.

What's even better is that the author of the Tampa article also believes that people have a choice whether to spend money on gasoline or not, even when they construction of the communities they live in are based on the automobile alone.

Sharpe writes that the proposed tax increase of $85 per person is "... less than the three-week price rise in the cost of gasoline." Perhaps. But the option of paying for gas is ours and not an imposed burden by our government.

Funny that imposed burden.

Infrastructure Spending

There's an article in the New York Times that discusses the lack of major infrastructure projects around the country funded by the Federal Government. For the most part it seems as if major infrastructure projects are having to go at it alone locally.

Another approach is to finance new projects several notches smaller in cost and boldness — and in contribution to economic growth. Denver and Salt Lake City, for example, are extending light rail and bus lines into the outlying suburbs, at a cost of less than $5 billion apiece.

The Federal Government is a limited partner in these investments. For example while the Feds pay 90% of freeway expansion, more recent experience for these transit projects shows there is only a 50% match, and in more recent new starts reports that has been sliding down. Denver for example is asking for less than 40%.

With federal funds dwindling it also begs the question, if the Federal Government is not going to give regions funding for projects, why are regions sending the federal government any gas tax money? Sometimes it seems like a fairly inefficient funnel. Ultimately the MPO is the acting federal government at a regional level where there usually is no real governance. Since regions are the economic engines for the country, it makes a little sense but the federal government has too much power to tell regions what they can and can't spend money on.

But the benefits of having the federal funding mechanism dialed into the region is during a severe downturn. Ultimately that funnel can become a spigot pushing projects faster than they would normally go by providing jobs. In thinking about it this way, perhaps something they can do to help places like Denver or Salt Lake City is take over the capital funding for already under construction projects and allow those cities to use their existing capital money for operations or other projects. There are plenty of places that already have transit networks that could get pushed up if there were a guaranteed capital outlay.

I don't quite understand why the large goal oriented projects have stopped or are at least slowed. My only guess is that things have become so politicized and the no taxes groups have taken over the political landscape, making everyone else afraid to make a decision without getting hammered politically. Ultimately there needs to be a way to pay for needed infrastructure improvements, even outside of a crisis.

Station Locations and Employment Centers

I don't quite get why folks in Bellevue are so set on keeping transit out of the center of the employment district. For some reason many of them irrationally believe that the line will end life as we know it, yet in all respects the line will improve the center's economic standing by providing more access to the jobs for the regional workforce. The solution of one Bellevue council member is to place a station along the freeway and provide a long walkway to the center of the district.

Others argue that Denver has a bus connection, so why should it be that big a deal that the employment center is connected to the train station by a bus? For one thing, Denver's bus mall is dedicated to transit alone and has buses coming so often that you can always see the next one approaching. I seriously doubt that a place which has fought against light rail so hard would put dedicated bus lanes downtown and run such a service. But really what is the point of rapid transit if it doesn't go into the center of activity? The more apt comparison is Bellview station in Denver (funny how the names are the same) right next to the tech center, which we have discussed in previous posts. That should be used as an example of what to avoid when locating a station near a major employment center.

Apparently there is a lot of research that discusses the issue as well. Robert Cervero has looked at this issue in a paper called Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices. Ultimately the findings show that the further the station is away from office buildings are, the less likely workers are going to use transit. If the station is near the office, workers are three times more likely to take transit to work.

Also employment density matters as well. The greater the employment density, the more people will take transit. In the Bay Area, the Cervero paper cites statistics that for every 100 workers per acre more, 2.2 increase in commuting by transit. In the Twin Cities, Professor Gary Barnes of the University of Minnesota found that the central city and CBD were greater attractors of transit ridership than suburban offices. So for every increase in 1000 people per square mile in residential density, CBD ridership increased by 2.43%, central city destinations increased by 1.15% and suburban job locations increased by .63%. Ultimately where you are going matters just as much if not more than where you are coming from.

For light rail lines, transit ridership increases the more jobs are within a half mile of the station. Using LEHD data, if you look at recently constructed light rail lines and employment within a half mile of the station, the number of jobs is related to the number of riders that a line gets. Here are a number of recently constructed lines charted against workers.

So with all this evidence why would anyone ever think about running a line outside of an employment district instead of right through it to capture more riders? The goal should be to boost and improve accessibility for workers, who make up 60% of transit ridership, not make it harder for them to use transit.

Previous posts on this subject:

Importance of Employment Centers
When Road Engineers Do LRT

No Traffic

It's the title to a great album by a band called the stereo. It's also the scream given off by NIMBYs everywhere in their quest for the status quo. Most recently developers of the Sacramento Railyards won versus the traffic tattlers who cried traffic when the rail yard development environmental impact statement didn't say that the traffic and pollution was going to be too scary to build the project.

Kopper, who filed one of the lawsuits, said despite the court ruling, he believes the city hasn't adequately reviewed potential consequences of the added traffic. "The public and decision makers really do not know how much impact this project is going to have on the traffic before voting for it," he said.

But why should it? This project is going to put 12,000 housing units and 25,000 people right at the terminal of the eventual CAHSR line and on the doorstep of downtown. If anything, this project is going to slash VMT and environmental impacts that would have resulted in those 12,000 units being situated elsewhere in the region. In theory its the perfect example of the trip not taken. I'm worried about the foot traffic.

The Market Must be Right

There's an article from London Ontario with the ever awesome Troy Russ of Glatting Jackson discussing what light rail can and can't do. One of the things it can't do is change the market around its stations. While there is a lot of hope out there that just building a light rail line will solve most if not all the worlds problems, hope alone won't make it so.

"The biggest misconception about transit is it's the reason development happens," said Russ, a planner in an American company, Glatting Jackson, who has designed rail lines in Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Orlando and stations in Denver.

Much development we've seen with recent light rail lines has been from the ability to expand the sphere of a market like downtown, but not change it. The line also has the power to shape an existing market. This is what the Portland Streetcar did when it pushed most of the development in downtown for the last decade along its corridor. I also believe that the streetcar allowed the market in Portland to feed on itself creating a synergy that wasn't possible without it or regulations that shaped growth around it.

So I would urge caution when pumping up that local light rail project or streetcar as the answer to a lack of development pressure. Alone without other regulatory help that swings the pendulum away from today's road paradigm, the tracks will lay dormant. But if you can figure out where the market is going to be next and lay down the rules, it's likely that shaping the development will be as easy as aligning poles on a magnet.

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.

Stories Like This

When I see headlines like this, It makes me a bit upset.

"Woman Raped Along Uptown Light Rail Line"

Not just because someone was violated against their will, but also because the insertion of along Uptown Light Rail Line vilifies the line itself for something it really had nothing to do with. If you read closer into the story, the woman was not riding the light rail line and was assaulted downtown walking on a sidewalk. Could have been any sidewalk and she could have been leaving any bar. But the headline screams "transit is dangerous". These kind of associations happen all the time and will continue to happen. I just wish they didn't.

Monday Night Notes

Have you ever had a picnic on the grass on a major bridge?
~~~
Officials in India are calling for high rises. I'm surprised they didn't go up before.
~~~
Businesses in the UK are starting to use carshare companies instead of keeping their own fleets.
~~~
Integrating BRT with a Metro should be a no brainer.
~~~
I can see why folks in East LA wanted a subway. Its a dense area and it would have been nice. But whining about it and getting upset right before it opens seems a bit lame to me.
~~~
Lots of regulation of safety on commuter rail are causing a strain.

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...

Quote of the Day

From the Edmonton Journal:

"The LRT is not just about moving people," says Bob Boutilier, the general manager of the city's transportation department. "It's about building a city."

I wish more transportation leaders would get this simple point.

Tuesday Night Notes

Vancouver puts its hopes along the Canada Line into TOD
~~~
Is City Living the way to a wealthier nation? I'm not sure if it's just city living. I think it's creation of wealth through location efficiency. But currently our rules are set up to not let that happen.
~~~
Charlotte is master planning at the North End rail yards south to Dilworth. Wonder if they are thinking about the Ringstrasse? Could tie it together quite nicely.
~~~

El Paso - Juarez Commuter Rail?

They are thinking about it:

On Tuesday, Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz and most of the Juarez city council accepted a resolution from the El Paso city council, saying the two cities will work together to create a commuter line between the sister cities.

"We Don't Dwell"

Yay FTA Models. You totally rule at figuring out ridership in new light rail cities. You did a bang up job in Minneapolis (24K in 2020, current 26k), really got those Houston numbers right for 2020 (33k in 2020, current 38k), and Charlotte was right on target(9k opening, current 14k). Note: the APTA daily numbers are a bit wonky. I don't know if I completely trust them to the rider but they make the point.

Now we can add Phoenix to the list of FTA model lowballing:

The rail was projected to attract 26,000 riders per day, but the number is closer to 33,000, boosted in large part by weekend riders.

What kills me about all this lowballing, is what the cost effectiveness number was, and what it SHOULD have been. Ultimately that is what decides projects. And it's a little messed up that the FTA keeps getting it wrong, especially when they can kill a project because of a CE below Medium. Oh, and here's the money quote from the opponents:

Starlee Rhoades, the spokeswoman for the Goldwater Institute, a vocal critic of the rail’s expense. “I’ve taken it,” Ms. Rhoades said, slightly sheepishly. “It’s useful.” She and her colleagues still think the rail is oversubsidized, but in terms of predictions of failure, she said, “We don’t dwell.”
...
“We are also proponents of paying your own way, and we think the light rail remains too subsidized.”

That's right, you're in the New York Times saying the light rail is useful and full of people after you said no one would ride it. In fact, your institute is just like every other that goes around and spreads doom and gloom everywhere. And what is the fascination with subsidies? I guess I'll never get that end of the argument.

Tuesday Night Notes

Tram trains in are starting in England. It would be interesting to see if cities in the United States start looking at tram trains as a model.
~~~
Kemper Freeman really doesn't get the gold mine he could be standing on.
~~~
Apparently the Lehman collapse has slowed Caltrain's electrification. From house testimony:

Losses in our county alone, for example, include: $25 million in San Mateo County Transit Authority funds that will stall planned electrification of the Caltrain Peninsula Commuter Rail Service