The Noe Google Buses

These shuttle buses from Google (and other companies) come into the neighborhood in the evenings and mornings picking up tech workers and bringing them down to their respective south bay campuses. Many times I'll see the buses zooming up 24th street from the direction of the BART station on my way home and see them also almost bottom out at Dolores and 24th on the hill ridge. At times I myself will curse the Google kidz under my breath because of thier company heads' inability to locate near public transit so that these riders would patronize the system set up for everyone. How many of those workers would rather have a 15 minute ride on the J instead of a 40 minute ride to the campus.

I'm kind of torn on these shuttles. On one hand, it's a really huge freakin bus running up a residential street. But it is getting people that would likely be driving down 101 into more fuel efficienct ways. I don't have the same problem as others seem to have, complaining that affluent people have come to live in the neighborhood.



On the other hand, it's very stupid and un-environmental for these companies to locate such large office clusters away from conventional transit hubs. For all this talk of being green and forward thinking, companies like Google prove with their locational decisions that they don't understand how much transportation and land use plays into greenhouse gas emissions. But most of silicon valley is like that. Worst. Employment. Sprawl. Evah.

Because so many people want to live in a place that is walkable like San Francisco, you would think that businesses in the South Bay would look harder at trying to make more places like that instead of allowing even more junk down there. Facebook has actually caused a price spike in Palo Alto for helping thier workers live closer to work. I think this is a better solution than the shuttle buses but these companies are also skewing the local housing markets.

For "campuses" like Google, it seems that they could have built an office building downtown (they do have some offices in San Francisco) and saved more of thier employees money by allowing them to easily take transit to work. Instead they get more free parking which I would say if there is free parking at work, it is even more incentive to not live a location efficient lifestyle. Especially if you think you're special because you have solar panels over the parking. I wonder how much more Greenhouse Gases each of their employees emits because they drive a lot versus the amount of greenhouse gases those solar panels save.

Rising Values Near Transit in UK

There is an article in the Times of London on whether purchasing a home near transit is a worthwhile investment. In London people are willing to pay a premium to be near a tube stop and values around areas that will soon be stations are rising quickly.

The extension of the former East London Tube Line will run from West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Dalston Junction, and will connect with the Tube network at Whitechapel. A second phase, due to open in 2011, will continue the line through Canonbury to Highbury & Islington Tube station. The average house price has already risen from £187,800 in 2001 to £317,959 in 2007, according to Hometrack, and gentrification has arrived in the form of the Dalston Culture House and the relocation of the Vortex jazz club to new premises, as well as several new restaurants.
...
A 2005 report by the Passenger Transport Executive Group found that all UK tram schemes have led to increases in commercial and residential property values, in some cases by 15 per cent. Rental prices have risen by 7 percent.

What is most interesting though is something we never think of here in the United States. The warnings to some are that retailers won't be around until closer to the time that the new station opens.

But buyers must be prepared to wait. “The change will not be instantaneous. Some people who would never have considered living in an area without a Tube line will come immediately. Others will wait for the retail and restaurants.” Scotford urges buyers to be aware that retailers may not arrive immediately to the area because current leases will take a while to expire. But it should not take too long.

The fact that they expect retail that is within walking distance is a little bit different. Here there are a whole heap of issues surrounding the type of retail and whether there will be enough parking because around the station extensions, there is generally not enough density to support such retail without parking or other help from cities, but there it's expected. Kind of an upsetting commentary if you ask me.

Transit Energy Efficiency & Lifecycle Costs

We've seen any number of calculations of energy efficiency and green house gases in transit modes. Some a bit out there because of crazy assumptions for autos. Even our favorite libertarian O'Toole played the game. The problem with all of these is that they don't consider the whole picture, or what happens when buildings are built closer together and transportation makes it easier for people to walk. But I digress.

At Rail~Volution I saw a presentation by Tina Hodges at the FTA that had some cool charts and comparisons of modes. The one I've seen before is the increase in VMT versus what CAFE standards will do. Now we've seen that there is a bit of a drop recently due to the economy but with gas prices as they are and no change in habits, I still believe this will happen.


Then here is the difference between current occupancies vs. all of the vehicles full and over the lifecycle of the vehicle in the second chart. These are based on a UC Berkeley study by Mikhail Chester that considered vehicle construction, guidway construction etc. The list of items lifecycled are at the link. Apparently buses off peak are the worst and peak are the best, even better than rail lines. Yet rail lasts longer and attracts more passengers overall so on average is better. I didn't really have time to read the 332 page tome, but if you're interested go for it.


But the most interesting in the presentation to me was the difference between the Heavy Rail modes. BART is the most efficient while Cleveland is almost as bad as a single occupancy vehicle. The relative inefficiency of the EL was surprising to me as well.

Thought this would be of interest to folks. I have to say again that its necessary to not just measure the lifecycle and modes but rather the land uses and transportation, but its interesting to learn that this work is being done.

Paying the Rent

Insurance, depreciation and financing charges are major costs. "If you have two cars sitting in the garage, you can sell one for eight grand and that will help pay the mortgage,"

Who knew transit made money for you? The Washington Post has an article that in tone belays the shock that while gas prices are dropping, people are still taking transit. There are many who have known the benefits for years. It's like finding Narnia or something for those on the outside of urbanism though.