Go Underground Young Man!

Each time I go to a Rail~Volution conference I feel a bit revitalized.  For some reason just seeing people doing all the great work that they do really gets me excited about the future, even though it's always hard when recent politics dictates one step forward and two steps back.  I personally want to take 5 steps forward but we know that isn't how it works. 

Some of the best parts of the conference come from the stats and stories that people tell in the sessions and in the hallways.  Today I learned what "Festival Parking" in development projects was from Art Lomenick and yesterday learned about a CDC program that invests in communities looking to improve health outcomes. 

But one of my favorite comments came from one of my favorite public officials.  Harriet Tregoning mentioned in her session (and it was repeated in Streetsblog and STB posts) that subway tracking heavy rail is the best way to go when it comes to surface development.  While there are a few examples of it working around the country, I think the clean slate it affords developers and pedestrians is a huge bonus over the long term.

“In the short term, under-grounding can be very expensive, but in the long term it saves a lot of money,” Zimmerman said. The development that occurs above the station easily pays for the tunnel, and there’s significant savings on maintenance when rails are protected from the elements. But perhaps more important, there’s little difference between a transit line and an Interstate when it comes to fracturing the fabric of the urban environment. “A railroad takes up a lot of space and creates a barrier — something you can’t get across, like a highway,” he said.

This also brings up another thing I would like to see in regions around the country.  Usually we get into the chicken and egg question whether the transit or density needs to come first but ultimately I think transportation investment drives development investment and putting these lines underground allows us to think about these as a long term investment, even though people these days don't think that way.


What I would like to see is a program for building at least three line subway lines in each major city in the United States.  Now I'm not talking about these hybrid systems we get in the United States like BART but true central city Metros with transfer centers at the end that might stretch 3 miles from the center.  What this would do is push cities to make urban development legal.  The demand for development along major corridors stretches from the market generated around the gravity of central employment district.  The benefit is that if you can get further from the center in ten minutes by putting the line underground, you will be able to build higher and create more walkable, sustainable development than you would have with just the bus.  We see what a ten minute trip from downtown on a streetcar can do, we just need to get multiple modes going and augment with the subway. 

I know its dreaming because it can't really happen given the current environment, but its really what I believe should happen.  This model is there with the DC Metro, we just need to make it happen somehow.

Changing How We Think

Update: Some of this is just folks trying to kill transit projects by forcing them to restudy. But it would be nice if for the Red Line this was a serious thought at the start.

Already the new New Starts rules are starting to change thinking about transit investments. Now if we only had the money to construct these lines.

The committee wants MTA officials to take a look at “heavy rail” alignments for those proposals. Heavy rail is the mode used in the Baltimore Metro Subway, and MTA officials have insisted that it would be too expensive to win crucial federal approval.

But new Federal Transit Administration guidelines from the Obama administration have raised hopes among transit advocates that heavy rail might make more sense, because the consideration has been expanded to include more than just cost effectiveness.

Over Time

This is a great way to show the expansion of a system over time. Check out David Alpert's time lapse of Metro expansion. What is interesting to me is how its done slowly over time and in segments. I think a lot of cities can learn from this.

Four Two Through

Dave thinks there might be a correlation between the number of trains into a station and its development pattern. I think there is a bit more to do with it than that including market and available zoning allowances. But I think sometimes the market can be influenced by the amount of transportation available to an area over time.

For example I believe downtown Oakland was a little hamstrung when BART decided to split off trains to Fremont before going through a downtown Oakland station. With four lines instead of two going through downtown Oakland, it seems like it could have changed Oakland's equasion. Currently there is high frequency in the morning and evening rush, but at other times it could really use more trains into and from San Francisco. When there are opportunities to provide more service to a major destination, it seems like more service is a wise move that might be able to set the table for other improvements.

Is This Backwards?

If you wanted to see the tram, wouldn't you go try and ride it, instead of watching it from your car?

So many people turned out in their cars to watch the dazzling blue and silver trams, traffic jams lasted well past midnight in downtown Dubai, notorious for congestion, in the 40-degree heat.

New Metros Abound

Looks like we have new Metro segments in Dubai and Sofia. Trinidad could put theirs on hold. But funny regions are building Metro lines and in Sofia, they are cheap!

Construction of a further extension from Mladost 1 to the International Exhibition Center on Tsarigradsko Shose began on July 2 for completion in 2012. The €94m project includes 2·5 km of tunnel, one station and a car park.

Million Per Metro

Pinning good transit to a metro population level seems like a good idea to me. In India, regions of 1M or more population will now be eligible for 50% federal funding for a metro system if the locals paid the other half. Here in the United States, regions are lucky to get 50% funding for one commuter or light rail line. I think we should go even lower. A region of 750,000 or more should start construction so by the time that other 250,000 moved in they would have options as to where to live along the newly constructed lines.

Imagine if we had metro subways in all of our metro areas over 1 million people as a base for greater transit improvements. Considering between 1990 and 2005 about 45% of new transit trips were made on metro subway systems, it stands to reason that the construction of these networks connecting the major employment and population centers in a regions core will dramatically increase transit ridership. Look what has happened in Washington DC over the last 40 years or so. That is something we should emulate and India gives us a view into how to do it. Where's that type of vision for America?

Begin the Begin

I think Tom Radulovich hits the nail on the head with the basic tenants of this post. Infill stations are a no brainer, especially where suggested and core capacity and operating should be addressed. Don't forget to check all the rosy ridership assumptions at the door. However I don't think we can just sit and rest on our laurels. We need to find ways to build in greater capacity within Oakland, San Francisco and to a certain degree San Jose so people don't rely on thier cars as much. And while there are several BRT lines on the books, that is not going to be enough to deal with the rising tide of need. The longer term needs to be considered right now including that second tube and more urban extensions. Currently the plan calls for that tube, but more and more outward extensions are planned, meaning more and more funding will go to places that shouldn't get it. It's an export of our tax dollars to elsewhere and a practice that should be rectified.

San Francisco should have built a true Metro long ago and I still believe that is one of the major things this city can do to enhance existing service and get people out of thier cars (There are also a million little things that should be happening as we speak) As other cities have shown, 10,000 passengers per mile is possible with greater network connectivity. If we have core rapid transit within San Francisco and Oakland with quality bus and trams as redundancies and networks, there's no reason why we can't get a million more trips a day. Sure that might sound like a daunting number, but we need to look into the future of what is needed.

When my grandmother was born, there were still streetcars in every major city and very little automobile traffic. In her lifetime, there has been a huge change. Systems such as BART and WMATA have been constructed and the region has invested billions in its highway systems. We CAN invest in our future again. There's no reason why another Great Society Subway can't be constructed. And for those who say we don't have the money or that we're asking for the impossible, take a look at yourself and ask why that is.

You can call me a dreamer or an ivory tower thinker. Worse things have happened. But I'd hate to look back and see some kid like me drawing fantasy lines on a map and wishing that we would have invested in his generation, instead of just thinking of ourselves and our own defecits of imagination. If we listened to the same types of people that said no then, we wouldn't have a BART or Muni system to worry about now. Imagine San Francisco without rapid transit at all.

While we might not be able to plan and construct Metros right now, we can start to think about how a better region can emerge from our planning. Just because we don't have money now doesn't mean we should toss out these ideas or shouldn't plan for them. It just means we need to incubate them, for that point in the future when they should bloom.

Cost Effectiveness Strikes Again

Is it worth it to single track a major section of transit investment that isn't towards the end of the line? This seems really insane but it's also what the cost-effectiveness measure has done to transit projects. It's stuffed them in this current box instead of thinking about complete life-cycle of the corridor. Baltimore single tracked its first light rail line only to spend much much more later on as well as give a lot of commuters headaches. It also depressed ridership greatly sucking the wind out of an existing line while the upgrade was made.

I'm not against single tracking in all situations as Denver's West Corridor single tracking at the end of the line seems like a good cost cutting measure that can easily be remedied later. But single tracking a tunnel for a mile in a more central section only seems like asking for train delays if the schedule gets bumped even a little bit. Let's get rid of this cost-effectiveness measure. This would just push costs down the line, instead of truly being effective.

It's the Priority, Not the Perception

Carol Coletta who has her own NPR show called Smart City muses on buses and their image issue:

As I travel U.S. cities, it is unusual for public transit not to come up as a priority. But buses are rarely mentioned. Cities want the sexy stuff -- light rail, trolleys and trams. I was reminded of this as I was reading again about Bogota's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and London's newly redesigned buses.

Aside from mass implementation, there is not much that can be done to improve the feel of riding the bus. Oakland tried this with buying the Van Hools (a whole other discussion) and many other agencies have tried or are trying small fixes such as San Francisco's stop spacing redo. It's still a bus and it has it's function in the transit spectrum. The problem is that it runs in traffic with cars and stops every other block. And all United States systems are woefully underfunded, bus or otherwise, such that better diversity in service is not provided.

But then there is this:

And the TransMilenio carries none of the negative stereotypes associated with buses.

Say what? Just because Enrique Penalosa says that doesn't mean it is so. I've obviously never been to Bogota nor plan on going, but the BRT there has many freeway centered sections and still runs on rubber tires and still operates using a third world pay scale for its drivers. This means no pedestrian friendly TOD opportunities around the station and you're still on the bouncy bus when the concrete shifts. Not to mention the crowding and operating costs.

Flickr photo by Pattoncito

I understand the allure of BRT, and I honestly think that more bus routes should get a lane such that BRT is more the norm in dense urban areas. This only comes with a change in our own perceptions of what is a priority, not so much the current perception of what buses are. This means building more metro systems, more light rail, and dedicating more lanes to transit and bikes. That is a fundamental shift that needs to happen, not just focusing on making buses a tiny bit better by renaming them.

Let's See if Coburn is Still a.....

Seems as if Steny Hoyer is going to take up the mantle of getting WMATA some money. It's really sad that it continually has to be death that wakes people up .

On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he plans to seek $3 billion for Metro transit capital improvements, some of which would likely be spent to replace some those old Series 1000 cars, purchased between 1974 and 1978.

But they've tried to help Metro before. Hopefully people like Coburn will stop being jerks. Anyone remember this gem?

Legislation that would mandate collision-avoidance systems for trains is being blocked by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who objects to a provision that would provide a major funding boost for Amtrak that was bundled together with the safety measures this week.
...
Mr. Coburn also opposes a provision that would steer $1.5 billion to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, saying passengers and local authorities should fund mass-transit operations in the nation's capital.

72% Are Walking

72% of people who use the Orange Line in the R-B corridor walk to the stations.

Not Just the Work Trip

Ben Ross of the Action Committee for Transit testified before a House panel to discuss cuts to the Metro system. His testimony was good, but what most interested me was the move towards non-work trips in the ridership department.

In Washington, the trend toward transit goes back ten years. Metrorail ridership started to go up in 1998 after a decade of little change. Since then it has grown at breakneck speed. Average weekday ridership rose from 528,000 in May 1998 to 752,000 in May 2008 – an increase of 42% in just 10 years. That far exceeds population growth. Despite the worsening economy and falling gas prices, ridership in recent months has continued to be significantly higher than a year earlier.

We can better understand what is happening by looking at these data in more detail. The biggest growth in transit use is not for traditional commuting trips, but for non-work travel. A fundamental shift in lifestyle is occurring as people no longer organize their lives around the automobile. Between 1999 and 2007, Metrorail boardings during the morning rush hour – a good measure of commuting travel – increased 33.5%. But ridership increased 47% on Saturdays and 57% on Sundays.

It's become cooler to save money, walk more to your destinations and take transit. But this was also because Washington gave the option. You see, it isn't so cut and dry as the sprawlagists would like you to believe. Give people the choice to drive or take transit, some will choose transit and some will choose to drive. Give them one choice and well they will drive. It's pretty simple actually. Invest in transit service and it will give people a reason to use it. Especially if you have a good subway system like Metro tied to frequent buses, commuter rail, and Amtrak.

Russian Subway Dogs

I bet you didn't know that stray dogs in Russia had gotten so smart that they have become accustomed to riding the subway to and from "work". I think this is a bit of a spoof and hilarious. What do you think?

Bruxelles Finishes Subway Segment

Our friends over at spagblog have an update on the completion of the last part of the circle line in Brussels.

Passengers travelled for free on the 4th of April on the Brussels Metro, on the occasion of opening the last segment of the circle line, connecting Delacroix and Gare de l’Ouest stations. The whole metro network has been reorganized as well: The 2 line leaves and arrives in at Simonis, where every second train continues to Roi Bauduin as line 6; and the remaining 3 branches of the former 1A/B line are served by lines 1 and 5.

China Metro Extension

Line 4 phase II gets the go.

"Virgin" Rail's No Kissing Zones

Virgin rail is urging people to move along after they are dropped off at the train station. This has prompted a no kissing zone. I can understand if its crowded but don't stick too close to the name...

Virgin Rail says that if passengers want to share an embrace before they part company, they should pay to park their cars nearby where they can kiss all they want.

Photo via Independent UK

H +T Revisited

The place where Transit Oriented Development has thrived since the decision to build in a subway instead of down the center of a freeway is now the location of the most affordable option for living in DC.

The report, prepared in partnership with the Center for Housing Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology, measures combined housing and transportation costs for 22 areas within the DC region. Close-in Arlington County recorded the lowest combined costs, at 39 percent, while outlying areas such as Clarke County recorded the highest costs, at 58 percent.

One wonders what might have happened if the Orange Line had not been built as it was. With all the extra density, would all those people have moved further out to the suburbs? Would they be driving more? How much more energy would be expended? Yet I imagine if that line were considered today, it would not even come close to passing the cost effectiveness measure set in front of every transit project to trip it up. It shows what we should be trying to do. National metro subway plan anyone?

One Million Riders

You know you want to say it like Dr. Evil. WMATA rocked it's all time high with an exclamation point. This was forcast by many before so it wasn't too much of a surprise, but its still an achievement. On that note, Richard has a post up about capacity and the additional costs of capacity and makes the case for those people paying more that use it at peak due to capacity built explicitly for peak travel instead of average travel.

At the same time, Ryan notes that this super ridership record should make the region think about increasing core capacity with new subway lines and streetcars. I tend to agree. More core capacity can only increase mobility and perhaps let out a bit of a relief valve. Other cities such as Budapest are still building core lines in the central city (like line 4, line 5), we should be doing that as well.

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.