CEI: Magic Numbers From a Magic Computer

This is directly related to a number of previous posts that I've had about the dumb cost-effectiveness measurement that the FTA uses. Apparently now we're calling an important investment based on a magic number now. How did they choose that magic number? Well it has to do with ridership and travel times and cost of the project. You're not allowed to use transit oriented growth, just what the MPO predicts for the district surrounding the station from an outdated 2000 census. Economic development isn't included which produces value for the region, the FTA will say that travel time includes this measure and they say that with serious faces. Don't expect to count VMT reductions because thats just not possible either. Cities starting out don't get to use a rail bias which we know exists. The Pioneer Press Reports:

In its simplest form, the CEI is a basic ratio: capital and operating costs divided by time saved. "Another way to say it might be 'cost per user benefit,' " said Arlene McCarthy, head planner for the Metropolitan Council, the lead agency heading up the Central Corridor effort.

...

The computer programs that calculate the CEI draw on transportation data from the census, honed down to areas the size of a few city blocks. The programs look at the entire region and attempt to project what commuters would do differently if the rail were built this way or that way.

There's even a sub-variable in that portion known as "rail bias," which states that some people never take buses but will give up their cars to take a train. It's real, planners say. No one knew the metro area's rail bias before the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis was built, and they say that's one of the reasons that Hiawatha's ridership today is 58 percent higher than projected before construction.

Cost per user benefit. Not benefits that the project brings to everyone, just the user. That one person. I wonder what would happen if they applied this index to highways.

In any event, here the article about that ridiculous index that has kept many a city from building a transit line. It might not let Minneapolis build the Central Corridor, because they want to build a tunnel to bypass the heavy foot traffic at the University and make a future connection to a major train hub. Apparently its one or the other, even though it would be cheaper to do it now rather than later. Did they consider that? The Hiawatha Line which is way over ridership did not pass the test, yet look at it now. Guess how it passed? Land Use considerations. But those don't matter as much anymore. It's all this index. Yes, I'm still bitter about Columbus Ohio. I highly suggest the read.

Central Corridor Issues

I often wonder if the Twin Cities is ever going to get its act together on the Central Corridor. I think Governor Pawlenty is part of the problem by not getting funding for the project earlier, and now holding out. He's acting a bit like the FTA with the Dulles Rail line or Arnold with High Speed Rail. All wanting to hold it back until it dies.

Local Money for Starter Lines

There has been a lot of news lately on the federal process in Kansas City and in Houston. Kansas City is floundering and their leaders have about 10 different ideas as to what to do. Some say streetcar (please no), others say rapid streetcar or LRT (yes) and others are even calling for subways (perhaps but not likely). Aside from that, the debate is also about whether to go with federal funding or not. Some argue that it needs to be done with federal funding because then the starter line will get 50% funding (It should be 80% like freeways but that's another post). I'm going to argue that cities today should start on their own. The reason? Time and Politics.

What has time got to do with it? Everything. Because time means political will and citizen backing, time means money and time means solutions. The shorter amount of time that occurs between the start of the idea and operation of the first line, the better off the city is and the more people see tangible results.

Charlotte just opened its first light rail line and used federal funding to build it. The CATS experience serves as a warning to new transit cities who take the network view on transit expansion. When we look back at it now, it does not seem like such a long time, but the 10 years or so it took to build caused a lot of trouble and roadblocks along the way. Charlotte escaped but others have not been so lucky.

The time it took for this project to be completed led to cost overruns because of inflation and a referendum that almost stopped expansion. The Seattle streetcar (This is just a time comparison, not technology) took from idea to opening only five. The Seattle Streetcar didn't seek federal funding, didn't have to wait for the federal government to approve the process. Phoenix's Light Rail system first showed up in the federal process in 1999 and will be completed next year 2008.

But why is this important? The time it takes to build a line is not and should not be ten years. Whole interurban and street transit networks were built in 10 years at the end of the 19th century. The wait for federal funds in todays highway centric government is not worth the wait in

A. Cost
B. Political Will.

The cost issue rears its ugly head when calculating for inflation. You can't calculate that far ahead of time as to what inflation is going to bring. And you don't start buying materials until later on in the process. Charlotte saw this happen as are other projects, not just rail. And recently the Light Rail to Milwaukie in Portland has a high cost estimate, I'm guessing because the planning is keeping up with the federal timeline (Now 10 years standard). Not that this is a starter line, but its been under planning for so long, its no wonder the cost keeps getting higher.

Another issue is political will. The longer the process is, the less people who were involved at the start are likely to still be involved and 10 years in politics is eons. Charlotte was lucky to have the same Mayor and Transit Chief throughout the whole ordeal. I would say that is one of a few reasons why Austin moved to commuter rail, because they lost pro rail leaders along the way like Kirk Watson who now happens to be back as the head of CAMPO.

But not only do leaders matter, the opposition solidifies behind mistakes and as we saw in Charlotte can led to a referendum or a no vote for more funding. Salt Lake City has been the beneficiary of good news and good moves when it comes to politics. And we saw they will be rewarded with a huge 70 mile expansion and 5 new lines. This is after a starter line and very short extensions that have surpassed ridership expectations by leaps and bounds breeding confidence in the system and creating a mostly (there will always be naysayers) positive political environment.

So the time issue is important. The next issue is the expansion. Generally large cities are trying to build expansive transit networks instead of just one line. So the starter line is really just that, a start. But its an important step again because of the politics aspect. Cities such as Houston and Minneapolis are enjoying pro transit political will because of their great ridership numbers and community benefit. Minneapolis went with federal funding for the first line and is going for it again for the Central Corridor. If they keep up at this rate, they will have a transit network in 50 years with 5 lines. Remember, 50 years is the total amount of time it took to build the national federal highway system and all they are going to get through the federal process is 5 lines and maybe a city center streetcar?

Houston on the other hand, along with Salt Lake City and Denver will build 5 new lines in the next ten years. Why? Because they got political will from their starter lines and have forged ahead with local and federal funding for expansion. Salt Lake City signed a deal for the FTA to pay for 20% of their expansion after upping their sales tax for new transit while Houston will likely get 50% funding for two lines. Houston was able to build light rail on its corridors because they also got their rail bias ridership set and networked the corridors in the modeling. This means that any cities first line might be able to qualify for federal funding because its a good candidate, but it will be even better for expansions to other areas of the city which might not have as good of numbers. Cities might also be able to spend a little more money on the starter making sure everything is right instead of letting the feds take out elements that increase ridership like an extra station here and a subway segment there. The rail bias adjustment makes the extensions better able to qualify for federal funding under the cost effectiveness measure.

So if we are playing by the current rules set by the FTA and current funding levels, you can bet that cities will be waiting even longer for transit money. Especially if cities that already have starter lines are starting to ask for money for expansions making the field even more crowded than it is currently. In short, if you want it done fast and you want to build out fast, build it yourself, and come for help on a network later.

Home Values and Commuting Costs

There is an interesting article in the Pioneer Press about costs and tradeoffs of transportation and housing. I suggest the read.

Location, location, location. Johan von Thunen did not coin that adage on what determines real estate values. But von Thunen's explanations of the relationships between location, transport costs and product prices remain relevant 180 years after he wrote them.

They help explain, for example, why development reportedly is stalling in some distant Twin Cities suburbs while home values in some St. Paul and Minneapolis neighborhoods are holding steady. Not bad for an old German farmer.

...

Von Thunen also examined how a cheap transportation corridor affects property values. Suppose there is a canal or placid stream. One can load tons of rye onto a barge and move it to market much cheaper than with a wagon. Land prices are higher along the watercourse than elsewhere because produce transport costs are lower.

Ditto for the Twin Cities right now. Property prices have increased along the Hiawatha light rail line. More people want to live where getting to work is relatively cheap and convenient. In response to rising rental demand along the line, developers build apartments and condos. Neighborhood retail businesses spring up to serve the new residents.

The Central Corridor light-rail line is seeing similar activity, even though construction has not yet started. Developers are turning old commercial buildings into condos even though the buyers will have to depend on the No. 16 bus instead of snazzy light rail trains for years yet.

And yes, the same is true for communities along the planned Northstar commuter rail line. There is increased interest in buying property near planned stations.

Von Thunen predicted it all. The only difference is that commuters have replaced rye and the real estate is houses and apartments rather than sandy north German fields, woodlots and pastures.

Pawlenty Relents on Bridge

The Governor relented when the City of Minneapolis restated their belief that the bridge should be build with the ability to hold light rail at a future date and not necessarily for the Central Corridor. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Friday the state may be willing to pay the extra $20 million to $30 million it would cost to include light-rail transit on the Interstate 35W bridge.

Pawlenty's comments came after nearly two weeks of debate and division among state, Minneapolis and federal officials over whether the replacement for the collapsed span should be built with the potential to carry light rail.

Before Pawlenty's comments, Minneapolis officials modified their stance, saying the bridge should have light-rail capacity but need not be built specifically for the Central Corridor line, which is to connect downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. The city's role could be pivotal because, under state law, it will be asked to provide "municipal consent" for the bridge design.

A disagreement over light rail could stall the project for months, jeopardizing the state's plans to push for completion by the end of 2008.

This is a good sign that the Governor understands or at least is willing to consider the future needs and not just the present. The Star Tribune also reminds everyone that a transportation package needs to be passed as they reiterate what I had thought in the previous posts:

What is clear, however, is that routing the Central Corridor light-rail line across a new bridge doesn't work. Changing its route would eliminate a critical West Bank station at the University of Minnesota, attract fewer riders and add time and distance to the line. That, in turn, would lower the project's federal rating and risk its funding.

If a future rail line were projected for the Interstate Hwy. 35W corridor, a stronger bridge would make sense. But no such line is projected. Instead of obsessing on the replacement bridge, officials should focus on passing a comprehensive transportation bill that repairs bridges and actually pays for the new roads and transit lines that the state has needed for so long.

Bridge Design & The Central Corridor

Update: The Mayor has made it clear that he wants the bridge to handle light rail at a future date and doesn't necessarily have plans for a line now.

So the Mayor of Minneapolis and the Governor are having a bit of a spat over whether the I35W Bridge should include light rail. Initially the Gov and his lackeys said that there is no room, and emergency funds stipulate that the bridge must be built using the previous footprint. Ok, thats fine, so then why are you building a 10 lane bridge to replace an 8 lane bridge?? Personally I don't think that LRT should be on that bridge anyway but don't lie about what you can and can't do. Perhaps a provision that it could be built at a future date would suffice and priority transit lanes would be a good addition but it doesn't really make a lot of sense from a ridership standpoint for the Central Corridor unless you were going to build a line to the Northeast at some point.



If you look at the picture, the red line is how the light rail would work over the bridge in a sorta kinda way. The orange line is the existing Hiawatha Line and the Yellow is the planned central corridor line. Look how the yellow line goes through the University (Yellow Boxes) rather than around it. (Hmmm, lesson for Austin?) Basically they got it right the first time so they shouldn't be trying to fix it wrong.

Now there are whole other issues at play with the retrofitting of the existing bridge to handle Light Rail and the possible tunneling under the University but really any cost savings that would have come by crossing the I-35W bridge would have lost a lot of ridership because people would have had to walk further. So Mayor Rybak, i love your spirit and willingness to fight for LRT, but save your chips for another day.

Riding at Night

I'm dismayed at transit in the bay area. It's convenient, but at a certain time of night on the weekends (midnight) it all shuts down and you need to know the alternate universe owl schedules to use it. BART and the J Church line close down. But why is that? In New York City, trains run all night and people use them. I know that maintenance is performed on BART tracks that late, but how many people drive into the city to drink and drive out drunk as skunks because they have to memorize a bus schedule and a new location?

This doesn't just happen in the bay area though, a writer recently discussed this phenomenon for the Twin Cities.

There really is an issue with the light rail system not staying open until 2:15 or 2:30 am. There were two letters published on July 31 concerned with the "Minding the gap" article. The letters seemed to be arguing against the light rail staying open later and had some very weak points.

First, there were suggestions to take a bus or taxi. But the buses run once every hour or so at that time, so you'd have to wait until 3 a.m. if you leave the bar at 2 a.m. Also, if you've ever been downtown and tried to take a cab at 2 a.m. you'd realize it takes over 20 minutes to finally flag one down -- and when you do it's a very expensive ride home. Most people just want to use the light rail at bar close, get closer to their homes and take a cab from there.

City of Beer and Buses

So Milwaukee Wisconsin is having the same debate that every city has when they are deciding whether to hop on the mass transit horse. The Leader of the County wants buses because they are more effective for "those people" and the Mayor wants a streetcar system, I'm guessing as a foot in the door for light rail. Well they should all just stop and go for the gold. I don't understand why these folks don't just invest in their communities. Light rail is an excellent investment. Look what it has done for Minneapolis. A shot in the arm along Hiawatha Avenue is what they needed and they got it. Now they can't talk enough about the Central Corridor and Southwest Corridor. The only thing that stands in their way is well...shortsighted government leaders. Tim Pawlenty and Scott Walker should just go away. In fact they should move to Cincinnati and live with Stephan Louis. That city is probably last on the list of large cities where people want to live in the United States, specifically when they get out of college. Why? Because there is no thinking and dreaming going on there, only people that say no. I don't know how these people got voted in, but in the next election I hope people throw out the bathtub drowning conservatives and vote for whoever has big dreams and wants to invest in their future.

Minnesota Legislature Turning Up the Heat

Using Union Depot as a hub, the state legislature passed a bill that would fund $334 million dollars worth of projects. However the governor doesn't want to have any of it, asking for only $81 million. Funding will go to the Central Corridor, High Speed Rail to Chicago, the Rush Line Commuter Rail, the Red Rock Corridor and the redesign of Union Depot as a hub of all this activity. It's getting exciting in the land of 1000 lakes.

The Success of the Hiawatha Line Has Consequences

The Space Race is on and in Minneapolis different parts of the region are expecting more now that the Hiawatha line has proved the success of Light Rail. With planning for the Central Corridor underway and funding secured for the North Star Commuter rail, the first parts of the planning process have started for the Southwest Corridor. But the Northwest doesn't really like that and they want to be treated like everyone else. This is why they've forgone the BRT option and begun to study streetcar and light rail. Not only that, a massive streetcar plan is in the works to replace the heaviest bus lines and spur development. This is why I love following the space race. With only one successful line, the region is quickly planning for an upgrade that will match that of the best transit cities. I hope to see this come to fruition.

Industrial Land and TOD

As the Portland Example became more prominent, many cities are looking for industrial land to change into mixed use neighborhoods. While that is good and has done a great service for the Pearl District, it seems as if changing all industrial land uses into neighborhoods might not be a good thing.

Given that some industrial lands are still viable as such, pushing out the industry by routing light rail through it can either be good or bad depending on what your goals are for the corridor. Some places such as Oakland might be better served by saving industrial zones to keep jobs and tax base. Of course if there is a station adjacent, what is better for the city and region? Is it that short term tax base or the long term ridership goals of the transit agency? Is it the housing and reduction of VMT through TOD or is it being able to keep vital industry such as shipyards in Oakland's case. Where else are the ships going to go? It's an interesting dichotomy that is only beginning to pop up in planning and land use for these systems.

So how do we figure which industrial uses should be changed over? The Pearl was a railyard that was abandoned and snatched up by developers. It's proximity to downtown made it very valuable after all the details were worked out. Now its the hottest address in the northwest. Minneapolis citizens however are worried that they will run out of industrial land uses unless some of them are protected from rezoning. I want to say that is short sighted and there is plenty of land for industrial uses, the old ones disappeared for a reason, but i'm not sure if i have all the facts to make that claim yet.

Simple Answers to Overly Simplistic Questions

Most light rail detractors grumble and make the same comments as a man in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Here are the answers to his questions about the so called money pit of Central Avenue.

....

Light rail between Minneapolis and St. Paul will be an eternal money pit subsidized by the taxpayers of Minnesota and a waste of federal taxpayer dollars.

It will not reduce congestion on I-94. OW - Nothing will reduce congestion. Build a freeway and it produces sprawl which feeds more congestion.

It will lose money every year like the Hiawatha Line. OW - You lose about $10,000 a year driving a car, you have to pay to operate it don't you? And someone has to pay to build and fix roads and parking lots right?

It will replace current bus service that already uses University Avenue. OW - And will probably lower the operating costs per passenger of that line like Portland has, allowing more money to be put into bus service.

It will narrow, congest and eliminate lanes of traffic on University Avenue. OW - This is a straw man. It will increase the overall capacity of the road.

etc etc etc...

same as usual...

It's a New Year, The Right Time for a Transit Revolution

Welcome to 2007! It's gone by fast but this last 10 years has been very productive in terms of what has happened in the world of transit and its only going to get better. First we have as always mentioned the Transit Space Race. But inside of the TSR which is mainly Rapid Transit, we also have a transit revolution that includes the stalwart workhorse from a century ago, Streetcars.

As move on into 2007 we'll see more and more news about these pedestrian accelerators. Even today on January 1st we have articles from Minnesota and Ohio discussing what Mayors in Minneapolis and Columbus would like to build into their legacies. They are even thinking of innovative ways to finance them rather than through the FTA. Many other cities are thinking about this as well and perhaps (shameless plug approaching) this book will help move the revolution. It will be an exciting year never the less.

Update from a few days ago: Tampa News Says that Folks There Want in the Space Race. - Hat Tip Tampa Rail Blog