Saturday Sacramento Links

It was nice to see everyone at the NJudah shindig last night. I'm in Sacramento for a family reunion this weekend so posting might be light.

Looks like Phoenix is pausing its first extension due to funding issues.
~~~
I think people like Barbara Boxer still don't get the climate, transport, land use connection. I am glad that folks are talking gas tax, but there has to be a better way.
~~~
LA is building an Orange Line extension that connects the Chatsworth Metrolink station to the Warner Center, which is kind of like LA's Tyson's Corner. I think this is a great connection that obviously should be updated as soon as possible. With the Warner Center thinking about densifying, the connection to commuter rail is key.
~~~
I like this quote from Rep. John Mica:

"if you're on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you're a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it's so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it's good for energy, it's good for the environment – and that's why I like it."

~~~
Some interesting information on traction motors in Europe. Kind of continues on our electrification theme of late.

2015 Rail Deadline for Orange Line?

I was reading some comments on Curbed LA about the Orange line extension and came across this comment:

Thankfully, Metro had the foresight and built the Orange line to Light Rail Spec, so that in the future it will be relatively easy to convert it from bus to rail. All we need is the support of the people in the valley and its done.

I also believe Metro used state funds earmarked for rail projects when constructing the orange line, and there is a mandate that the corridor must be converted to rail by 2015 or metro must pay back the funds. We might see the conversion start within the next couple years, especially with Valleyites being choked in traffic and their envy of trendy urban/suburban communities like Culver City and Santa Monica getting rail and them being snuffed by metro.

I thought to myself, this seems a little strange. Can't be true. But check out Kimberleigh Richards post and got to her page on Prop 108.

Specifically, §2701.06 reads (again, emphasis mine): The money in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be available, without regard to fiscal years, for acquisition of rights-of-way, capital expenditures, and acquisition of rolling stock for intercity rail, passenger rail, and urban rail transit and for capital improvements which directly support rail transportation, including exclusive busways which are converted within 10 years after completion of construction into rail lines, grade separations to enhance rail passenger service, and multimodal terminals.

Part of the deal seems to be that the MTA needs to pay back money to the state that was used to buy the ROW if its not rail in 10 years. How much is this?

This obligation was acknowledged by then-CEO Franklin White in his October 21, 1994 memo to the MTA board of directors in which he responded to questions raised at the October 13 Planning and Programming Committee meeting:

Question: Does the MTA incur any financial loss if it does not build a rail project along this line?
Response: MTA ... has an obligation to pay the State of California $44.8 million in the event that it does not proceed with a passenger rail project on the SP right-of-way, unless CTC agrees to waive such repayment.

As of the end of 2007, the "then-present value" of the original $44.8 million was $67.4 million; if the inflation rate remains approximately the same, by October 30, 2015 (the tenth anniversary of the Orange Line beginning passenger service) it will be $83.1 million. While no one can say for certain whether or not the CTC would waive the repayment (which would presumably come due on that date, based on the Prop 108 language), the state's budget problems in the intervening years seems to predict that they would.

Very interesting. I wonder if this would actually happen or if its just a law that is not enforceable. I'm assuming that they would not make MTA pay it back. But who knows. Anyone know more about this?

Pent Up Demand, Synergy, & The Market

Chris Leinberger is hopping on the urban train so to speak. Brad Plummer's post over at TNR's The Vine has already gotten some coverage at Greater Greater Washington and The Bellows but here's the money quote that discusses the lacking supply of walkable communities people want but can't afford.

By his count, some 30 to 50 percent of residents in U.S. metropolitan areas want to live in a walkable urban environment—a trend fueled by the growing number of single and childless couples, who will constitute 88 percent of household growth through 2040. Trouble is, he estimates there are currently only enough walkable neighborhoods to satisfy about 5 to 10 percent of metro residents, which is why rents in transit-accessible areas are so exorbitant.

The other side of this as both blog posts noted above is the issue of land use and zoning. I'm going to throw another wrench in and say there has to be a market. There have been a few rail projects that hope the build it and they will come system will work but there needs to be a concerted effort and existing market to make it work precisely because of the problems with our zoning code. An example of this is Cascade Station in Portland. On the way to the airport, the Bechtel company traded building the line for the land at the station. Unfortunately 911 hit a few days close to the opening of the line and the market dropped out from under the developers.

There's also the synergy issue. Places like the Pearl District and the South End in Charlotte were the next places to grow and close to the downtown urban market. I would say the transit was able to shape the development intensity. Further down the South Corridor has been a bit slower to take off. Over time as the prime properties are expanded, I expect the development to move further south along the line.

So while I see there is demand for walkable urbanism as Chris calls it, there are timelines of implementation that should be mentioned as well so that people don't expect overnight change. The Rosslyn Ballston corridor didn't take off over night either. I feel like the synergy point is an important one that gets missed from time to time when people expect TOD everywhere once the line opens. It's a long term investment with long term results. It will be interesting to see what happens in Denver as the opening of the whole transit system almost at once under the Fastracks program. I have heard some state that the push and focus that happened along the Southeast Corridor won't be replicated because the demand will be spread out among all the opening stations. It makes for an interesting test of the synergy idea and whether transit will be able to focus the intensity as it has in other corridors that had all the attention.

On the issue of paying for lines, I think developers will get a major boost from the infrastructure investment and should pitch in, or at least not be able to keep the massive windfalls from the investment that was made by everyone. But its also dependent more on vacant and extremely underutilized property appreciation. More money will be generated through vacant to build out than the appreciation of properties that already exist. Too many people think value capture will always be the answer when sometimes it will not, because the increment is too small to generate the funding needed. These issues and a ton more are discussed in a recent paper on Value Capture by the Center for TOD. We'll discuss that piece another time.

Also, a while ago I covered some key quotes in Chris Leinberger's book, The Option of Urbanism. Here's the series post by post.

Series Intro
The Favored Quarter
The Endless Landscape
Real Development Subsidization
Metro Brings Change
Subsidizing the Rich

Repaving on the Orange Line

While the transit agency is blaming the contractor, the contractor is blaming the weight of the buses. The total cost will be about $2 million dollars to repave to the right strength. I wonder how soon the pavement will deteriorate on the rest of the line that was built correctly. Does anyone know how long until they fixed the Pittsburgh busway? I can't seem to find any information on it.

Orange Line Full, Driving Away Riders

We've covered this issue before, but here's an article written by a suit and tie guy that loves to ride this bus who is getting fed up with the crowding. It again shows that Americans are not the same as Brazilians and are not willing to put up with that type of passenger crush load in its buses. Thus the comparison to Curitiba again gets fresh debunking.

I take the line at least once a week, sometimes two or three times. That’s not bad for a guy in a suit and tie. We’re a rare breed on the busways of Los Angeles and a segment of the population that the MTA wants to attract. I live near one end of the line at the Chandler subway in North Hollywood and work at the Business Journal at the other end of the line in Warner Center.

So he's even reverse commuting away from downtown Los Angeles but to another major job center that is surely growing. Yet the end to end run time is getting slower. As said before, the Gold Line is the same length and 15 minutes faster. It's also been able to take the ridership hit because of two car trains and now we see ridership jump to 27,000. Over the last year, that's a 39% increase versus the constrained 8% of the Orange Line.

And the buses seem to be getting slower. It’s supposed to take 45 minutes to cross the Valley on the Orange Line. It’s five minutes longer than that many times. That may not seem like much, but if I’m spending 50 minutes traveling I might as well be in my car and in control.

Sure the Gold Line was a bit more expensive to build but the Orange Line won't be able to take much more growth, so something will have to be done soon that will make the Orange Line much more expensive than it had to be. Hopefully things will get fixed before more people start talking like this.

The point of all this: I don’t really want to ride the Orange Line anymore under these conditions. A champion of the service has become disillusioned. And considering this city’s track record on mass transit, I’m skeptical things will be fixed.

Sunday News Links

The Orange Line BRT estimated initial ridership on a hunch. Models drive me crazy, but this seems a bit nuts as well. From the LA Times:

MTA officials denied that they lowballed Orange Line ridership predictions but conceded that their forecasts might be more art than science. "We didn't put it into a computer model," said Rod Goldman, the MTA's deputy executive officer for service development. "A lot of it was our educated guesswork based on our experience."

Charlotte's mixed use market is doing better than single family homes. Seems to me like this might be from lack of supply over the years. Complaints of expense just prove this point. From the Charlotte Observer:

“There's an immediate crisis feeling about the price of gas, but there's also a different living preference now,” said Laura Harmon, economic development program manager for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. “Those of us who might be baby boomers didn't have those options. But now the millennials and so forth are wanting to live differently.”

As noted in the guest post by J.M. it will be interesting to see how Norfolk's light rail line comes out. But while they were pushing forward, their sister city rejected the idea. Now the local paper thinks its time to get back on the train.

Finally comes a blog post from Bill Fulton's blog. Seems that Starbucks has bucked the trend of picking the 100% corner and instead is concentrating more on auto orientation in Redding. Really? Seems a bit strange to me at this time that they would want someone to get in their car making them think about gas to go buy an expensive cup of coffee. But the poster makes a good point that its partly the citizens that are to blame.

The Starbucks with a drive-through window at the edge of downtown? That one stays. So does the Starbucks at the other end of downtown inside of Safeway. But the coffee house at the most visible corner in downtown? The store that was supposed to anchor a cornerstone redevelopment project? It’s closing.
...

Ultimate responsibility, though, lies with the community. Redding is a town where people rush to the newest franchise restaurant. Earlier this year, they lined up overnight for the opening of a Chipotle in a rebuilt strip center. Seriously. It’s a town where Wal-Mart, Costco, Target and Home Depot have big boxes within walking distance of each other – although you’d take your life in your hands trying to make the trip on foot.

In other words, most people who live in Redding don’t care about having a vibrant downtown full of local flavor. And no one – including an urban planning journalist who thinks he knows better – can make them care.

Ridership Posting, Charlotte Almost at 2025 Number

The Charlotte Observer reports that ridership on the Charlotte Blue line is 16,479. The 2025 ridership for the line was projected to be 18,100. Getting awfully close. This is far from the doom and gloom that was projected from opponents who got drubbed when the sales tax was kept on a vote of 70% to 30%.

So this continues the trend in which the FTA has massively underestimated ridership recently on new lines. Cases in point.

Minneapolis - 24,000 Projected 2020 26,000 Q108
Houston - 39,000 Projected 2020 40,000 Q108
Denver - 38,100 Projected 2020 36,000 10.07

In other ridership news, Gold Line ridership in LA is up 31.8%. From bottleneck blog:

Seems to me that it's easier to ride and more convenient than other busways that only increased by 4% in a corridor that has greater population. Also, we got a comment from a reliable anti-rail buddy Tom Rubin in the last Orange Line post. He's most recently been trying to work in Milwaukee for the Reason Foundation but was shutdown by Len Brandrup of Kenosha Transit. I thought his joke at the end of his comment on the last Orange Line post was quite funny. What do you all think?

"OK, now I'll say something nice about BRT in this alignment -- it wasn't nearly as dumb as LRT would have been."

Why Is the Orange Line BRT Called a Success?

I just don't understand how anyone in LA can think the Orange Line is a success. Yeah ridership is up to 26,000 but when they build the extension North of the Warner Center, is there going to be space on any of these buses?? And the idea of adding express buses to save 5 minutes is ridiculous considering they could have built rail, stopped at all the stops and saved 18 minutes.(48 minutes Orange Line. 30 minues Gold Line LRT. Both the same distance) Not only was this short sighted, he still thinks that it is "working". I know it was a complicated affair but they really kicked themselves in the teeth by building something that is already at capacity and doesn't run on electricity. Growth on this corridor will be crushing, and its going to cost more and more to operate as gas prices go up and they have to add more vehicles to address the demand, each one with a single driver.

Think Tanks, BRT, Money

Why Paul Weyrich doesn't side with the Think Tanks on BRT. Also, has anyone else noticed the Orange Line BRT ridership in LA has stayed flat while the other lines have gone up? I've heard it's at capacity. Two car trains and you're at 35,000 riders easy and 15 minutes off travel time. Thanks Zev.

And on a side note: Greenpeace found out how much money conservative think tanks took for Global Warming Denial, I tallied the Think Tanks I know of that have paid O'Toole and Cox for a Grand total of $1.87 million from Exxon Mobile alone between 1998-2006.

Smart Growth? No, Zev Growth!

Ah good 'ole Zev Y. in LA is up to no good again. For those who don't know, he is one of the good folks that brought us the Orange Line busway because of a law he created that said no subways or rail on that corridor. Well he's at it again saying that LA shouldn't grow denser. That smart growth thing is for sissies. But basically he is just playing politics with the frames. He's all about smart growth, just not density. He also wants to keep parking requirements...nothing says don't drive like an open parking space!

Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings,bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.

What is it with these neighborhood protection folks that they actually want to stunt neighborhood evolution and affordability? It's actually not protection but rather a form of Nimbyism. What annoys me most about these clowns is that they just don't want any growth, it has nothing to do with Smart Growth at all. Here is a perfect example.

But it makes no sense to reflexively boost residential density and building size along every Metro Rapid bus route, as the city's version of the state's density-bonus law allows, when the streets that the buses travel often cross low-density, pedestrian-friendly commercial districts serving some of the city's most charming neighborhoods.

Let's not build more density near the high capacity pedestrian friendly transit. That'll make our transit work better! No one is going to go into the center of a single family neighborhood and build a high rise. All of this is just scare tactics to get elected. I for one hope he gets destroyed.

Buses are Better? No They Aren't

So the good folks of Boston are having a debate. Should they restore streetcars on the Arborway Green Line or Replace them with Rapid Bus. Distinction....BRT has its own lanes, Rapid Bus does not. Ridership on the line is in decline from 28,000 in 1988 to 14,400 in 2005. This is really all i need to know to make a decision but lets look at what the bus lovers (actually just afraid of change) are saying.

(Note: Buses are the workhorses of most transit systems but high ridership trunk lines should be more cost effective to extend the reach of bus service in a region. Light Rail serves this need by having lower operating costs per passenger by A. attracting new passengers and B. efficiently bringing them to thier destination)

Tracks Make Pavement Hard to Maintain - Well so do buses. Actually, recent issues have arisen from the Orange Line and its pavement cracking. While this might be an issue with the contractors, it also tells the story of pavement and buses. The weight of a bus is just too much. If they are so worried about the pavement from rail...they should be really worried about the pavement from buses.

Bicycle Hazards - Yes riding over the tracks can be an issue. But Portland has signs and warnings for cyclists. I don't think that a few folks ignoring the warnings and taking the spill every year would be enough to warrant the line not run rail.

Traffic Flow - Here they say that traffic flow for cars will be impeded by the streetcars. Well isn't it already impeded by buses every day? I don't get this logic... why are people so worried about traffic flow? We shouldn't design the world for cars, we should design the world for pedestrians which means that a little traffic calming never hurt anyone. If you need to speed that bad go to Talladega.

Restricted Curbside Access - Well this is a no brainer. In Portland they have bulbouts. And if it takes up 7 parking spaces, so what...see above world for cars link. Heck there is probably an answer including creating several bulbouts for each of the door ends keeping space in the center for cars and deliveries. It's not an insurmountable engineering task and its still not enough to warrant bus only service.

Then they give a plethora of reasons why they feel bus is better... which i will answer tomorrow.