This installment of the Talking Headways podcast comes from this year’s NACTO Designing Cities Conference in Seattle. Moderated by David Bragdon, executive director of TransitCenter, this discussion examines the obstacles streets and transit agencies face when trying to move good projects forward, and the relationships that help make progress possible. The panel features LA DOT’s General Manager Seleta Reynolds, LACMTA’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer Stephanie Wiggins, Seattle DOT’s Director Scott Kubly, and Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff.
Showing posts with label Seattle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seattle. Show all posts
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Podcast: The Year in Transit Starts with Yonah Freemark
Yonah Freemark joined us in January to talk about transit plans for 2016.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Most Read from November 12th
Here are Yesterday's Top Stories from The Direct Transfer Daily
Image courtesy of New York Times
- Do self driving cars dream? If so, what will they see? New York Times
- A sunken plaza was designed for BART, but it was all a big mistake - SF Chronicle
- The Anatomy of a NIMBY. Seattle's housing fights explained - Seattle Weekly
Bonus Seattle Quote -
"Our neighborhoods are shadowed by tall, bulky buildings. Gardens are being cemented, trees cut down. Those who can’t carry their bags of groceries up and down the hills are not invited into this dystopia."
- Do self driving cars dream? If so, what will they see? New York Times
- A sunken plaza was designed for BART, but it was all a big mistake - SF Chronicle
- The Anatomy of a NIMBY. Seattle's housing fights explained - Seattle Weekly
Bonus Seattle Quote -
"Our neighborhoods are shadowed by tall, bulky buildings. Gardens are being cemented, trees cut down. Those who can’t carry their bags of groceries up and down the hills are not invited into this dystopia."
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Podcast: Tanya Snyder Joins to Talk Earthquakes and City Kids, Not In That Order
This week we're joined by Talking Headways alum Tanya Snyder to discuss a whole bunch of issues including single family zoning in Seattle, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, folks leaving the cities they love and kids in cities. Join us for a fun half hour of chit chat about this and that.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Is Good Urban Form Slowing Us Down?
There has been a lot of chatter recently on the issue of fast vs slow transit. This week is the perfect time for this discussion as two major United States transit projects of differing stripes opened up; the Metro Silver Line in Washington DC and the Tucson Streetcar.
Last week, Yonah Freemark wrote a post discussing the benefits of fast transit specifically calling out the Green Line in Minneapolis for running 11 miles in about an hour. Now, this line has parts of what people are always asking streetcars to have; dedicated lanes. "They get stuck!" Yet this line, as well as the T-Third in San Francisco and others mentioned in the post are still "too slow". Yonah goes on to discuss metro expansion in Paris leaving a discussion of politics and costs of rapid transit to the very end.
To me this points to the first place where urbanism and fast transit disagree with each other, block sizes and stop spacing. By trying to maximize connections to the community, the transit line has to stop more often, slowing speeds. And if built into a legacy urban fabric, this also includes negotiation with tons of cross streets where designers don't give priority to the transit line. This happens in Cleveland on the Health Line BRT as well as the Orange Line in Los Angeles, even though it has its own very separated right of way. The Gold Line Light Rail in LA and the Orange Line originally had the same distance, yet one was 15 minutes faster end to end. A lot of this had to do with less priority on cross streets given to the Orange Line, not because it was a bus or rail line.
We continue to talk as if dedicated lanes are magic, but its a suite of tools that helps speed transit along inside of our wonderful urban fabrics. Transit is directly affected by urbanism, if we let it be.
But then there is the other side of this discussion. Transit's effect on urbanism. Some New Urbanists believe that slow transit is necessary for building better urbanism. Rob Steuteville of New Urban News calls this "Place Mobility". The theory goes like this:
To increase the viability of streetcars in a world dominated by a "cost effectiveness" measure dependent on calculations of speed, the "Trip Not Taken" was refreshing. Many transit lines were being built without regard to neighborhood or were cheap and easy. But they were fast! You can see how the "cost effectiveness" measure intervened with elevated rail through Tyson's Corner (yes I'm still annoyed) or the numerous commuter rail lines on freight rights of way in smaller regions that probably should never have been built. But they were fast!
Yes the streetcar helps with creating place in the minds of developers and urban enthusiasts, but no it doesn't do the whole job. The Pearl District and Seattle's South Lake Union were perfect storms of huge singular property ownership, massive investments in additional infrastructure, proximity to a major employment center, lack of NIMBYs, and a strong real estate market. But look at the results. It's hard to argue that the streetcar didn't help develop this massively successful district in one of planning's favorite cities. But it's also hard to give it all the credit.
The crux of the argument is that place making should be the ultimate goal and slowing things down makes things better. And many cities see the streetcar as some sort of fertilizer that makes it grow and a reason to change zoning code. Because of very stringent local land use opposition (read NIMBY), this makes a lot of sense. If a streetcar can lead to the restructuring of land use or the fulcrum of a district revitalization, I see that as a benefit. But again, don't give it too much credit.
From a safety standpoint this slowing down idea makes sense. The Portland Streetcar has been in collisions, but no one has died or been seriously hurt, unlike a number of high profile collisions in places like Houston, where drivers can't seem to follow the rules. Our society also puts up with over 30,000 deaths a year to get places faster on interstate highways as well.
But...
Ultimately the base success of a transit line isn't in the amount of development it has spurred or the zoning it has changed. It's the ability to get a lot of people where they want to go, in a timely fashion. A commenter on Jarret Walker's Human Transit Blog says it best.
But if we are going to spend so much money, we might as well figure out a way to transport the most people possible. Sometimes that might be streetcars. Other times it's not.
But back to urbanism and transit.
In Portland, dedicated lanes on the North/South parts of the line wouldn't make as much difference because it has the same issues we mentioned with the Green Line above and narrow streets. Streetcars have to deal with urbanism. I think streetcars are ok as a circulator in downtowns, because these are the trips that help people get around dense places that are proximate. You can bring your groceries on when its raining and disabled folks can load their wheelchairs with dignity. Tourists like the certainty of the tracks and little kids love the ride. We see that even on 20 minute headways, 13,000 riders are on the line every day. It's hard to argue with that, given it's more riders than many first choice bus lines in some major cities without rail.
However for linear route based transit operations, we need dedicated lanes and signal priority to at least make the expenditure worthwhile and play nice with our urbanism. Once you get outside of a district, people want to get places. I like subways and wish we had more, but it seems politics and money seem to get in the way like Yonah mentions above. Some might even argue that before we even think about building fixed guideway lines, we should focus on our buses. Perhaps we should have a threshold system ridership before putting in rail, to determine whether all options for increasing ridership have been exhausted. Houston's new network plan could be a good guide. And personally, I don't think BRT should be special. It should be the norm. Luckily the new 5339 bus facilities funding guidance could allow for BRT and Rapid Bus funding (they are NOT the same thing).
But there's a new report out which discusses which factors drive ridership for fixed guideway transit once we decide to go that route. Employment and residential density around transit lines, the cost of parking downtown, and grade separation were found to be the most effective measures when put together to drive ridership according to a recent TCRP report released earlier this month. Individually employment had an r squared of .2 while the others had negligible impacts. Only taken together as a whole did these measures drive the most ridership as seen below.
The report goes on to say "The degree of grade separation is likely influential because it serves as a proxy for service variables such as speed, frequency, and reliability that may lead to greater transit ridership."
But determining success is hard. In fact, its so hard that of the transit projects surveyed, the only thing that transit agencies seemed to agree on (it has dots in every project below) was that the line would be cheap! We discussed this briefly above.
So all of this is to say that Streetcars are not the worst transit ever and urbanism will affect transit, and transit will affect urbanism. We just need to decide what the appropriate ways are for intervention such that we maximize people's ability to get to the places they want to go and build great communities. Let's not swing the pendulum too far to either side, it might tip the balance against us.
Last week, Yonah Freemark wrote a post discussing the benefits of fast transit specifically calling out the Green Line in Minneapolis for running 11 miles in about an hour. Now, this line has parts of what people are always asking streetcars to have; dedicated lanes. "They get stuck!" Yet this line, as well as the T-Third in San Francisco and others mentioned in the post are still "too slow". Yonah goes on to discuss metro expansion in Paris leaving a discussion of politics and costs of rapid transit to the very end.
To me this points to the first place where urbanism and fast transit disagree with each other, block sizes and stop spacing. By trying to maximize connections to the community, the transit line has to stop more often, slowing speeds. And if built into a legacy urban fabric, this also includes negotiation with tons of cross streets where designers don't give priority to the transit line. This happens in Cleveland on the Health Line BRT as well as the Orange Line in Los Angeles, even though it has its own very separated right of way. The Gold Line Light Rail in LA and the Orange Line originally had the same distance, yet one was 15 minutes faster end to end. A lot of this had to do with less priority on cross streets given to the Orange Line, not because it was a bus or rail line.
We continue to talk as if dedicated lanes are magic, but its a suite of tools that helps speed transit along inside of our wonderful urban fabrics. Transit is directly affected by urbanism, if we let it be.
But then there is the other side of this discussion. Transit's effect on urbanism. Some New Urbanists believe that slow transit is necessary for building better urbanism. Rob Steuteville of New Urban News calls this "Place Mobility". The theory goes like this:
When a streetcar -- or other catalyst -- creates a compact, dynamic place, other kinds of mobility become possible. The densest concentrations of bike-share and car-share stations in Portland are located in the area served by the streetcar. That's no coincidence. You can literally get anywhere without a car.In Portland parlance, this is the "Trip Not Taken". When you build up the urban fabric of a city, many usually induced trips disappear. That car trip to the grocery store becomes a walk and that streetcar trip to Powell's Books might be a bike trip now. Or in the world of the web, that trip might change hands, from you to the delivery truck. In Portland at the time they calculated a 31 million mile reduction in VMT from the housing units built along the streetcar route.
To increase the viability of streetcars in a world dominated by a "cost effectiveness" measure dependent on calculations of speed, the "Trip Not Taken" was refreshing. Many transit lines were being built without regard to neighborhood or were cheap and easy. But they were fast! You can see how the "cost effectiveness" measure intervened with elevated rail through Tyson's Corner (yes I'm still annoyed) or the numerous commuter rail lines on freight rights of way in smaller regions that probably should never have been built. But they were fast!
Yes the streetcar helps with creating place in the minds of developers and urban enthusiasts, but no it doesn't do the whole job. The Pearl District and Seattle's South Lake Union were perfect storms of huge singular property ownership, massive investments in additional infrastructure, proximity to a major employment center, lack of NIMBYs, and a strong real estate market. But look at the results. It's hard to argue that the streetcar didn't help develop this massively successful district in one of planning's favorite cities. But it's also hard to give it all the credit.
The crux of the argument is that place making should be the ultimate goal and slowing things down makes things better. And many cities see the streetcar as some sort of fertilizer that makes it grow and a reason to change zoning code. Because of very stringent local land use opposition (read NIMBY), this makes a lot of sense. If a streetcar can lead to the restructuring of land use or the fulcrum of a district revitalization, I see that as a benefit. But again, don't give it too much credit.
From a safety standpoint this slowing down idea makes sense. The Portland Streetcar has been in collisions, but no one has died or been seriously hurt, unlike a number of high profile collisions in places like Houston, where drivers can't seem to follow the rules. Our society also puts up with over 30,000 deaths a year to get places faster on interstate highways as well.
But...
Ultimately the base success of a transit line isn't in the amount of development it has spurred or the zoning it has changed. It's the ability to get a lot of people where they want to go, in a timely fashion. A commenter on Jarret Walker's Human Transit Blog says it best.
But the romantic impulse towards slow transit wears away quickly if you have no choice but to rely on it all the time! I don't have a car, so I rely on buses that travel excruciatingly slowly, wasting much of my time.As someone who has gotten rid of my car and considers myself a walking, bike riding, transit loving (and sometimes zipcaring) urbanist, I find it very annoying that it takes an hour to go three miles here in San Francisco on the bus. And if I need to get downtown, I take the Subway which is a half mile away versus the streetcar which is half a block away because time does actually matter. We see this decision play out every day when people choose to drive cars over using transit.
But if we are going to spend so much money, we might as well figure out a way to transport the most people possible. Sometimes that might be streetcars. Other times it's not.
But back to urbanism and transit.
In Portland, dedicated lanes on the North/South parts of the line wouldn't make as much difference because it has the same issues we mentioned with the Green Line above and narrow streets. Streetcars have to deal with urbanism. I think streetcars are ok as a circulator in downtowns, because these are the trips that help people get around dense places that are proximate. You can bring your groceries on when its raining and disabled folks can load their wheelchairs with dignity. Tourists like the certainty of the tracks and little kids love the ride. We see that even on 20 minute headways, 13,000 riders are on the line every day. It's hard to argue with that, given it's more riders than many first choice bus lines in some major cities without rail.
However for linear route based transit operations, we need dedicated lanes and signal priority to at least make the expenditure worthwhile and play nice with our urbanism. Once you get outside of a district, people want to get places. I like subways and wish we had more, but it seems politics and money seem to get in the way like Yonah mentions above. Some might even argue that before we even think about building fixed guideway lines, we should focus on our buses. Perhaps we should have a threshold system ridership before putting in rail, to determine whether all options for increasing ridership have been exhausted. Houston's new network plan could be a good guide. And personally, I don't think BRT should be special. It should be the norm. Luckily the new 5339 bus facilities funding guidance could allow for BRT and Rapid Bus funding (they are NOT the same thing).
But there's a new report out which discusses which factors drive ridership for fixed guideway transit once we decide to go that route. Employment and residential density around transit lines, the cost of parking downtown, and grade separation were found to be the most effective measures when put together to drive ridership according to a recent TCRP report released earlier this month. Individually employment had an r squared of .2 while the others had negligible impacts. Only taken together as a whole did these measures drive the most ridership as seen below.
The report goes on to say "The degree of grade separation is likely influential because it serves as a proxy for service variables such as speed, frequency, and reliability that may lead to greater transit ridership."
But determining success is hard. In fact, its so hard that of the transit projects surveyed, the only thing that transit agencies seemed to agree on (it has dots in every project below) was that the line would be cheap! We discussed this briefly above.
"Provide fixed guideway transit in corridors where inexpensive right of way can be easily accessed"Which is many times why we end up with slow transit. It's cheap. We're cheap. Streetcar costs are below that of light rail or subways and since its in a mixed traffic right of way, it will be cheaper politically than BRT. Commuter rail on freight rights of way is the best to them though even though its the worst at creating ridership. To me it's is even cheaper because it usually ignores the chart above with the focus on employment and residential density.
So all of this is to say that Streetcars are not the worst transit ever and urbanism will affect transit, and transit will affect urbanism. We just need to decide what the appropriate ways are for intervention such that we maximize people's ability to get to the places they want to go and build great communities. Let's not swing the pendulum too far to either side, it might tip the balance against us.
Monday, July 11, 2011
The Headline Doesn't Match the Story
Ok, can someone tell me if I'm going crazy here? First the misleading PI headline:
Study: Surface-transit would clog regional trafficThen the FIRST paragraph:
The state's plans for a tolled deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct would bring slightly more traffic congestion to downtown Seattle than a surface-transit concept favored by Mayor Mike McGinn, according to an analysis in the tunnel project's Final Environmental Impact StatementSo the tunnel would bring more traffic to the surface streets right? Then later on:
With no place for all 110,000 vehicles to go, speeds would decrease and fewer drivers would travel through Seattle's city center, resulting in less traffic, according to an analysis in the environmental assessment.The idea is that surface transit would make through traffic harder, and people would be annoyed and say I'm not going to make that trip. That is a great result! But that headline suggests that it would clog traffic all together when that is not the case. I'm guessing some headline writer at the PI thought it would be good, but it totally shows some serious windshield perspective.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
More Electroexecution
This might be a little more gut reaction than normal but why in the heck would you get rid of trolley buses in Seattle? Honestly when everyone else is looking for ways to get on renewable energy and figure out ways to lower carbon footprints, you're going to really add more ghgs to save a little coin? When do we start pricing carbon so that these actually make Metro money?
This is a case where the bean counters are counting the wrong beans. The metrics they used are out of touch with what's going on in the world today and the whole host of externalities that bean counters are not generally meant to measure till they are forced to. I can tell you that the dismantling of the Milwaukee Road was the dumbest thing right before an oil crisis. He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. I find it interesting that these studies keep coming out decade after decade against electric transport on cost or other issues. Edison's battery for cars seemed to be taken out this way, the Milwaukee Road got taken out this way, and now the Seattle Trolley buses might get taken out this way. I want to see a diesel vs. trolley bus test up a hill. Stop the insanity.
This is a case where the bean counters are counting the wrong beans. The metrics they used are out of touch with what's going on in the world today and the whole host of externalities that bean counters are not generally meant to measure till they are forced to. I can tell you that the dismantling of the Milwaukee Road was the dumbest thing right before an oil crisis. He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. I find it interesting that these studies keep coming out decade after decade against electric transport on cost or other issues. Edison's battery for cars seemed to be taken out this way, the Milwaukee Road got taken out this way, and now the Seattle Trolley buses might get taken out this way. I want to see a diesel vs. trolley bus test up a hill. Stop the insanity.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Bad Design and Money Disconnects
Hey everyone, I realize that the posts on here have slowed to a crawl. I don't meant to neglect them but sometimes life gets in the way. You can find links from me on twitter everyday @theoverheadwire. They are also on the bottom right of the blog. But on to biz:
I've had some tabs open that I really wanted to comment on but hadn't gotten a chance. So if this is old news I apologize:
First off, Kemper Freeman stands to gain a lot of development money from light rail. It's unfortunate that his head is so far up his ass that he can't see the dollar signs and is instead wasting them on lawsuits. No matter, give all those earnings to the lawyers and watch him lose anyway.
~~~
Second, I'm really annoyed at Yahoo's campus design. This is just more suburban crap and instead of creating buildings and a street network that actually form a true urban grid, such that other buildings could form some sort of urban neighborhood around them. This is what is wrong with our employment centers and why they aren't walkable, making it harder to take transit. Sure its better than what was there before, but it could have been used to set off a new way of developing office parks that was sustainable. Great you're next to a light rail line and it looks like a school campus. I still think Adobe is the champ for going downtown.
~~~
Finally. If you haven't seen it yet, the 1906 SF streetcar video is pretty cool. You can find more explanation at Market Street Railway.
I've had some tabs open that I really wanted to comment on but hadn't gotten a chance. So if this is old news I apologize:
First off, Kemper Freeman stands to gain a lot of development money from light rail. It's unfortunate that his head is so far up his ass that he can't see the dollar signs and is instead wasting them on lawsuits. No matter, give all those earnings to the lawyers and watch him lose anyway.
~~~
Second, I'm really annoyed at Yahoo's campus design. This is just more suburban crap and instead of creating buildings and a street network that actually form a true urban grid, such that other buildings could form some sort of urban neighborhood around them. This is what is wrong with our employment centers and why they aren't walkable, making it harder to take transit. Sure its better than what was there before, but it could have been used to set off a new way of developing office parks that was sustainable. Great you're next to a light rail line and it looks like a school campus. I still think Adobe is the champ for going downtown.
~~~
Finally. If you haven't seen it yet, the 1906 SF streetcar video is pretty cool. You can find more explanation at Market Street Railway.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Movement Depression and the Way Forward
It's been a bit rough lately. With the economy in the tank and people not wanting to spend any money, I've had great hope that some places were continuing to move forward with their urban rail plans. But the opponents fight harder than ever because they see the threat or people don't plan things enough to go forward with any confidence. Just today, the list of articles that show how hard we have to keep working was a bit much for me to handle.
Houston - The Mayor questions whether there is money to pay for two lines of the new five line light rail expansion in the city.
Austin - The Mayor decides its not time to have a bond election to pay for a future urban rail line.
Scotland - The company building Edinburgh's tram wants to delay 30 months after the rough ride they have already had.
Tampa - Ballot issue for rail dead for now due to lack of decision in how much of the funding would go to the rail project.
Bellevue: The city council is a bunch of morons there and don't want to run the line through a dense employment center.
There is a ray of hope out there. The Mayor of Los Angeles made me feel a bit better recently when he decided that he was going to ask to get things done faster. Ask for a loan so you can save billions in construction costs and have something built for your money faster. I would like to think that is how we work in the United States. But sometimes reading all the news I do just gets so depressing. At least someone has suggested a way forward. Whether we follow it or not is up to us.
Houston - The Mayor questions whether there is money to pay for two lines of the new five line light rail expansion in the city.
Austin - The Mayor decides its not time to have a bond election to pay for a future urban rail line.
Scotland - The company building Edinburgh's tram wants to delay 30 months after the rough ride they have already had.
Tampa - Ballot issue for rail dead for now due to lack of decision in how much of the funding would go to the rail project.
Bellevue: The city council is a bunch of morons there and don't want to run the line through a dense employment center.
There is a ray of hope out there. The Mayor of Los Angeles made me feel a bit better recently when he decided that he was going to ask to get things done faster. Ask for a loan so you can save billions in construction costs and have something built for your money faster. I would like to think that is how we work in the United States. But sometimes reading all the news I do just gets so depressing. At least someone has suggested a way forward. Whether we follow it or not is up to us.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Fight for Access
I'm a bit late posting this one...
One persons station access is another persons time added to the commute:
One persons station access is another persons time added to the commute:
This north-side resident found the light rail underwhelming—the train chugs along at street level at a modest speed, stopping 10 times, even stopping at times for traffic lights. It’s still faster to take the express bus from downtown. So it was interesting to hear a south-side community organizer speak Wednesday about working during the light-rail planning process to get precisely the things that annoyed me. “We [told transit planners] we wanted more stops and we don’t want intersections cut off,” said Yolanda Sinde,I suggest reading the rest of the post as well as it delves into gentrification and smart growth as well.
Monday, November 23, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Midweek Notes
Arlington is the largest city in the United States without transit, but will run trains through the city for the Superbowl coming in 2011.
~~~
Vancouver does Granny Flats in high rises.
~~~
Seattle Mayoral candidate McGinn is floating ideas for another light rail election in two years. But by light rail does he mean rapid streetcar or light metro?
~~~
A dustup over trolley buses in Seattle. I'd be interested to see if the bean counters actually did a lifecycle analysis considering how long electric trolleybuses actually last. Anyone who takes away existing hydro powered transit and replaces it with diesel needs a head check. It's unfortunate that it is even being discussed at all.
~~~
The economy isn't being so kind to mixed use projects in Atlanta.
~~~
Vancouver does Granny Flats in high rises.
~~~
Seattle Mayoral candidate McGinn is floating ideas for another light rail election in two years. But by light rail does he mean rapid streetcar or light metro?
~~~
A dustup over trolley buses in Seattle. I'd be interested to see if the bean counters actually did a lifecycle analysis considering how long electric trolleybuses actually last. Anyone who takes away existing hydro powered transit and replaces it with diesel needs a head check. It's unfortunate that it is even being discussed at all.
~~~
The economy isn't being so kind to mixed use projects in Atlanta.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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:
~~~
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
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Two Types of Approval
There's a dustup in Seattle over a voter approved streetcar on First Hill. Candidate Mallahan thinks it's not so smart and would oppose it on the grounds of its expense. Of course he's showing his true colors faster than anyone expected but his even bigger mistake in my eyes is stating that the tunnel deal between the city, state, and county is more of a done deal because of the years it has taken to come to agreement. As if voter approval was just something for the plebes. While its nice that they came to agreement, it's not what voters even wanted and shows a disconnect between what voter approved means and what politician approved means.
"Secondly, when voters vote for something and fund it, as they have with the First Hill Street Car, we should build it. And Mr. Mallahan doesn't seemto think that's the case. But he also seems to think we should build a tunnel that 70 percent of Seattle voters oppose."I don't quite understand the inconstancy, but this is coming from someone who believes unfunded backroom highway deals are more important than voter approved funded transit deals.
...
Mallahan's campaign shrugged off the attack and accused McGinn of inconsistency and hypocrisy because he wants to thwart the $4.3 billion Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel project that took years for the state, City and King County to agree on.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Magical Matching Funds
It looks like Senator Murry pulled a Pelosi in setting the terms of her own matching funds which again shows how the New Starts system is broken. People will continue to write in these rule changes for specific projects if the system continues to not work for them.
Murray's provision requires the FTA to count money from tolls and state gas taxes as part of the expected 40 to 50 percent of the light rail line paid for from "nonfederal" sources.The historical precedent for this was set by Nancy Pelosi when she decided that the Third Street line could be the match for the Central Subway and wrote it into law. Supposedly Houston has a similar deal writing in the Main Street Line as a match for the future network as well, but it hasn't really been mentioned much.
Included language allowing Houston METRO to get credit for state and local funds already spent on the design and construction of the existing Main Street light rail. This means METRO will be credited an additional $324 million for future FTA-approved transit projects.The point is that if lawmakers are going to continue to toss these things in, it probably means they are ready for a cleaner transportation bill that allows regions to spend money on what they need, instead of what there is money for specifically.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
More Notes
Not sure if you all enjoy the shorter link posts but they can be easier when I'm short on time.
A really cool look at how the Bell Red corridor could develop over time with LRT.
~~~
An off topic but related issue, how Berkeley is paying for the city's solar panels is pretty innovative.
~~~
Germany is looking at speed limits on the autobahn. It's good for the environment, even if it is fun to drive so fast.
~~~
El Paso is looking to redevelop a strip mall infested street with BRT. No definition of BRT included.
A really cool look at how the Bell Red corridor could develop over time with LRT.
~~~
An off topic but related issue, how Berkeley is paying for the city's solar panels is pretty innovative.
the city itself just issues a bond to pay for the upfront costs of installing the panels, and the homeowner then repays the government over the course of 20 years via a small line item on the property-tax bill. (This way, if the home is sold, the costs of the panels get passed on to the new owner getting the benefits.)Not sure how this relates to transit but there must be something we can learn from this, especially since better access increases property taxes.
~~~
Germany is looking at speed limits on the autobahn. It's good for the environment, even if it is fun to drive so fast.
~~~
El Paso is looking to redevelop a strip mall infested street with BRT. No definition of BRT included.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Link Light Rail
Seattle opened it's first regional light rail line today! Very exciting. I know some of you have been hoping for a post on this, but really, I have to leave it to the Seattle Transit Blog folks who have done an excellent job push hard up in Washington for great transit. Today they are tweeting and blogging and posting video from the first ride. Check em out.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Night Owl Links
Here's a little something to keep you going:
Edmonton planners hope a TOD plan in the suburbs will reduce the need for driving every trip.
~~~
When is Mayor McCrory or Charlotte gonna realize that their transit goals aren't compatible with this loop obsession?
~~~
Crosscut now talks about how to do density right. Hugeasscity links to all the times they were against it.
~~~
The Green revolution in Iran will continue with available subway operations.
~~~
HNTB is part of the dinosaur establishment in transit engineering that thinks the cost effectiveness measure is going to be the end all be all for capital transit funding. Wake up, it's gonna change. Ray LaHood has been telling you over and over and over again.
Edmonton planners hope a TOD plan in the suburbs will reduce the need for driving every trip.
~~~
When is Mayor McCrory or Charlotte gonna realize that their transit goals aren't compatible with this loop obsession?
~~~
Crosscut now talks about how to do density right. Hugeasscity links to all the times they were against it.
~~~
The Green revolution in Iran will continue with available subway operations.
~~~
HNTB is part of the dinosaur establishment in transit engineering that thinks the cost effectiveness measure is going to be the end all be all for capital transit funding. Wake up, it's gonna change. Ray LaHood has been telling you over and over and over again.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Wee Hours Linkage
I'm kind of a night owl and its sometimes nice because the next days news comes out right before I go to bed. It's also bad because the next days news comes out right before I want to go to bed :)
~~~
Apparently the TA really likes BRT on Geary. Whatever. After riding the bus on the HOV/BRT lane from LAX to Union Station I realized why the rubber tires just don't cut it. I couldn't read the news on my Iphone without getting seriously ill. I feel bad for the people who will have to ride that bouncefest in from the Richmond every morning. Sure it will be a faster bouncefest, but a bouncefest nonetheless.
The next sick part though, the completely ridiculous cost estimate of $5 billion dollars for surface subway. If it really does cost $100 million a mile and it's a ~6.5 mile line with ~2 miles of subway, why the hell would 2 miles cost $4+ billion dollars???!!! And why does it cost $100 million a mile on the surface? It's not like the T-Third with drawbridge retrofits. Someone at the TA is a little too close to those medical hash dispensaries. Plz to have new engineers!!!
I guess it really doesn't matter. The Richmond is never going to get a Metro, BART or otherwise. I'm sorry guys, you've been deemed second class citizens to the TA and Muni. Well maybe third class, because everyone who rides Muni is already second class.
~~~
And we wonder why a ton of suburban roads get built?
I think we need new engineers in the bay area. All these cost estimates are insane. The airport connector is just another example of it. If there is one place I would like to see intelligent design, it's here. And 80 foot buses? Come on Transform, you know thats not possible. The Orange line had to get special permission from Caltrans to run 65 footers, just five feet longer than the usual artics.
~~~
If Microsoft wants a light rail extension so bad, why can't they pay for it. It's thier own fault that they located so far away from the center of the region. Job sprawl has consequences, one of them being high capital cost for extensions. Papa Gates should foot the bill for this one.
~~
Does the Peninsula want to pay for a tunnel? I'd be interested in seeing a poll on the issue of a tunnel. I wonder if the NIMBY's would get rejected for thier high cost plans.
~~~
Apparently the TA really likes BRT on Geary. Whatever. After riding the bus on the HOV/BRT lane from LAX to Union Station I realized why the rubber tires just don't cut it. I couldn't read the news on my Iphone without getting seriously ill. I feel bad for the people who will have to ride that bouncefest in from the Richmond every morning. Sure it will be a faster bouncefest, but a bouncefest nonetheless.
The next sick part though, the completely ridiculous cost estimate of $5 billion dollars for surface subway. If it really does cost $100 million a mile and it's a ~6.5 mile line with ~2 miles of subway, why the hell would 2 miles cost $4+ billion dollars???!!! And why does it cost $100 million a mile on the surface? It's not like the T-Third with drawbridge retrofits. Someone at the TA is a little too close to those medical hash dispensaries. Plz to have new engineers!!!
I guess it really doesn't matter. The Richmond is never going to get a Metro, BART or otherwise. I'm sorry guys, you've been deemed second class citizens to the TA and Muni. Well maybe third class, because everyone who rides Muni is already second class.
~~~
And we wonder why a ton of suburban roads get built?
The city of Charlotte has 75 percent of Mecklenburg's population, but only has 1 of 9 voting members on the MTC.~~~
I think we need new engineers in the bay area. All these cost estimates are insane. The airport connector is just another example of it. If there is one place I would like to see intelligent design, it's here. And 80 foot buses? Come on Transform, you know thats not possible. The Orange line had to get special permission from Caltrans to run 65 footers, just five feet longer than the usual artics.
~~~
If Microsoft wants a light rail extension so bad, why can't they pay for it. It's thier own fault that they located so far away from the center of the region. Job sprawl has consequences, one of them being high capital cost for extensions. Papa Gates should foot the bill for this one.
~~
Does the Peninsula want to pay for a tunnel? I'd be interested in seeing a poll on the issue of a tunnel. I wonder if the NIMBY's would get rejected for thier high cost plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)