Showing posts with label Seattle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seattle. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Historical Seattle Transit Data
I hear there is an upcoming election on a rapid transit network. The Mayor urges the opponents to stop being ridiculous. Hopefully that is a future, but here is a link to Seattle Transit's past. Check out PublicTransit.us' historical light rail data.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Future is in the Past
Orphan Road has photos of a 1920 plan for a Seattle Subway System. It looks awfully familiar.
Second Avenue Sagas discusses the 1960 New York Subway Expansion that never happened.
Switchback laments the loss of the Arborway Branch of the Green Line in Boston. The State has a legal obligation to run it as a rail line again, but they just paved over the tracks, hoping the thought will just go away. I would say that Boston is second to AC Transit in rail hate. Not an easy feat when everyone else is trying to put rail lines back.
A post on the Political Environment Blog discusses the loss of a rail fight in Milwaukee back in 1997. Then Governor Tommy Thompson loved the idea, but apparently its demise was due to right-wing radio. It seems like some things never change. The city still can't quite beat back the scourge of winger radio and in a city that's set up well for transit (weighted density 5,830) with approaching $5 gas, things are starting to look up a little when the main paper is pushing both sides a bit harder.
Second Avenue Sagas discusses the 1960 New York Subway Expansion that never happened.
Switchback laments the loss of the Arborway Branch of the Green Line in Boston. The State has a legal obligation to run it as a rail line again, but they just paved over the tracks, hoping the thought will just go away. I would say that Boston is second to AC Transit in rail hate. Not an easy feat when everyone else is trying to put rail lines back.
A post on the Political Environment Blog discusses the loss of a rail fight in Milwaukee back in 1997. Then Governor Tommy Thompson loved the idea, but apparently its demise was due to right-wing radio. It seems like some things never change. The city still can't quite beat back the scourge of winger radio and in a city that's set up well for transit (weighted density 5,830) with approaching $5 gas, things are starting to look up a little when the main paper is pushing both sides a bit harder.
Had Tommy stood up to the local conservative talk radio hosts who still use "light rail" as an all-purpose anti-urban code phrase, workers and students commuting from Waukesha could be riding the rails with some of that $4-gallon gas money in their pockets.We can learn much from the past, so we don't make similar mistakes going forward.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Transit Space Race 202: Who's On Top?
Every once in a while we have to review where the TSR is going. Today let's take a short look at the leader board. Previous TSR update for the whole race can be found here. Keep in mind legacy cities are expanding transit as well, but the cities in the TSR are those which have pushed off transit until recently and are trying to bring it back.
The leaders are far ahead of the other cities, many of which are either just building as funds come available or still in the initial stage of denial. That doesn't mean there's not time to catch up, but these leading cities are still the reason I started covering the space race. Because they were accelerating expansion far beyond the line at a time doctrine and capturing the hope that things can change and people are ready for it.
Denver - Fastracks is still the granddaddy of expansion. The West Corridor has begun construction and the 119 new miles of rail are expected to be completed by 2016. That seems so soon, so awesomely soon in fact that folks are starting to look at the next round of possibilities.
Houston - While not as publicized as much as the Fastracks expansion, the Metro Solutions expansion was actually voted on before Fastracks. However it wasn't seen as such a big deal until it was looked at in the context of all these other expansions. It's more of a central city circulation system but works with existing HOV bus lanes to allow people in the dense core of Houston to get around. I wonder what the weighted Density is inside the loop. AC?
Salt Lake City - Fast on the heels of Denver and Houston, Salt Lake City passed a sales tax measure to expand on the initial success of their first line, which opened in 1999. The expansion is called Front Lines and will build 70 miles worth of rail in 7 years.
Minneapolis - While there isn't a plan in place for expansion like the other cities, there are lines that will get the money when it comes. The DFL party in Minnesota passed a sales tax expansion for capital transit expansion and overrode a veto by vice presidential hopeful Gov. Pawlenty. This doesn't include a possible center city streetcar network under discussion.
These four cities are in the fast lane. Other cities are building network expansions but at a slower pace. Charlotte passed a half cent sales tax in 1998 but is expanding their 5 line system slowly. There are considerations for further tax increases for expansion in other cities as well including Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas and Sacramento among others. We will be watching as gas prices goes up and the call for expansion increases. It wouldn't hurt either to have a more friendly administration in the White House.
Oh, and let's not forget the godfather, Portland. 4 lines and a streetcar exist. Two lines are under construction while three other lines are in waiting with a center city streetcar network looking more likely. They are still the leaders and set the standard but the next generation is gaining.
The leaders are far ahead of the other cities, many of which are either just building as funds come available or still in the initial stage of denial. That doesn't mean there's not time to catch up, but these leading cities are still the reason I started covering the space race. Because they were accelerating expansion far beyond the line at a time doctrine and capturing the hope that things can change and people are ready for it.
Denver - Fastracks is still the granddaddy of expansion. The West Corridor has begun construction and the 119 new miles of rail are expected to be completed by 2016. That seems so soon, so awesomely soon in fact that folks are starting to look at the next round of possibilities.
Houston - While not as publicized as much as the Fastracks expansion, the Metro Solutions expansion was actually voted on before Fastracks. However it wasn't seen as such a big deal until it was looked at in the context of all these other expansions. It's more of a central city circulation system but works with existing HOV bus lanes to allow people in the dense core of Houston to get around. I wonder what the weighted Density is inside the loop. AC?
Salt Lake City - Fast on the heels of Denver and Houston, Salt Lake City passed a sales tax measure to expand on the initial success of their first line, which opened in 1999. The expansion is called Front Lines and will build 70 miles worth of rail in 7 years.
Minneapolis - While there isn't a plan in place for expansion like the other cities, there are lines that will get the money when it comes. The DFL party in Minnesota passed a sales tax expansion for capital transit expansion and overrode a veto by vice presidential hopeful Gov. Pawlenty. This doesn't include a possible center city streetcar network under discussion.
These four cities are in the fast lane. Other cities are building network expansions but at a slower pace. Charlotte passed a half cent sales tax in 1998 but is expanding their 5 line system slowly. There are considerations for further tax increases for expansion in other cities as well including Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas and Sacramento among others. We will be watching as gas prices goes up and the call for expansion increases. It wouldn't hurt either to have a more friendly administration in the White House.
Oh, and let's not forget the godfather, Portland. 4 lines and a streetcar exist. Two lines are under construction while three other lines are in waiting with a center city streetcar network looking more likely. They are still the leaders and set the standard but the next generation is gaining.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Streetcars: Getting Out of Our Silos
This began as a response to some comments on a thread over at the Seattle Transit Blog. Almost everyone over there on that thread is supportive of streetcars, just not how they are implemented. Some want fixed guideways, some think buses are better and others believe that streetcars are worthless.
When we look at streetcars from a purely transportation standpoint, we are missing the point. We are creating silos in which to put different aspects of the city. Transportation here, land use here, city fiscal responsibility here, and the environment here.
If we are to look at the overall benefits and needs, we see that there is a great benefit to streetcars when they are appropriate which I believe they were in Portland and Seattle given the goals of these lines. The goals implicitly or explicitly were to tie downtown to a new neighborhood that would boost walkability and livability in the city for more people. There is an important lesson for how cities benefit from transportation such as the streetcar.
1. The Corridor vs. Node
Streetcars are not meant to be rapid transit but rather pedestrian accelerators within districts and areas just outside of town. If you think that streetcars are the solution to everything, you are wrong. A system is needed but how the technology influences land use is important to the decision. Given that the streetcar is pedestrian scaled, it creates a corridor of pedestrian oriented development. This is why many of the first ring suburbs have commercial strips that were once served by streetcars. It's also why many of the former interurban lines formed small towns around the station, just like light rail creates a node of development today. Two different transit modes, two different purposes.
2. Streetcar Corridors Create More Density/Value
More density means more rooftops means more close retail means more walking. This is important because when we build new neighborhoods we want people not to do the same things they do in sprawl. The key to the streetcar is increasing the envelope for density on a corridor. In fact the streetcar in Portland pushed developers to get closer to their density maximums closer to the line. 90% of the envelope was filled one block from the line. 75% two blocks and further down. Seattle is doing the same thing. Building at higher densities that would usually be built because of developer confidence in the future of the streetcar.
But why is this important? Well it means that over the long term, that piece of land will create more tax revenue than whatever dreck was built next to the bus line. So when we look at the streetcar funding issue versus the bus, how much more value was created for the community? What is the tax creation of a 10 story building over 100 years versus a 5 story building? So in the whole scheme of things, the bus is a cheap alternative that in the end costs the city more. We need to get out of that silo.
3. It Creates the Pedestrian Experience
Part of the reason for building the streetcar and creating the density is creating a good pedestrian and street environment. Who wants a bus running by your dinner? Your coffee?
But also, the creation of a pedestrian environment and pedestrian accelerators increased the area folks are willing to walk. And the creation of more of these neighborhoods on a corridor by streetcars is important because this increased walking has been shown to reduce VMT. In fact the 7,200 housing units along the Portland Streetcar line have been estimated to reduce VMT by 53 million miles a year. Thats nothing to sneeze at and will be something that decreases greenhouse gases. But all of this is not attributable to the streetcar, but to the creation of a walkable environment from the densities and streetscapes. Developers are more willing to create these densities and places with the streetcar instead of a bus.
As I have said before, its not always about speed. Creating an environment for pedestrians means also a slower environment, a safer environment. While 43,000 a year die on the highways, I heard this weekend from Rick Gustafson of Portland Streetcar Inc that the Streetcar has had accidents, but no one has been seriously injured.
So while a bus might be more flexible, as a circulator and distributer the streetcar serves a community organizing purpose. It is not for every corridor and in fact it might animate less used streets such as the North-South streets chosen for Portland's streetcar. That does not mean that the route should travel away from the preferred corridor such as Guadalupe street in Austin and Guadalupe should have a dedicated lane due to its traffic volumes. But these are decisions that should be made based on the location and with the whole vision in mind. We need to stop thinking in our silos and think about and articulate all the benefits of certain investments from all standpoints, not just transportation and moving people. After all, thats all the highway engineers do and look what it gets us, big roads that move cars faster while killing street life.
When we look at streetcars from a purely transportation standpoint, we are missing the point. We are creating silos in which to put different aspects of the city. Transportation here, land use here, city fiscal responsibility here, and the environment here.
If we are to look at the overall benefits and needs, we see that there is a great benefit to streetcars when they are appropriate which I believe they were in Portland and Seattle given the goals of these lines. The goals implicitly or explicitly were to tie downtown to a new neighborhood that would boost walkability and livability in the city for more people. There is an important lesson for how cities benefit from transportation such as the streetcar.
1. The Corridor vs. Node
Streetcars are not meant to be rapid transit but rather pedestrian accelerators within districts and areas just outside of town. If you think that streetcars are the solution to everything, you are wrong. A system is needed but how the technology influences land use is important to the decision. Given that the streetcar is pedestrian scaled, it creates a corridor of pedestrian oriented development. This is why many of the first ring suburbs have commercial strips that were once served by streetcars. It's also why many of the former interurban lines formed small towns around the station, just like light rail creates a node of development today. Two different transit modes, two different purposes.
2. Streetcar Corridors Create More Density/Value
More density means more rooftops means more close retail means more walking. This is important because when we build new neighborhoods we want people not to do the same things they do in sprawl. The key to the streetcar is increasing the envelope for density on a corridor. In fact the streetcar in Portland pushed developers to get closer to their density maximums closer to the line. 90% of the envelope was filled one block from the line. 75% two blocks and further down. Seattle is doing the same thing. Building at higher densities that would usually be built because of developer confidence in the future of the streetcar.
But why is this important? Well it means that over the long term, that piece of land will create more tax revenue than whatever dreck was built next to the bus line. So when we look at the streetcar funding issue versus the bus, how much more value was created for the community? What is the tax creation of a 10 story building over 100 years versus a 5 story building? So in the whole scheme of things, the bus is a cheap alternative that in the end costs the city more. We need to get out of that silo.
3. It Creates the Pedestrian Experience
Part of the reason for building the streetcar and creating the density is creating a good pedestrian and street environment. Who wants a bus running by your dinner? Your coffee?
But also, the creation of a pedestrian environment and pedestrian accelerators increased the area folks are willing to walk. And the creation of more of these neighborhoods on a corridor by streetcars is important because this increased walking has been shown to reduce VMT. In fact the 7,200 housing units along the Portland Streetcar line have been estimated to reduce VMT by 53 million miles a year. Thats nothing to sneeze at and will be something that decreases greenhouse gases. But all of this is not attributable to the streetcar, but to the creation of a walkable environment from the densities and streetscapes. Developers are more willing to create these densities and places with the streetcar instead of a bus.
As I have said before, its not always about speed. Creating an environment for pedestrians means also a slower environment, a safer environment. While 43,000 a year die on the highways, I heard this weekend from Rick Gustafson of Portland Streetcar Inc that the Streetcar has had accidents, but no one has been seriously injured.
So while a bus might be more flexible, as a circulator and distributer the streetcar serves a community organizing purpose. It is not for every corridor and in fact it might animate less used streets such as the North-South streets chosen for Portland's streetcar. That does not mean that the route should travel away from the preferred corridor such as Guadalupe street in Austin and Guadalupe should have a dedicated lane due to its traffic volumes. But these are decisions that should be made based on the location and with the whole vision in mind. We need to stop thinking in our silos and think about and articulate all the benefits of certain investments from all standpoints, not just transportation and moving people. After all, thats all the highway engineers do and look what it gets us, big roads that move cars faster while killing street life.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Want to Chat With Fellow Transit Nerds?
I like discussions on transit. It's fun to sit around and shoot the breeze about whatever is going on. Here in San Francisco there used to be forums over at the SF Cityscape where the folks would gather to talk about transit, but its migrated over to Ess Eff. Cityscape still has some awesome resources including a huge blogroll.
As forums go though, I don't think there has ever been one about the transit oriented lifestyle but over at the Metro Rider LA Fred Camino and the gang have done just that. So if you want to go talk transit, check it out. And if anyone wants visit Frank up in Seattle and jump start a conversation there, he's got one too, although the comments section to his blog and over at STB are pretty lively. And down in my hometown of Houston Christof and the gang have the CTC forums.
Are there any other transit forums out there? I know there are a number of yahoo groups with epic battles taking place daily between the transit folks and anti-planners/libertarians but I hadn't seen any in other places.
As forums go though, I don't think there has ever been one about the transit oriented lifestyle but over at the Metro Rider LA Fred Camino and the gang have done just that. So if you want to go talk transit, check it out. And if anyone wants visit Frank up in Seattle and jump start a conversation there, he's got one too, although the comments section to his blog and over at STB are pretty lively. And down in my hometown of Houston Christof and the gang have the CTC forums.
Are there any other transit forums out there? I know there are a number of yahoo groups with epic battles taking place daily between the transit folks and anti-planners/libertarians but I hadn't seen any in other places.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Why Are the Goal Posts Moving?
The FTA is really trying to kill rail projects in the United States. So it seems are the folks over at the Sierra Club in Seattle. In Charlotte, the FTA is requiring that the North Corridor LRT be 65% through preliminary engineering before they can enter into preliminary engineering in the federal process. This means that you can do all of the work and they can come in and say they don't like it, which means you might be out of luck and need to spend millions to re-engineer something they don't like. It used to be 30% so the plan could be analyzed earlier. My first question would be if they make BRT projects do the same or if they get special treatment because they are the administrations favorite mode. Another question is why does the FTA have so much power over transit projects but the FHWA just doles out highway money to the states to spend on whatever freeway they like? They pay 80% for freeways and 50% for transit, doesn't seem fair that they have control over where your line goes or define your project by what they think cost effectiveness is (hint: no one's cost effectiveness is the same as theirs except anti transit folks).
I wouldn't have a problem with this if the FTA had more money and was likely to fund more projects. But they don't and they aren't. In fact lately they have been tightening the screws. This year had the least number of projects in the new starts process than any year previous. In the late 90s there were usually around 40 projects in Preliminary Engineering. Today there are 10. Yes 10 projects. Out of all the planned projects (At least 50) that I've listed in the Transit Space Race for expansion in the United States, there are only 10 projects in preliminary engineering. Administrator Simpson claims that the Bush administration has funded more projects than during Clinton, but we know that most of these projects were started during the 90s and they are only now able to start shutting off the money with Secretary Peters at the helm.
This is a direct result of the Bush administration's disdain for transit. And while its likely to get better with a new administration, there is going to be a big fight for the new transportation bill to see where money goes in 2009. The Mary Peters set including Wendell Cox and Ken Orski are saying that there is no need for new rail starts in the United States. They say the rail expansion is over and right now they have the ears of the politicos at the FTA.
Which brings me to Seattle. The Sierra Club all over the United States has really fried my bacon, with the exception of Boston. Those guys are doing a great job, but here in Marin and up in Seattle they don't get it. In Marin like Seattle, the SC is lobbying against the train because it will bring growth. It's coming whether you like it or not. You can let all those people drive all the way into town or you can build a line that allows for TOD and expansion of transit PMT. But in addition, whether you like it or not, parking is big in the FTA models I discussed above which are a large part of the cost effectiveness measure. In fact, I would wager that if the Sierra Club got its wish, there would be no federal money for the extensions in Seattle and the lines would be funded completely by local taxes. I'm not sure that would sit well with folks up there. There are better ways to control growth than not building an important transit line.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if the FTA had more money and was likely to fund more projects. But they don't and they aren't. In fact lately they have been tightening the screws. This year had the least number of projects in the new starts process than any year previous. In the late 90s there were usually around 40 projects in Preliminary Engineering. Today there are 10. Yes 10 projects. Out of all the planned projects (At least 50) that I've listed in the Transit Space Race for expansion in the United States, there are only 10 projects in preliminary engineering. Administrator Simpson claims that the Bush administration has funded more projects than during Clinton, but we know that most of these projects were started during the 90s and they are only now able to start shutting off the money with Secretary Peters at the helm.
This is a direct result of the Bush administration's disdain for transit. And while its likely to get better with a new administration, there is going to be a big fight for the new transportation bill to see where money goes in 2009. The Mary Peters set including Wendell Cox and Ken Orski are saying that there is no need for new rail starts in the United States. They say the rail expansion is over and right now they have the ears of the politicos at the FTA.
Which brings me to Seattle. The Sierra Club all over the United States has really fried my bacon, with the exception of Boston. Those guys are doing a great job, but here in Marin and up in Seattle they don't get it. In Marin like Seattle, the SC is lobbying against the train because it will bring growth. It's coming whether you like it or not. You can let all those people drive all the way into town or you can build a line that allows for TOD and expansion of transit PMT. But in addition, whether you like it or not, parking is big in the FTA models I discussed above which are a large part of the cost effectiveness measure. In fact, I would wager that if the Sierra Club got its wish, there would be no federal money for the extensions in Seattle and the lines would be funded completely by local taxes. I'm not sure that would sit well with folks up there. There are better ways to control growth than not building an important transit line.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Parking Lot Congestion Pricing?
I was reading up on the Seattle congestion pricing debate over at Seattle Transit Blog and Orphan Road and was thinking about ways to address the equity issue of congestion pricing. I'm wondering what kind of tax isn't regressive. Is it the land tax? Perhaps.
But what about a rush hour parking tax?
Parking garages have meters that do timestamping, so why not charge a fee for parking between 8:00 and 9:30 and leaving between 4:30 and 6:00. When you use that funding for expanding transit, you can then expand to road based congestion pricing after expanding transit. That way if you don't have any other options, you can still get in and park if its early or late making people vary their timing surely making it more equitable. I'm sure there are drawbacks because this just popped into my head and I didn't think it through completely but I'd like to hear people's take on it. It could be too limited to workers downtown for instance. Or people could just write it off on their taxes unless that benefit was taken away.
But what about a rush hour parking tax?
Parking garages have meters that do timestamping, so why not charge a fee for parking between 8:00 and 9:30 and leaving between 4:30 and 6:00. When you use that funding for expanding transit, you can then expand to road based congestion pricing after expanding transit. That way if you don't have any other options, you can still get in and park if its early or late making people vary their timing surely making it more equitable. I'm sure there are drawbacks because this just popped into my head and I didn't think it through completely but I'd like to hear people's take on it. It could be too limited to workers downtown for instance. Or people could just write it off on their taxes unless that benefit was taken away.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Seattle Action Alert!
Martin has more at Seattle Transit Blog. Save the University Link and Sound Transit.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Seattle Streetcar Network
Diamajin at the Seattle Transit Blog has a post with a lot of comments (Please read them too) on an idea for a Seattle Streetcar Network. Check it out.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Two Seattle News Items
Lots of coverage over at the Seattle Transit Blog Triad...
South Lake Union Streetcar Opens
Seattle Transit Blog
Orphan Road Overlords
Orphan Road Opens
New Viaduct News
Carless in Seattle
Orphan Road
Seattle Transit Blog
South Lake Union Streetcar Opens
Seattle Transit Blog
Orphan Road Overlords
Orphan Road Opens
New Viaduct News
Carless in Seattle
Orphan Road
Seattle Transit Blog
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Proposal for a Seattle Streetcar Network
Some profs over at the University of Washington have done a report on how the streetcar network in Seattle can expand into 5 different neighborhoods. Their proposal doesn't give costs but lays out the amount of development that could possibly contribute to a local improvement district (LID) and TIF to pay for the expansion. The corridors would connect a larger part of the downtown to the light rail system thats currently under construction and provide a push for development close to downtown. Very interesting stuff. The Seattle Times has more. The graphic below shows the lines from the study.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Watch that Wedge Jacking Up the Freeway
Why after all these years do some people in the fight still not get it. They always say they do but they keep proving they don't. Yes I'm talking about the enviros. The reason you build rail is to change land use patterns. The best way to reduce GHGs is to create dense walkable neighborhoods which is what developers create around rail.
The reason I bring this up is that the head of the NRDC came and spoke at Rail~Volution and mentioned that BRT as a mode was better for the environment than light rail from an energy standpoint. WHAT? I could feel the collective annoyance of the audience when he said this. This is the same point that the anti-rail crowd has been trying to jam down people's throats, the idea that because of coal fired power plants light rail is dirty. Well we know this is BS, (proven here too) but it also misses the point. Transit is a part of the solution but so is its integration with and promotion of land use and other modes such as bikes and walking. Buses just serve existing land use but do not change the paradigm along the high capacity spine of a transit network. (Note that I don't believe light rail is best for every situation and bus networks are important feeders). When you add this paradigm shift in, the decision to invest in rail transit creates drastic reductions in emissions.
Everyone should see CNT's map of Chicago CO2 gases per capita. It shows that where there is good transit and good land use, reductions in emissions occur on a per capita basis. This is due to the fact that when you give people options, they don't drive as much reducing GHGs. They might bike or walk and these modes also need infrastructure improvements also to complete the modal network effect. This is why the whole argument that electric cars are going to solve everything drives me crazy. Even with electric cars you get the same wasteful land use patterns which are incredibly energy intensive.
So while consultants to the Sierra Club and NRDC get it, there are still too many people in those organizations and in congress focusing mostly on technology for automobiles and BRT without dealing with the combination of two things that create the most efficient reductions in GHGs, buildings and transport. There are some that are starting to get it. But in order to do it, we need to change our infrastructure priorities to modes which promote the change, not just serve it. Don't get me wrong, buses are necessary, but don't tell me that BRT as a single mode is better than light rail for GHG emission reductions.
But now after the Seattle election we have an even bigger problem. The people in the roads faction know that the enviros split the vote and are going to exploit it. Already there have been articles touting the separation between the light rail supporters and the environmental community however wrong their assessments are on why there was a separation. The CSM article pushes the meme that the enviros were divided because of the transit portion, and not because of all the roads that caused problems. It seems that we have a breach in the wall and need to fill it.
S0 the environmental community in Seattle might have just created a new talking point for the opposition. So even if there aren't any GHG generating roads in new elections, you can guaranty that this "transit doesn't help climate change" talking point is going to come out of the mouthes of road warriors who would love to use this as a wedge issue in order to protect the road status quo.
The reason I bring this up is that the head of the NRDC came and spoke at Rail~Volution and mentioned that BRT as a mode was better for the environment than light rail from an energy standpoint. WHAT? I could feel the collective annoyance of the audience when he said this. This is the same point that the anti-rail crowd has been trying to jam down people's throats, the idea that because of coal fired power plants light rail is dirty. Well we know this is BS, (proven here too) but it also misses the point. Transit is a part of the solution but so is its integration with and promotion of land use and other modes such as bikes and walking. Buses just serve existing land use but do not change the paradigm along the high capacity spine of a transit network. (Note that I don't believe light rail is best for every situation and bus networks are important feeders). When you add this paradigm shift in, the decision to invest in rail transit creates drastic reductions in emissions.
Everyone should see CNT's map of Chicago CO2 gases per capita. It shows that where there is good transit and good land use, reductions in emissions occur on a per capita basis. This is due to the fact that when you give people options, they don't drive as much reducing GHGs. They might bike or walk and these modes also need infrastructure improvements also to complete the modal network effect. This is why the whole argument that electric cars are going to solve everything drives me crazy. Even with electric cars you get the same wasteful land use patterns which are incredibly energy intensive.
So while consultants to the Sierra Club and NRDC get it, there are still too many people in those organizations and in congress focusing mostly on technology for automobiles and BRT without dealing with the combination of two things that create the most efficient reductions in GHGs, buildings and transport. There are some that are starting to get it. But in order to do it, we need to change our infrastructure priorities to modes which promote the change, not just serve it. Don't get me wrong, buses are necessary, but don't tell me that BRT as a single mode is better than light rail for GHG emission reductions.
But now after the Seattle election we have an even bigger problem. The people in the roads faction know that the enviros split the vote and are going to exploit it. Already there have been articles touting the separation between the light rail supporters and the environmental community however wrong their assessments are on why there was a separation. The CSM article pushes the meme that the enviros were divided because of the transit portion, and not because of all the roads that caused problems. It seems that we have a breach in the wall and need to fill it.
S0 the environmental community in Seattle might have just created a new talking point for the opposition. So even if there aren't any GHG generating roads in new elections, you can guaranty that this "transit doesn't help climate change" talking point is going to come out of the mouthes of road warriors who would love to use this as a wedge issue in order to protect the road status quo.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
07 Rail Election Blog Updates
So far it looks like survival in Charlotte. Still have to wait for full results but it looks good. No word from Seattle as its still too early on the west coast. I'm sorry to say that Blogger will be out at 11pm PST. They just had to choose an election day!?
Recap:
San Francisco won't have results for a few weeks.
Seattle's Prop 1. Was defeated but no one knows what that means
Charlotte's Transit Tax gets 70% of vote
Box Elder County Voters in Utah say yes to commuter rail
Davis County voted against a transit sales tax while Weber County was too close to call on thiers
Update 11:25 PT: Measure A in San Francisco appears to be ahead in early voting and Measure H is behind. Just what we wanted to hear.
Update 10:55 PT: People in Seattle don't know where to go next, mostly because so many different groups were for or against that a no vote doesn't really say what people were against.
Update 10:40 PT: Transit Supporters in Charlotte are surprised by the overwhelming victory.
Update 10:09 PT: With about 450,000 votes counted, Prop 1 is failing 44% to 56%.
Update 8:37 PT: Doesn't look good so far for Seattle.
Update 7:50 PT: The Transit Tax is declared safe by the Charlotte Observer. The anti-rail faction that drove this election got destroyed and rightfully so. This should be seen as a mandate for a real transit system.
Eric over at Xing Columbus in the comments says that Mayor Coleman of Columbus who is pro-streetcar seems to have won by a landslide.
--------------------------------------------------
Update 5:27 PT: It'll only be 10 minutes downtime. Also, the initial results from early voting in Charlotte are here.
Update 6:37 PT: 51% of precincts are in for Charlotte, Transit is winning 71% to 29%.
Update 6:55 PT: Muni Measure A and Parking H are also up tonight. I'll be watching for those although apparently we can't get things done here in San Francisco in one night.
Update 6:57 PT: 62% in Charlotte and its looking pretty good. 71% to 29% for Transit.
Update 7:43 PT: 96% in Charlotte and its still 70% to 30%. It doesn't look good for the road warriors. If they believed that this was a vote for or against rail, they sure are getting hammered.
Recap:
San Francisco won't have results for a few weeks.
Seattle's Prop 1. Was defeated but no one knows what that means
Charlotte's Transit Tax gets 70% of vote
Box Elder County Voters in Utah say yes to commuter rail
Davis County voted against a transit sales tax while Weber County was too close to call on thiers
Update 11:25 PT: Measure A in San Francisco appears to be ahead in early voting and Measure H is behind. Just what we wanted to hear.
Update 10:55 PT: People in Seattle don't know where to go next, mostly because so many different groups were for or against that a no vote doesn't really say what people were against.
Update 10:40 PT: Transit Supporters in Charlotte are surprised by the overwhelming victory.
Update 10:09 PT: With about 450,000 votes counted, Prop 1 is failing 44% to 56%.
Update 8:37 PT: Doesn't look good so far for Seattle.
Update 7:50 PT: The Transit Tax is declared safe by the Charlotte Observer. The anti-rail faction that drove this election got destroyed and rightfully so. This should be seen as a mandate for a real transit system.
Eric over at Xing Columbus in the comments says that Mayor Coleman of Columbus who is pro-streetcar seems to have won by a landslide.
--------------------------------------------------
Update 5:27 PT: It'll only be 10 minutes downtime. Also, the initial results from early voting in Charlotte are here.
Update 6:37 PT: 51% of precincts are in for Charlotte, Transit is winning 71% to 29%.
Update 6:55 PT: Muni Measure A and Parking H are also up tonight. I'll be watching for those although apparently we can't get things done here in San Francisco in one night.
Update 6:57 PT: 62% in Charlotte and its looking pretty good. 71% to 29% for Transit.
Update 7:43 PT: 96% in Charlotte and its still 70% to 30%. It doesn't look good for the road warriors. If they believed that this was a vote for or against rail, they sure are getting hammered.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Those Who Do Not Learn From History...
Are Doomed to Repeat It.
Two big elections tomorrow. Charlotte and Seattle. This will determine the future of two regions. If I lived in either region I would vote for the transit.
Charlotte
The city is trying to change its development paradigm. By building an extensive transit network that includes streetcars, light rail, commuter rail and rapid bus, the region will certainly change the way it grows up. It's up to the citizens to decide whether they want to be a regional city or a national metropolitan area. Since the City of Charlotte has the tools to develop the right way around transit, there is no doubt that if the transit tax is retained, the city will continue to change.
Seattle
The Seattle region is a bit different from Charlotte. Chalk full of environmentalists that like to shoot their own feet and the usual car obsessed road warriors, this region just needs to get started. They've been fighting about this transit decision since the 1960s and still haven't gotten what they so desperately need, a core rapid transit system. But if you need proof that this should get done, one only need to look at the same thing being discussed 40 years ago. This is going to keep coming up, it'll also keep costing more. Start already will ya?
Two big elections tomorrow. Charlotte and Seattle. This will determine the future of two regions. If I lived in either region I would vote for the transit.
Charlotte
The city is trying to change its development paradigm. By building an extensive transit network that includes streetcars, light rail, commuter rail and rapid bus, the region will certainly change the way it grows up. It's up to the citizens to decide whether they want to be a regional city or a national metropolitan area. Since the City of Charlotte has the tools to develop the right way around transit, there is no doubt that if the transit tax is retained, the city will continue to change.
Seattle
The Seattle region is a bit different from Charlotte. Chalk full of environmentalists that like to shoot their own feet and the usual car obsessed road warriors, this region just needs to get started. They've been fighting about this transit decision since the 1960s and still haven't gotten what they so desperately need, a core rapid transit system. But if you need proof that this should get done, one only need to look at the same thing being discussed 40 years ago. This is going to keep coming up, it'll also keep costing more. Start already will ya?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Developers Looking Down The Rails
An article in the Seattle PI Saturday was about developers and light rail. In some situations they aren't waiting for the line to come to build big projects because the market is already there for compact living. But what is interesting is that most of these guys have been snooping around the future station areas looking for other possibly plays. I'm not going to lie and say that these light rail lines don't help developers, but transit opponents complain that its a handout for developers I have to laugh. Mostly because isn't that what their precious roads are for? So that sprawl developers can build on the periphery? Yes.
So when we are talking about light rail or streetcars and development, don't let anyone get away with the argument that its just a ploy for developers. There are always going to be good developers and bad ones on both sides of the coin. And yes they make a good amount of money, and they take a sizable amount of risk to make it. But if it is between sprawl and compact transit oriented development, I'm in favor of the access transit provides to build the compact stuff. Just don't forget to lower the parking requirements.
But the first real surge in activity would come only after voter approval and could be restrained even then because of the transportation project's long timeline, he said. "I'm not necessarily in a position today to buy land I'm going to sit on for seven to 10 years while some massive public works project validates my assumption."
It just costs too much to buy land and hold it for a decade, until light rail comes along, Shapiro said. "Most people have to see that it's really happening. When the construction starts, then everyone takes it more seriously."
Once a light-rail route and station sites are finalized, Johnson said, property values would "really take off."
Transportation leads to access which leads to development. So the argument that its just for developers is really a non-starter because opponents development of choice is just not the development that is environmentally sustainable. And right now with the awareness of climate change, they are losing the war. Haven't you noticed the noise machine turning its volume up to 11? They are getting scared and like a caged animal are attacking with their backs against the wall. Thats when they are most dangerous. Thats also when they get ridiculous and start proposing toll tunnels under cities and super freeway expansions.
So when we are talking about light rail or streetcars and development, don't let anyone get away with the argument that its just a ploy for developers. There are always going to be good developers and bad ones on both sides of the coin. And yes they make a good amount of money, and they take a sizable amount of risk to make it. But if it is between sprawl and compact transit oriented development, I'm in favor of the access transit provides to build the compact stuff. Just don't forget to lower the parking requirements.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Finally a Trips Comparison!
Finally someone points out something I've been thinking for a long time about the hits on the Seattle light rail plan. The anti-transit faction has gotten away with their comparison of all regional trips to a specific corridor(s). This means they are comparing trips you take to get ice cream at 2am to trips taken on the freeway at rush hour. Obviously those 2am trips don't cause congestion, and capacity isn't an issue either. But as Diamajin points out, Mr. Westneat at the Seattle Times gets it too:
Project A, the no-brainer, will carry an additional 110,000 people daily over its 30 miles by the year 2030, according to its planners.Project B, the wasteful one, will carry an additional 180,000 people per day over its 50 miles by the year 2030.
So ... the boondoggle will transport more people? For the same construction cost?
So it goes in the upside-down world of our transportation debate, circa 2007.
Project A is the widening of the Eastside's Interstate 405. The plan is to spend $10.9 billion (in 2002 dollars) laying four new freeway lanes and a bus rapid-transit route.
When done, the road will be 67 percent wider and carry 110,000 more trips than now. In some parts it will flow more freely. In others — such as the evening rush hour between Bellevue and Renton — it will be as jammed as it is today. (All this is from the state's studies.)
Project B is Sound Transit's light-rail plan. For $10.2 billion (in 2006 dollars), it would extend rail north to Lynnwood, east to Bellevue and south to Tacoma. The whole system, including the line being built now, is projected to carry 300,000 riders daily by 2030.
So the Times does some stuff right with Mr. Westneat, but allows Mr. Niles to parrot one of the anti-transit factions favorite comparisons without proper analysis of his claim. Regional trips to a specific corridor. As has been said before, the Big Dig only takes less than 2% of regional passenger miles. And before the cost escalations the road warriors loved that project. Some still love it and hope to repeat it in Atlanta among other places. But, as we know from the previous comparison: 180,000 > 110,000. But is it just 180,000?
What I would like to see is these 311,000 transit trips plus the calculation of walking trips generated from smarter development, specifically the trips that won't be taken by car. This is what the folks in Portland are referring to as the trip not taken.
In a 1994 travel survey, it was shown that areas with good transit and mixed use development got 9.8 VMT per capita. In outlying areas of the city, that number went up to 21.7 per capita. So if we look at the 7,200 housing units that were built in the vicinity of the streetcar, this means an annual reduction of 31 million VMT! This suggests that people don't have to drive as far (good for carbon reduction) and take trips using other means such as bikes and walking (even better).
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Pay Now or Pay Later
That's what the Seattle PI is saying. And you know what, they are right. Costs and materials are always going to escalate and unless you get started its always going to cost more.
Speaking of the future ...It is coming, regardless of how you vote for this proposition. You could vote no and leave us in the transportation "Groundhog's Day" situation we're in. Or you could vote yes -- and we implore you to -- and free this region from its gridlocked thinking.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
An Inconvenient Acronym
There were a few notes on the internets about the South Lake Union Streetcar. Apparently it was almost called the South Lake Union Trolley. You can put the letters together. Diamajin thinks it will boost popularity. I can see that, especially from kids who think its kinda funny. Some are worried that the neighborhood is losing the SLU moniker. Well with an acronym like this, it will never go away.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Gimme-Gimmeism & Employment Sprawl
As I was reading accounts of the new Microsoft Bus service which is an obvious nod to the famous Google buses which grace one of the streets by my house every day, I was struck by a comment made to the Seattle Post Intelliger about the transit system:
This same idea can be applied for people who live in sprawl. Cheaper house? Well pay more for transportation. A study by the Center for Housing Policy showed that for every dollar saved on moving further out, a 70 cent transportation increase was had. We don't seem to let those folks off the hook for their choices so why should we let Microsoft off the hook for theirs? While hard to do now because of their entrenchment in Redmond, what would really help is a move closer to the transportation spines of the region or the creation of a new dense city like center with light rail access to Seattle. People shouldn't blame the County bus for not wanting or being able to incur $2.4 million in operating costs to serve one company, specifically a company who chose an inaccessible area.
This is something that the county bus system should be doing and they're not," said Stephen Gerritson, executive director for Commuter Challenge, a Seattle non-profit. "To some extent, Metro is dropping the ball here."Really? Well I guess the question is what is a good corporate citizen? Obviously Microsoft chose to locate their campus in a sprawling area instead of in the city which has the most commuting options. To me it doesn't seem to be a problem of the county bus system but rather of businesses that decide to locate in unsustainable locals. I have this same problem with Dell in Austin or Chevron in the Bay Area. They located out into nowheresville for cheap land but what they really did is transfer transportation costs onto their employees, specifically employees who wanted a different lifestyle than the auto-oriented trash that we see today. Does anyone wonder why young professionals flock to certain cities like San Francisco, New York, or Seattle? I'll give you a hint, its not to live in Redmond Washington or San Ramon California so they can be closer to their work campus.
This same idea can be applied for people who live in sprawl. Cheaper house? Well pay more for transportation. A study by the Center for Housing Policy showed that for every dollar saved on moving further out, a 70 cent transportation increase was had. We don't seem to let those folks off the hook for their choices so why should we let Microsoft off the hook for theirs? While hard to do now because of their entrenchment in Redmond, what would really help is a move closer to the transportation spines of the region or the creation of a new dense city like center with light rail access to Seattle. People shouldn't blame the County bus for not wanting or being able to incur $2.4 million in operating costs to serve one company, specifically a company who chose an inaccessible area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)