For Sale Signs

Google is starting to mesh maps with real estate listings. How long will it be until there is an API for this that you can customize and search for properties near transit? Some sites are starting to do this. Perhaps at some point it would be good to mix in the H+T index to see what your monthly transportation bill will be when you buy a house. If you live in a more walkable neighborhood, you can offset the perhaps higher cost of your home with less transportation costs. It's coming, hopefully someone is on the case.

H/T On the Block

Flickr photo by Zoomar

Routesy 2.0

I have to agree with Greg on this one, Routsey 2.o for the iPhone is a brilliant application. It melds together real time BART information with Muni making it really easy to get around the city. The best thing in my mind is the ability to bookmark stops you visit often. That is worth the $2.99 right there.

One of the things that we found out BART does better than anyone else is releasing thier real time data into space. Anyone can have access to it which is rare for transit agencies to be that transparent. Kudos to the team there for such excellent foresight that other agencies don't even want to even think about.

BART Monthly Pass

I'm torn on this idea for BART. This would allow people who have monthly passes to just hop on BART instead of having to pay each time which could increase ridership and make transit more attractive. At the same time BART is mostly a commuter line, I feel like a monthly pass would subsidize living past Pleasanton (in the central valley) if you work in San Francisco which I believe is the wrong signal to send. What do you all think?

Can You Copyright Facts?

This from reader Nick C:

After launching the Transit Sydney iPhone application with Sydney train timetables, its developer received a cease and desist letter saying that the use of the timetables is a breach of copyright. In Australia, this may technically be true, but the developer is considering disputing the claim.

Do people really have rights to a schedule? It's a timetable not a copyrighted creative work. And why do you want such bad publicity? They seem to do it a little differently down under:

Anyone who's familiar with US copyright law will think "wait, you can't copyright facts," which is where the twist comes in. Australia has something called "Crown copyright" that essentially says that certain materials published by the government are copyrighted by the government. The CityRail timetables come from Rail Corporation New South Wales (RailCorp), which is owned by the government.

Reports now say that the rail system has been ordered to work with the developer. But this should have never been a problem in the first place.

Do You Have SOV Disorder?

H/T Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space

WiFi on the Thalys

Awesome. Transport Information has the scoop:

Thalys, the train service operated by both the French national railway company SNCF and the Belgium national railway company SNCB inaugurated May 14, 2008 its new on-board service: Wi-Fi internet is now available while running at 320 kph between Paris, Brussels, Köln, and Amsterdam. At the same time, Thalys inaugurated the portal associated to the Wi-Fi access: Thalysnet.

Man what I wouldn't give for some sweet WiFi on a 2 hour train to Bakersfield for Thanksgiving.

Holy Conversation Change Batman: Walkscore

The walkscore widget flew through the transit and planning blogosphere in about July of last year. There's even an evil twin called drive score which Transit Miami covered in January. Now that gas prices are high, its getting some attention in the larger progressive blogosphere. This might show a tipping point in the transit and planning discussion whereas it becomes more a part of people's consciousness. It's on Barack Obama's mind at least.

Atrios
Yglesias
Kos

Oh, and my score is 92. I'm not sure what else I need to get 100, but there is no bonus for transit. Since BART is a half mile walk and the J-Church streetcar is half a block away I think I might have a higher score.

Giving Transit Expansion to Those Who Plan For It

There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen a few days ago that I didn't get to write up until now. Well Public Transit in Ottawa covered it and Peter discusses the plan to not give neighborhoods new transit unless they agree to more density rules. Seems fair to me, given taxpayers are funding service, they should get the most for their money and a mode that reflects the corridor needs.

One day after the city's transit committee agreed to support the much-discussed Transit Option Four, they added a special note for any suburban constituents or councillors hoping for expansion of the light rail tracks outside the Greenbelt: you'll have to prove that it's a worthy investment by demonstrating greater demand and higher population density.

The only place in the United States I can think of that has this type of rule is the Bay Area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The MTC is the local MPO and they have set up a system that mandates certain densities for cities to get funding for new transit expansion. And cities take it seriously. A Contra Costa Times article yesterday discusses transit officials in Antioch that are worried they won't make their intensity benchmark if they leave the station in the place for which its planned.

The median location near Hillcrest Avenue would constrain transit-oriented development because of the existing PG&E property, thus making it difficult to reach a Metropolitan Transportation Commission mandate for residential units within a half mile radius of a station, city planning officials said.

I wish more MPOs were as progressive as the MTC. Most of them are just highway money distributors. Here is their policy summed up:

Each transit extension project funded in Resolution 3434 must plan for a minimum number of housing units along the corridor. These corridor-level thresholds vary by mode of transit, with more capital-intensive modes requiring higher numbers of housing units.

Now that residential units are down, there needs to be a jobs policy, because as we noted in a post on jobs, its great to have residential density, but unless it connects to where you want to go, it doesn't really help much.

Help Sacramento Enter the Transit Space Race

Update from comments: Brian also mentions that when the page comes up only scenario A comes up. Hopefully they will remedy this so that folks see all three scenarios from which to choose.

Sactown is looking at scenarios for future transit. In order to build out their network, they will need to build light rail, commuter rail, streetcar circulators and new BRT lines. I think a true network expansion is something that everyone can get behind. Well they are asking for folks opinions. So if you live in Sacramento, give them your ideas.

Scenario A - Limited Funding


Scenario B


Scenario C - Full Funding

Also, take a visit to the local transit blogs. RT Driver & RT Rider

Thanks to reader Brian Goldner for the heads up.

The Affordability Index is Online

The affordability index is a different way to look at housing affordability. Since housing has been going down the tubes lately, its not surprising that the crises is hitting the suburbs of major metropolitan areas the hardest. Why? Because they are out in the middle of nowhere and its getting expensive to move around by car alone. Well folks are now starting to measure the housing + transportation costs of families and individuals showing that true affordability isn't a cheap home in the suburbs, but rather the sum of these two costs.

Take a look at the costs of different neighborhoods. In a transit rich neighborhood with all housing being equal, your cost of would be 41%. But if you had to drive everywhere, your costs would be 57%. That's quite a lot of savings by living near transit. See for yourself if you live in a transit rich or auto dependent neighborhood.

H/T Carless in Seattle.

The Language of Transit

Who else thinks the word subsidy needs to be ejected from the lexicon of transit advocates and opponents? Dan at Permanent Campaigns writes a piece for MassTransitMag on Language which should start a larger discussion on framing the issues we care about.

We transit advocates have a problem: bad language. Listen to what we ask for:

Operating assistance
Formula funding
Guaranteed appropriations

Boring!

Right now we seem like we’re still on the welfare train, asking for government handouts without any compelling, exciting opportunities for the nation to embrace.

Why Are We Giving People Money?

The recent downturn in the economy and the credit crunch/housing crash have left a lot of people wondering, how do we fix this problem. Jerome a Paris who diaries at Daily Kos has stated that part of the problem is that we are creating too much debt for ourselves and our income has been level on average since 2001. But how do we generate more income for workers who have seen wages stagnate and some jobs shipped elsewhere or flat out disappear from the coming(if not already here) home construction bust? Also how do we create lasting value?

A national infrastructure program. That is spending on alternative energy infrastructure and massive transit upgrades. This would do two things as Jerome states so well:

...provide a real boost to the economy in the sectors that actually need it, would reduce oil&gas consumption and carbon emissions, and be an actual investment in the future, as opposed to the current drain on the future that's been engineered via debt used on mindless consumption of junk.

It would sure beat everyone getting $600 dollars to spend on goods made overseas. But what makes this a better investment? Recently a report from the Institute of Policy Studies came out that discussed the jobs created in the defense industry versus other key sectors that need investment. Spending on education and transit created far more jobs than defense. Transit was the highest job creator and created predominantly middle class jobs with incomes between $32-$64k. I would imagine greater increases in spending for transit would generate even more jobs as there are needs for manufacturing when demand is created.

(H/T Free Public Transit Blog)

More Research and Reports

APTA - The Broader Connection Between Transit and Energy/GHGs

People living in households near public transit travel 12 fewer miles per day which is 27 percent less than persons in households with no access to public transit according to the study. This equates to an individual household reduction of 223 gallons of gasoline a year.

Smart Growth America - Growing Cooler

They warn that if sprawling development continues to fuel growth in driving, the projected 59 percent increase in the total miles driven between 2005 and 2030 will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels. Even if the most stringent fuel-efficiency proposals under consideration are enacted, notes co-author Steve Winkelman, “vehicle emissions still would be 40 percent above 1990 levels in 2030 – entirely off-track from reductions of 60-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 required for climate protection.“

Department of Homeland Security - Transit Threat Assessment

The Greenness of Cities - Edward Glaeser

Over the past 50 years, automobile oriented suburbs have grown much more quickly than denser urban areas, and over the past six years, the four fastest growing American metropolitan areas have been Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix—all hot places that use an impressive amount of electricity to create a pleasant year-round climate. Cars and air conditioners both lead to signifi cant emissions of carbon dioxide, which an increasing body of evidence has linked to potentially dangerous climate change. If this evidence is correct, then there are serious social costs associated with new forms of development that tend to be extremely energy intensive.

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.

Save Traffic! Don't Fund Transit!

Hilarious! From Permanent Campaigns.

Subway to the Sea Badge

In an earlier post I discussed blog support badges and listed some I'd like to see. I created one for the Subway to the Sea for kicks. Feel free to use it.

The Glorious Transit Web

It's the web 2.0 and if you have a cause for transit, create a badge so it gets more recognition. Below are a few badges I've seen and causes I'm down with, others I'd like to see a badge for in no particular order:

Sound Transit 2.1
Austin Guadalupe Light Rail
California HSR
Geary Subway
Subway to the Sea



I've also been thinking about the need for a national transit campaign infrastructure. Everyone is really good at keeping up with the local causes but does there need to be some central place for organizing or getting the word out? I'm interested in the model that is used by Daily Kos or MyDD where they have a blog but also have user diaries. Instead of diaries however, because everyone has their own blog, perhaps it would be campaigns. This central blog would have contributors from each metro area discussing what is happening on the battlefield and where things are headed. Many of the blogs do that but this could be a central place to see what is going on nationally kind of like what the City Transit aggregator is trying to do. Perhaps it's a glorified version of the City Transit Aggregator.

Another important thing about this national info hub would be the ability to raise money around campaigns like Act Blue does for Democrats and Slatecard does for Republicans. Basically there are a whole lot of people out there who are interested in national transit policy and could use this as a way to get involved locally where alot of the big decisions are being made and help influence policy at the national level that helps cities get the funding they need for local projects. What do folks think? Is it something that should be fleshed out? Would people be interested in this kind of thing?

How Much Will My Trip Cost?

Google transit has added something really cool to their information. When you type in a route, they'll tell you how much money you save instead of driving. John at RTRider has more. Very Cool.

Very Cool Subway Commercial

Check out MetroRider LA for the coolest transit commercial ever. I remember I heard somewhere that the auto industry spends more on ads in this country than we do on transit operations. Go figure.

Transfer and Land Taxes for Transit

After getting more funding from the legislature for transit, Chicago went after a real estate transfer tax, which was highly opposed by who else but the real estate lobby. Well Mayor Daley held aldermen's feet to the fire and they eventually voted yes. Thanks to CTA Tattler for the coverage. More here from the Chicago Tribune.

What is interesting is that I've been hearing more about the transfer tax and land taxes lately. While the transfer tax is basically a mechanism that taxes the transfer of property, a land tax would be a tax on the land for transit, not the buildings or improvements. It makes a lot of sense for transportation given that accessibility is one of the factors which improves land values. I was also shocked to read something that made a lot of sense from the Heartland Foundation (A conservative think tank home to our favorite Wendell Cox) on using a land tax for transit.

Only part of transit's benefit goes to those who pay fares. The whole community benefits from transit. Where do those benefits show up in the economy?

As dozens of studies across the globe have shown, the benefits of transit show up as increased land values. Land served by public transportation is worth more than land not served. The amount varies, of course, depending on the quality of service, type of development, general standard of living, etc., but the effect is large.

A study published in 1997 for RTA, "The Effect of CTA and Metra Stations on Residential Property Values," by Gruen Gruen & Associates, implies that just the existing rail system adds land value in excess of $1.6 billion a year.

I'm wondering also if a land tax would be enough to pay for improvements on a specific line. So if improvements were made such as a light rail line, would the increase in revenue from a land tax in the area around the improvement be enough to offset the investment over time? It's certainly an idea worth exploring.