An Honest Question

Seattle voted against roads and transit last year and then turned around and overwhelmingly voted for transit. It was a big fight to get it back on the ballot but now the road warriors know that people didn't want the roads and are dreaming up ways to steal the money as we speak. But it begs the question in other regions, should people have to vote for roads? We see that residents are always asked to build transit, even if the funding exists, but never asked to build roads. They just do it. Do you think if they had a vote that they would approve of their hard earned money being spent on sprawl roads?

Stealth Developer

There's an op-ed on Planetizen discussing the MTA in Los Angeles as a stealth development agency. I don't know if I would go that far. I think most people know they have eminent domain power and that they can redevelop property close to the stations but it's not as powerful as say the rail agencies in Hong Kong or Japan.

If any transportation agency was going to be a true development agency it would have even more power to land bank and develop properties than is currently allowed in the United States. In fact, this is how transportation worked during the streetcar era. Property was the main money maker rather than transportation, the transportation was the hook. But it created some great places such as the inner ring suburbs we now love. I would love to see transit agencies have more power to develop, but surely that won't happen because of property rights activism among other barriers.

Metroplex Residents Want Rail Too

Utah residents on the Wasatch Front are looking for expansion in transit while those in the Dallas Fort Worth are as well. Fortworthology has more:

This is big news for the Rail North Texas proposal: a new survey shows that 85% of voters surveyed support the regional rail plan

Crazy Pills All Around!

We have nothing to show for tossing bones to the R's. They got concessions but we know the bill got watered down because of it. Now the auto industry is going to be using our money to be dinosaurs. What did we vote for in November. I forgot.

At least more funding got into the package. And Mr. Dukakis assures us that the future will be good.

Wired.com: The Obama administration has promised more rail and transit funding. Are we going to see things start to happen?

Dukakis: No question about it. This economic mess we're in has actually turned out to be a huge opportunity to invest in transit projects. Despite the concerns out there, I think this is a huge opportunity.

Wired.com: What concerns?

Dukakis: There's worry that the states just aren't ready to move on stuff. They haven't done the planning and the engineering they need to jump into major projects when the funding is there. We have a major construction-management problem in this country. In Massachusetts, the governor wants to build a four-mile light-rail extension using existing right of way [tracks and property that are already in place], and it's going to take six years to complete. How can that be? Chinese and Irish immigrants were laying four miles of track a day on the transcontinental railroad, and that was in the 1860s.

Was there any money for engineering in the bill? I agree that it shouldn't take six years to build the green line. It should have been done yesterday. But unless there is some sort of signal from the administration that engineering should begin and go faster on more of these lines because the money will start flowing, there's no reason for transit agencies to push harder for it. That just means that the cycle continues as to whether it should be done at all. This is why the next transportation bill is so important. Let's get it right.

The Over Under

The East End in Houston is building a light rail line. To perpendicularly cross the freight tracks, Metro has proposed building a bridge. The neighbors want an underpass. My first question would be what happens to the underpass in the medical center when you get a torrential rain storm, something that happens quite often in Houston. Does it flood? If so, it doesn't seem like a great idea, however aesthetically pleasing. Does anyone know of other lines that have a flooding problem?

The Dark Side of the Stimulus Package

Here are some bunk stimulus links.

TPM Election Central 1 and 2: Transit Wars

Even the Environmental Defense Fund, considered a relatively centrist player in the phalanx of Washington green groups, had a bone to pick with the transit part of the stimulus plan. Fewer than half of the 50 states have publicly released their priority transportation projects, according to the EDF, making transparency from the nation's governors a crucial missing piece.

Wall Street Journal: Return of the Oberstar

Some members of the House transportation committee objected to the proposed level of investment during a Democratic caucus session Thursday, and several members later spoke out during a committee meeting. Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.) suggested the committee draft a letter or resolution to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objecting to the transport section of the stimulus bill.

Open Left: Oberstar Strikes Back

Basically CBO got numbers from the Bush administration DOT that said it was not possible to spend money on these projects within 90 days, meaning they're not "shovel ready". Oberstar explains that's BS and it's ridiculous to be taking numbers from the Bush folks at DOT that are getting ready to high-tail it out of town.

Grist: Help Me Joe-B1 Kenobi

All this comes just as Barack Obama and "Amtrak" Joe Biden get ready for a railroad trip along said corridor. They'll be traveling from Philadelphia down to Washington, D.C. this weekend on their "Whistle Stop Train Tour." Maybe the trip will give them a few hours to think about transit funding.

Likely Unlikely Ally

Folks in the steel industry are getting behind the idea of transit for the stimulus. Seems to me like there are other unlikely allies out there. Anyone have an unlikely ally that should be in the mix?

Interview with Fred Camino

I too want to go where the seats are purple.

Lacking a Transit Power Broker

According to Robert Caro, who wrote the epic book about Robert Moses, New York has no lack of people that can throw their weight behind transit. It's just that no one seems to feel it's worth throwing weight behind.

‘Is there power?’ ”Yes, there is, said Robert A. Caro, who called his epic biography of Robert Moses “The Power Broker.” Mr. Ravitch’s challenge, he said, was to persuade gutsy public officials to exercise power on behalf of an agenda that Moses, who championed highways over mass transit, rejected.

“It’s not a lack of power,” Mr. Caro said in an interview. “It’s a lack of vision — of a vast metropolitan area as a single whole and what is necessary to tie that area together in a way that makes every segment of the population one. There are public officials with plenty of power. That power is just never thrown behind mass transit in the way it should be.”

This is a common theme in many cities. The lack of political will for transit. But many cities aren't New York with such a high transit constituency and many in the growth machine that is any city government don't see or don't want to see that it would actually benefit them to grow inward with transit instead of outward with roads. It's been too easy to keep going the way they know, rather than the way they should go.

In Defence of Background

Two posts on very progressive sites I have come to trust have popped up lately about the High Speed Rail line in California that are very disturbing. First is one by Ben Adler who writes for Campus Progress (and Politico) which is an offshoot of Think Progress, a progressive organization with such valuable insight from writers such as Matt Yglesias who I read and link to often. The second one is from The American Prospect which links to the first article.

The opinion is that the $10 Billion raised for the High Speed Rail line should be spent on local transit instead of intracity transit in part because money was not raised this election cycle for local transit. He mentions that HSR was the only progressive smart growth measure on the ballot in California. What?! I must have made up all of those measures in the California section of my election night post. Dana Goldstein at the Prospect calls it light rail which of course immediately turns me off to anything any article says if it isn't light rail. Apparently everything counts as light rail today to reporters, including people movers, commuter rail, HSR, and now laughably bus rapid transit(ie: light rail like!). But Dana's commentary is based on the same idea that no money was raised for local transit in the election.

What this does to me is shows that they don't get transit at all and aren't really paying attention. That's ok, I understand, it's not everyone's cup of tea. But what annoys me about it is that the lack of research to formulate an opinion that a lot of people read and trust. This makes me less trustful of the blogosphere in general. If people can't get thier facts right or understand a little bit of history (ie: they should be upset that $3 Billion has been funneled away from transit by the state but don't seem to bring up that fact) when they write opinions on something I'm deep into, what is to say that they aren't doing this when its a subject I don't quite understand?

I know that there are places I can trust. I love Grist, and I know they know about the environment and will put a lot of effort into facts. I trust them to get it right. I know Ryan and AC will get economics stuff right. There are also a ton of transit and livable communities blogs out there that I don't know what I would do without too. Here on this site I try as much as possible to back up my opinion with numbers and opinion from other smart people but it really bothers me when two organizations and bloggers write something that a lot of people read with background that is completely wrong and using tactics I come to expect from the Reason Foundation. But I also appreciate when commenters call me out for something dumb I said. We're not all immune to stupidity sometimes.

In addition, a poster gave Robert a hard time on Dana's post since they felt he was getting snotty because someone had a separate opinion than he did. He was rather pointing out what I was saying above about facts. I would usually say ok if they were defending quality work, but getting your facts wrong is not grounds for defending diversity of opinion. Having an opinion is fine with me, but let's get the background straight first.

I'll leave with a good comment from frequent commenter Bruce McFadden about the false spending dichotomy that has been set up in this country and in the initial post by Adler.

It is not unreasonable to ask the question of spending priority, but it is always unreasonable to ask the questions in terms of setting priorities between different transport modes that happen to use the same technology.

That is, the following system makes no sense at all:
1. $X set aside for rail. Allocate between light rail, mass transit, regional passenger rail, and freight rail.
2. $Y set aside for roads. Allocate between city streets, industrial parks, state highways, federal highways, freeways.

And in perpetuating that process of proposing to establish a priority rankings within pools based on technology instead of based on transport task, that is precisely what Ben Adler is supporting.

When divided up by transport task, the money required for the HSR line is substantially less than the money required for the available alternatives ... road and air.

Obama Writes to the T4 Campaign

The letter was released a bit late for the election, but I think it says what we all like to hear. Now its that implementation thing that's tricky. My favorite section:

I will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. I’ve worked to improve transportation access to jobs for people with lower incomes since my time in the Illinois State Senate, and I will continue this work as President. And I will further promote transit by creating incentives for transit usage that are equal to the current incentives for driving.

As you know, all of these measures will have significant environmental and metropolitan planning advantages and help diversify our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Everyone benefits if we can leave our cars, walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. I agree that we can stop wasteful spending and save Americans money, and as president, I will re- evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account.

I will build upon my efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks. And as president, I will work to provide states and local governments with the resources they need to address sprawl and create more livable communities.

Is TOD the New Black?

So says a paper in Brisbane. I think people put a lot of effort into TOD and sometimes they put too much pressure on them. Loading TOD up with affordable housing, infrastructure upgrades, transit upgrades, urban design, density, parking etc etc is more likely than not to kill good projects or make them scaled down from what they could be.

I'm worried about making TOD the answer to all of our problems. It's a PART of the solution but there are a lot of things that need to be done. As well, we need more transit if we're going to get more TOD. The more transit you have, the more ability more of the market has to get access to it which is always a good thing. Making high quality transit an exclusive good is never a smart bet.

New Poll: Newest Member of the Transit Space Race

Ok, since there were a lot of poll requests today, we're going to do another week long poll. I liked all the ideas that were posted and I'll try to get to all of them in some form or fashion. So here's today's poll. What will be the next city to pass a tax or figure out a way to generate massive revenue to expand their system multiple lines and enter the Transit Space Race?

Poll is below the pantograph picture again.

Here are the choices:

Atlanta - They have a concept 3 idea, but no money to fund it as of yet.
Austin - Planning for years, commuter rail and light rail ideas on the table
Norfolk - They are constructing their first LRT line and the new Mayor of Virginia Beach is getting excited about extensions
Raleigh Durham - They have a plan but no huge cash to play with
Sacramento - Having discussions, problems too.
St. Louis - Just missed the half cent this last time, next time better?
Tampa - Mayor Pam is on a roll lately
Cincinnati - Building a Streetcar soon, but will they be tough enough for more?
Columbus - Will they beat thier neighbor Cinci for faster expansion?
Detroit - Planning for light rail on Woodward is underway, will there be a funding source larger than TIFs?
Madison - They have a plan too, but is an RTA forthcoming?
Milwaukee - They just passed a transit operations fund, Capital coming?
Dallas - They are already expanding fast, but will they get a regional commuter rail plan together?

So there you have it, if there is another city that should be in the mix, you'll have to vote other, and leave a comment about which one I missed.

Bikes + Trains = Aloha

Bike sharing is taking off. Tethering it to transit is smart.

Momentum B-cycle is targeted to launch on June 1. Le's goal is to eventually have bike racks across O'ahu and within a five-mile radius of rail transit stops. The intent is to make it easier for residents and tourists to connect to mass transit and key locations," Le said. "It's good for the community."

Transportmakers

Here's an idea that i've been pondering. If we are going to bailout the auto industry, which I'm not sure is a great idea, we should do it on conditions. First is that they have to stop fighting California and other states emissions standards. I can't tell you how much I abhor breathing in exhaust when I'm walking around the city. The electric wires might be unsightly, but I'm not breathing them in.

Another should be looking into the possibility of building bus, light rail, and passenger train cars(including HSR). Now this might or might not be such a good idea seeing as the last time Boeing tried this the vehicles they created were lemons. But its worth exploring. If we want to think seriously about expanding transit capacity, we need to do something to speed up production. I have a feeling that siemens and other makers aren't going to be able to keep up with the demand that is coming.

But Mr. Udall recognized that the country could not afford the economic consequences of losing all of the automobile industry’s jobs and profits. He proposed that the auto companies branch out into “exciting new variants of ground transportation” to produce minibuses, “people movers,” urban mass transit and high-speed intercity trains. Instead of expanding the Interstate highway system, he suggested that the road construction industry take on “huge new programs to construct mass transit systems.” And he called for building “more compact, sensitively planned communities” rather than continuing urban sprawl.

Glad he's thinking not just about the transport system but the land use that feeds it.

Senator Clinton Calls for Transit Investment

I've seen Hillary talk about transit before, but I think that this is probably the most direct language I've seen out of her on the subject. This is change I can believe in.

In a speech to the New York Public Transit Association, Clinton urged "bigger and bolder" transportation programs, including high-speed rail, and said modernizing the nation's transportation infrastructure and expanding transit will be a key issue for the next Congress and President-elect Barack Obama's incoming administration.
...

"It takes too long and it costs too much to deliver transit projects," despite high and growing demand for more public transportation across the country, she said.

Noting that when President Dwight Eisenhower signed legislation authorizing the federal interstate highway system in 1956, the act launched the largest American public works program in history, Clinton said developing transit is a similar opportunity to leave a tangible legacy.

"Just as we built a 19th century transportation system with canals and railroads and we built a 20th century transportation system with highways, we now can build a 21st century transportation system with mass transit," she said.

A Green Deal

Time Magazine has some commentary I can believe in. A New New Deal:

But not all government spending is created equal. Obama needs to pump serious cash into the economy in a way that promotes his long-term priorities. That means billions for energy-efficient and climate-friendly infrastructure like wind turbines, solar panels and mass transit, but nothing for new sprawl roads that ravage nature and promote gas-guzzling.

He's right, water and other basic infrastructure is complicit in the growth as well as roads. Doing things that can focus future growth in sustainable ways should be on the top of the list. Arnold and others would do well to pay attention to this.

Building Up the Industry

So it seems that while we're looking to bail out our auto industry at the same time the European tram manufacturers are drooling over the expansion of rail in this country. While there is a buy America component, the profits go back to Europe and Asia. It seems about time to start to think seriously about building up a transit industry here?

But that is not stopping European companies like Siemens of Germany, AnsaldoBreda of Italy, CAF of Spain and Skoda of the Czech Republic from jockeying for position at the head of the line, eager to supply sleek new streetcars, now tagged light rail vehicles, for one of the few fast-growing markets for trams. Competition from elsewhere comes primarily from Bombardier of Canada and Kinki Sharyo of Japan.

Transit Space Race Update

With the elections in yesterday it was time to update the Transit Space Race. Seattle moved into the top tier while St. Louis dropped a division. Kansas City dropped into the hopeless category until they can work up another plan. I'm going to update Atlanta and Hawaii soon but need to get some more info for them. Atlanta will be in the hopefuls league while we await further developments and Hawaii will be in tier one planning. Check the plans down at the bottom right of the blog.

Expensive?

Apparently Oklahoma City needs $400 million for a citywide transit network. Sounds pretty cheap to me. I wonder how much they spent on roads over the last 60 years. They are looking for a solution.