The Truth About Roads

While folks like the Reason Foundation will ask for more roads, it seems to me that they are much more expensive than the transit solutions we are proposing and get to a worse end. Well here is the answer straight from the road kings at the Texas DOT...

The decision to build a road is a permanent commitment to the traveling public. Not only will a road be built, but it must also be routinely maintained and reconstructed when necessary, meaning no road is ever truly “paid for.” Until recently, when TxDOT built or expanded a road, no methodology existed to determine the extent to which this work would be paid off through revenues.

The Asset Value Index, was developed to compare the full 40-year life-cycle costs to the revenues attributable to a given road corridor or section. The shorthand version calculates how much gasoline is consumed on a roadway and how much gas tax revenue that generates.

The Asset Value Index is the ratio of the total expected revenues divided by the total expected costs. If the ratio is 0.60, the road will produce revenues to meet 60 percent of its costs; it would be “paid for” only if the ratio were 1.00, when the revenues met 100 percent of costs. Another way of describing this is to do a “tax gap” analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs.

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

Did you read that like I read that? $2.22 per gallon of subsidization for the road. And this isn't from some liberal think tank or a transit fanatic saying it, it's the organization that builds and collects taxes for them. And this is just the subsidy for the road, not the oil itself! So when simplistic folks from the Reason foundation propose building roads to relieve all congestion, you ask them who is going to be paying for that, or you shut them down with some good research on how much it will really cost versus your transit alternative. It seems to me that even more so now, rail looks even better than ever when it comes to cost effectiveness.

Thanks to Andrew for the link.

The Future E-Line to Fort Mason

I went on a little jaunt this afternoon along the future E-Line to see what i could see. What I found was most interesting. As I got on the streetcar, as usual it was a crush load at the Embarcadero station so I hopped in the back door and paid when I got to the Wharf.

Several guys from New York City came on as well. They were to get off at Pier 39 so they gave me a fiver to pay with because they couldn't get to the front. I think they trusted me after I showed them that I had a pin on my bag that had the same MSR logo that was all over the inside of the car. After paying the five and my $1.50 the driver asked me where he could get the pin as I told him the story about the New Yorkers.

So I got off and walked down to where the new line would be extended to Fort Mason. I saw the tracks in the ground left from a bygone era and was wondering how slow the streetcar would have to go or how they would allow pedestrians and streetcars along the waterfront.

From the picture above, if you turn around and walk towards Fort Mason you can see the single track tunnel that was carved out for freight to the piers during the early years. Streetcar routes with tunnels or private ROW still operate, however this one was abandoned and never put into streetcar service.

As I was walking around to the other side of the tunnel I also saw a skunk on the hill above the Fort Mason docks. It was pretty brave of this fellow to be out in broad daylight (or dark foggy evening) but nevertheless there he was. I wasn't going to mess with him but he was at a pretty good distance.

Finally as I got to the other side I could get a clear view of the Golden Gate Bridge behind the West Portal of the streetcar tunnel. This is where the streetcar will move out to the Marina giving its residents their first rail link in over 50 years. How exciting!

Misleading Statistics & BRT Promotion

I went to a discussion today about BRT at Oakland City Hall where the former Mayor of Bogota Columbia spoke about his city and what they have done to promote living. He was a wonderful speaker and made a lot of great points about how a street should be safe for children and also how bike lanes should be a place where 8 year olds can ride and not have fears of getting hit by a car. I tend to agree that a white stripe in a road does not denote a bike lane. He didn't talk much about Bogota's famed Transmilenio BRT system and really I'm glad he didn't. BRT is still a bus and Columbia is a completely different country than the United States. I don't think we should be wasting money on a system where we underestimate the costs (replacing buses and pavement more often than projected etc) versus a tried and true system of getting people out of their cars with rail. In an earlier post i noted that the

However I was shocked by the blatant misrepresentations by AC Transit. In a slide show before the event they showed technology costs for Subways, Light Rail and BRT. Not surprisingly LRT was overestimated by a factor of two while BRT was underestimated by a factor of 3. I personally have never heard of a surface LRT system anywhere near the claimed $100 million. In fact, the most recent systems in Minneapolis and Los Angeles were around $60 million but only because of tunneling and viaduct construction. The most recently completed line, Denver's T-Rex was only $37 million a mile. As for BRT, it is completely underestimated. $10 million per mile is what they said but in Los Angeles it was completed for $22 million before extensive repaving because of damage from the buses and I'm not even sure if the right of way acquisition for the line was added into the costs since it was done with the pretense of light rail service eventually. Hartford's busway project is projected to cost $45 million per mile.

So I thought I might make a list of the things that BRT proponents don't tell you about that became apparent when listening to them speak:

1. They claim that its as good as a train but this is only if you add on all of the elements that come with light rail including level boarding, nextbus technology, their own right of ways, external fare recovery systems and signal pre-emption, you might as well build the system everyone wants anyway, not the one they are compromising on because such and such transit agency can't figure out how to make money off of capital investments. I feel no sorrow for agencies that don't get value capture.

2. With light rail projects, the whole street is generally reconstructed making pedestrian space more valuable with new sidewalks and amenities. BRT doesn't do this. In the renderings shown they do but when the project is completed do they do as promised. No. For example on San Pablo it's the same old bus with a red stripe on it. They did nothing to the ped space, didn't mess with the street and yet they still call it Rapid Bus. Clever marketing is bus repackaged transit.

3. They don't tell you that rail infrastructure lasts for over 50 years, perhaps more. Buses last 12 years if that but they don't add in the costs of buying new ones over and over while rail cars are used continuously. They don't tell you that buses are heavier than big rigs sometimes and crush the pavement even worse yet don't include that in costs. Taxpayers have to pay for that but it's a hidden tax that doesn't get reported.

4. They don't tell you that the bus ride is going to be the same jolting start stop bouncing even on the smoothest of roads. The guy reading the paper on the bus won't be able to because of the motion sickness. Anyone who's been on a bus, especially AC Transit 51, knows that you can't keep standing even if you're able bodied. It takes a two hand grip to stay vertical.

5. They also don't tell you that they expect gas prices to remain the same or come up with some whiz bang technology that is going to magically lower gas and diesel prices. I don't care how magically low the sulfer particulate escapage is on the bus, it's still emitting on the street where people are walking, and the internal combustion engine is still slower and less effective than an electric motor. This talk of hybrid's and fuel cells is a joke. Hydrogen of course is only as clean as the energy that is used to create the Hydrogen because it doesn't just grow on trees. Hybrid's are just fuel generators that feel electric engines. However electric overhead wires can be fueled by any number of alternative energy sources. Muni gets 30% of its power from alternative energy making it cleaner than most. Calgary uses 100% wind energy to fuel their light rail. I would be remiss to mention that most LRT lines are fueled by coal power plants but that fact that they can be converted in short order and don't give off local particulates which studies along freeways have shown affect kids the most is most appealing compared to a bus.

6. The people who advocate for BRT are people that generally don't ride the bus. In fact if you ask anyone whether they want to ride a bus or a train guess what the answer would be. Never mind that full BRT costs the same as LRT done right but at times when its more expensive people have been choosing Light Rail. More often than not they are anti transit like RandalL O'Toole or Wendell Cox. Government in bathtub drowning is their goal. But they like rules and regs that benefit them, just not you. The auto lobby in DC loves BRT, they can probably see it as another 20 years of profits and sprawl until people wake up. I get why the Mayor's of Bogota and Curitiba did it and I applaud them because they changed their cities in amazing ways. But why is it that the only thing we learn from them is about a cheap bus?

7. Light Rail operating costs per passenger mile are much less on light rail than on bus. Explained here, enough said.

8. BRT on freeways is just going to allow the cars in at some point. Creating a rail network says no cars ever in this space. In fact, the Harbor Freeway busway was supposed to be bus only, guess what? Now it's an HOV lane.

9. BRT advocates would have you think that low floor = accessible. On the contrary, buses do not pull up flush to the platform like rail does. Try as they might, it doesn't work out they way they promise and it wreaks havoc on accessibility.

10. I will continue this list at some point because i haven't really made half the points i'd like to but the bottom line is this. BRT is just bus repackaged transit pushed by folks that don't really like transit to begin with. They want it to stay for the poor so why not give the poor a third world system. Well we need to step up and invest like China, Japan, and Europe.

Candidates Part 2

The other day I looked at what the candidates were saying about transit. It looks like we got some more information about Bill Richardson over the last few days from the Northwest. The Northwest Progressive Institute is blogging about Mr. Richardson and his transit views which seem good. Someone should post these views on his website so more people can find out about them. From NWPI:

Richardson also pledged to keep Amtrak going and concluded by saying that he would be "a President with a national transportation policy: focused on light rail, bullet trains, more efficient transportation."

Southwest & High Speed Rail

We're getting closer to high speed rail here and California and over on Intermodality Christof is discussing it as well for Texas. I'm pretty sure that Southwest will fight tooth and nail but perhaps it would be in their best interest to build and operate the train themselves. Then as they lose airshare they gain rail share. There was an article in the Austin American Statesman about them not having anywhere new to go...well what about all the smaller metro regions that would thrive with HSR like Bryan College Station TX, Waco TX, or Bakersfield CA? I think that's a business model they might want to pursue. Does anyone else think that this would be a viable option when they run out of places to go with planes? I think it would open up a whole new market for them they just don't see with their smarty pants up in corporate that don't think about the freeways as possibly taking some of their business. They should. If they built their own alternative energy generation along the route they would win major brownie points as well.

Austin Dreaming

Originally uploaded by Transit Nerds

While Austin had the ASG plan and Envision Central Texas, there hasn't been any talk of the Space Race there in any format. After the commuter rail is completed where do they go? Streetcar? Will it get built and is it really the foot in the door that will lead to light rail? Might light rail come back? It might be time for a big vision from the grass roots on up. In the space race it seems that places with big visions are getting far and places that are complaining about gas prices are not. The vision is not just talking about where lines should go but rather three key components...

1. Affordability - Everyone knows that gas prices are going up and working families are going to be hit hardest. But they don't really have transit options that allow them to save money and time in Austin. I know when i stay with my friend in the Arboretum, there is no meaningful way for me to get downtown. So taking a cab is the only option unless i want to have someone pick me up. I can't see people taking cabs every day or waiting an hour for the #3 bus to get downtown. The express bus is for commuters only.
2. Energy Independence - Everyone is talking about energy in terms of CAFE standards and alternative energy, but people need to get that our built environment is a huge part of our energy consumption. This is how we need to talk about transit. Not only is rail efficient, but it's effective in networks...not one line here and there. So in order to deal with energy issues, we need to have a frank discussion about the energy savings of a transit network, specifically when it comes down to creating transit corridors and land use decisions. A rail network will allow these corridors to grow and perhaps pay for part of the infrastructure cost of implementing it.
3. Mobility - We would be remiss to leave this one out. People need to be able to get places. This means that lines need to connect to each other in a meaningful way that allows people to get to where they want to go efficiently. Efficient high speed transit will do it.

Now don't get me wrong, as I always say, Automobiles have their place, especially Mayor Wynn's plug-in hybrids but they still as i've said before promote sprawl and energy inefficient land use patterns and transport. Here in San Francisco I own a car but perhaps drive it once a week and fill up my tank about once a month. $4.85 gas just doesn't matter to me. And it shouldn't affect everyone everywhere else so drastically either.

Dreams: So here is a random vision for transit in Austin. This is basically thoughts on paper about how Austin might grow a network so that more people use it transit. I'm guessing this network would be pretty expensive, but think of all the money we've tossed into highways. I imagine the economic impact of this network would far outweigh its cost.

Blue - A light rail spine is the first step to this
Orange - The orange line goes into the student jammed riverside then to the airport. This will connect students to school and travelers to international destinations without having to get in a car.
Red - Commuter rail lines. These are not typical diesel commuter rail lines. These should be electric and every 20 minutes off peak. They should connect to job centers like Dell in Round Rock and San Marcos San Antonio and perhaps the airport
Yellow - Express bus networks. This needs to be a part of the network. We have roads so we might as well use them, especially in areas that probably don't have heavy transit usage but perhaps would grow with better service.
Purple - Rapid Streetcar network. This network of streetcars would run along major corridors helping to redevelop them into mixed use centers where people can walk from their neighborhoods to get groceries or catch a streetcar downtown or to activity centers. Parts of the streetcar network will run on light rail ROW to increase headways between major centers downtown while some will be bi-directional with passing sidings at stations and track signaling so that they have their own right of way. It will also be cheaper to build while still being able to operate at 10 minute headways.

So this is an idea. I did it just for kicks because this is what I'd like to see happen in order for Austin to enter the transit space race. But let's do a quick hypothetical. Say that 40% of Austinites (from the 2000 census) were using transit on a daily basis. If they increased their location efficiency enough to reduce their driving by 5000 miles per year at 20mpg that would be a savings of $1000 at 4$ per gallon. If added all together, that $1000 of 40% is $276 million per year. Over the lifecycle of the network which can be 50 years, this amounts to $13.8 billion dollars in savings or $50,000 dollars per person who uses it, not including benefits to property owners etc. Of course it's just hypothetical like I always do but this is how we need to look at costs. Not how much does it cost but what do we get out of it?

What the Candidates Say Or Don't Say

Wow. This is abhorrent. All this talk of Global Warming and energy savings etc and no talk of urban form or transit. It is worse than I thought it was. I mean I know it's not sexy to everyone, but man these guys could have me leaning their way with a comprehensive rail initiative, or even mentioning transit. I guess i expected too much.

Barack Obama discusses renewable energy, fuel economy standards, and cleaner coal. What a joke. I was starting to like him, this is too bad.

Hilary Clinton says we need alternative energy and apparently has an "Apollo Like" plan for energy independence. Anyone want to guess if it includes electric rail? She, like Obama also wants better fuel standards but come on you guys, better fuel standards still allows sprawl which is ridiculously inefficient. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

John Edwards believes in renewable energy, changing the auto industry yadda yadda yadda. Again he doesn't understand the effect of the built environment on energy usage.

Bill Richardson believes in the same as the above.

This is disturbing and made me go and immediately sign the petition to draft Al Gore. He gets it and is probably the only one who really understands what it will take to get this country back on the right track. I started out this post with the intention of looking at all the candidates but the Republicans were just too ridiculous to even link to in terms of what they were talking about. I guess it's telling when some of them still don't believe in evolution. I was also hoping for more from the Democratic candidates. With over a year to go perhaps some of them will get it but I'm not going to count on it.

City of Beer and Buses

So Milwaukee Wisconsin is having the same debate that every city has when they are deciding whether to hop on the mass transit horse. The Leader of the County wants buses because they are more effective for "those people" and the Mayor wants a streetcar system, I'm guessing as a foot in the door for light rail. Well they should all just stop and go for the gold. I don't understand why these folks don't just invest in their communities. Light rail is an excellent investment. Look what it has done for Minneapolis. A shot in the arm along Hiawatha Avenue is what they needed and they got it. Now they can't talk enough about the Central Corridor and Southwest Corridor. The only thing that stands in their way is well...shortsighted government leaders. Tim Pawlenty and Scott Walker should just go away. In fact they should move to Cincinnati and live with Stephan Louis. That city is probably last on the list of large cities where people want to live in the United States, specifically when they get out of college. Why? Because there is no thinking and dreaming going on there, only people that say no. I don't know how these people got voted in, but in the next election I hope people throw out the bathtub drowning conservatives and vote for whoever has big dreams and wants to invest in their future.

Zombies in the Subway!

As I was walking by Union Square on my way home from work today I noticed a strange occurrence. There were folks with duct tape, blood and ripped clothes trying to get into a Victoria's Secret while the cable cars were going by. I even noticed one of them holding a cardboard sign that said "Rights for Ded People". Yes it was spelled ded. Then they made their way down to the Market Street subway. This Zombie Mob one of the any number of crazy things that happens in San Francisco every year. Pillow fights and treasure hunts are not uncommon. Now if only there were random transit rider uprisings to fix Muni. Perhaps that would raise some eyebrows from the local government, because ghost trains and late trains don't seem to bother them.

This Is What It Has Become

While I am biased towards transit, I think the Texas Legislature's latest action shows what is happening all over the United States. The investments that need to be made in infrastructure are being stymied by people who just think about themselves. Texas is run at the moment by Republicans. Most of them are from rural areas that have no need for transit and any time they hear tax they turn and run. In light of the fact that many people would like to have the chance to vote in order to raise taxes for commuter rail in Dallas, it sickens me that they won't even get the chance. What's worse, someone else decided whether you could pool your resources to get a valuable service. This isn't a democracy, but rather a government run by thugs and self interested businessmen. Most in the legislature don't work or if they do its for a law firm or real estate business where they have already made a lot of money. I mean are you serious, not even letting people vote for a tax for commuter rail??? It's not like they were approving the tax, just the vote. Yet they made Austin vote for Light Rail in 2000. What a bunch of hypocrites.