So What Pencils?

In every city in America right now there is a fight between a community and a developer. It's happening in Austin as M1ek and AC are discussing at the moment. In this instance the community is asking for something that the developer could, but does not want to give because really why should they? The rules were laid down and the developer followed them.

So when cities come up with extensive plans for the area around a light rail station that won't be there for a few years, what is a developer or city to do? The City of Aurora south of Denver is in that predicament right now. So what are citizens who want good development to do?

One way to go is to bank the land and do something that can be easily be turned when the market changes or when the rail line extension comes. Community land trusts and affordable housing funds could possibly do this or the city could buy it to hold although thats almost like the third way below. Another is to let them develop the junk they were going to, which in the case of Aurora, like Austin, is the much hated Wal-Mart. A third and sometimes unpopular way to go is to provide incentives to make the development pencil. This is what Aurora is thinking about as well.

Bob Watkins, Aurora's director of planning, said Aurora hopes the vacant plot will be developed into "a special place that would be unique and help establish an identity for the city."

The city is currently trying to develop an incentive package for the project.

"It probably is going to require some kind of incentive package ... I think the time is right. We have things happening with FasTracks, with RTD, everything that's going on," Hogan said.

RTD plans to extend light rail from the Nine Mile Station at Parker Road along I-225 and then swing away from the highway with a station planned at the location.

A big problem is figuring out where that is going to be since engineering on LRT projects and other improvements might take years. This is where developers can take issues into their own hands if they decide to help build these transit lines. Perhaps we'll start seeing more of that soon. So when a piece of land is scoped for future development, better make sure that everything people want is in order (coding, zoning, plans, affordable housing, etc) so you don't get unlucky and stuck with Wal-Mart or providing incentives.

Update: Here is a map of the area. The line will take an angle and go right.
Update 2: Had the wrong line. Better picture below.

Electric Transit Anyone?

Money is going to our buddies in Venezuela, Russia and Iran because of our addiction. Is anyone going to stand up now for good electric transit, solar panels, wave power and so on? Well, maybe next year.

In the United States, the rising bill for imported petroleum lowers already anemic consumer savings rates, adds to inflation, worsens the trade deficit, undermines the dollar and makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to balance its competing goals of fighting inflation and sustaining growth.

I've always wondered what would happen if the road builders just retooled for trolley buses and light rail and the car companies started pumping out streetcars. I know that would never happen but it would be interesting. Perhaps alternative energy competitions and innovations are in order.

Sausalito Streetcar?

Update: Another article discusses 5 possible future lines. 295bus covers this as well.

Two architects in Sausalito are proposing a streetcar system to Mill Valley. According to the Marin Independent Journal:

They also have gotten the attention of elected leaders in Southern Marin, who say the trolley plan could work. Money, of course, will largely determine whether the trolley system ever becomes reality. Rex and Nichol envision a trolley that would run on tracks built into existing roads and flow with traffic. They would be powered by a single overhead electric wire.

They figure it would cost $20 million to $50 million to get a demonstration line up and running from the Depot in Mill Valley to ferry terminal in Sausalito in five years. Trolleys would stop every quarter or half mile along Miller Avenue and then Bridgeway. Trolleys eventually could serve Novato, San Rafael, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross and Tiburon.

I've created a map of the route. In terms of TOD and Redevelopment, it doesn't seem like a bad one. The only problem I see is that this is a heavily traveled route by car with sections prone to auto backups. Since this is a main route, it doesn't seem wise to be in the street. There is however sufficient space in the median in many places. It also allows people who live in Mill Valley and Sausalito to get to the ferry to San Francisco fairly easily without a car and is actually close to most of the developed area. Take a look below.

Updating the Transit Space Race

After last week there have been a few changes to the Transit Space Race. Unfortunately for the moment Seattle has dropped down to TSR hopeful while I've added Los Angeles to the Space Race because there is so much going on. To see what is going on lets take a look at the stats and go through the list.

In the Space Race...

Wednesday Update: Updates below are in bold... Legacy Post to come soon...

Charlotte - 1 LRT Line Under Construction, 2 LRT Planned, 2 Streetcar Lines, 1 Commuter Rail Line

Dallas/Fort Worth - 2 LRT Lines, 1 Commuter Rail Line, 1 Streetcar Line, 2 LRT Lines Planned, 1 Commuter Rail line planned - More regional commuter rail discussions.

Denver - 2 LRT Lines, 2 Planned, 4 Commuter Rail Lines Planned, Streetcar discussions

Houston - 1 LRT Lines, 5 Planned, Commuter Rail discussions

Los Angeles - 1 Heavy Rail Line, 3 LRT Lines, 2 LRT Under Construction, 2 LRT Planned, 1 Heavy Rail Line Planned, 1 BRT Line, 7 Commuter Rail lines, Other Corridor Discussions

Phoenix - 1 LRT Line Under Construction, 4 Corridors Planned, Commuter rail discussion

Portland - 3 LRT Lines, 1 Streetcar Line, 1 Light Rail Line Under Construction, 1 Commuter Rail Line Under Construction, 1 Light Rail Line Planned, Streetcar Loop Planned, Streetcar Network Discussion

Salt Lake City - 2 LRT Lines, 1 Commuter Rail Line Under Construction, 4 Light Rail Lines Planned, 1 Commuter Rail Line Planned, Planned Streetcar

St. Louis - 2 LRT Lines, 2 Corridors Under Planning, Planned Streetcar

Minneapolis - 1 LRT Line, 1 Commuter Rail Line Under Construction, 3 Planned LRT Lines, Planned Streetcar System, Planned Commute Rail Lines

Transit Space Race Hopefuls...

Kansas City - Light Rail Discussion

Norfolk - 1 LRT Under Construction, Planned Network

Sacramento - 3 LRT Lines, 2 Light Rail Lines Planned, 1 Streetcar Line Planned

Seattle - 2 Streetcar Lines, 2 Commuter Rail Lines, 1 LRT Line Under Construction, Extension Planned, Commuter Rail Discussions, LRT Extension Discussions

Tampa - Regional Network discussion

Atlanta - Heavy Rail Lines, 2 Planned Streetcars, Commuter Rail Line Discussions

Eugene - 1 BRT Line, 2 Planned

San Diego - 3 Light Rail lines, 1 commuter rail line, 1 LRT line planned, Streetcar planned, BRT discussions.

Transit Space Race Hopeless...

Columbus - Streetcar Plans
Cincinnati - Streetcar Plans
Austin - Commuter Rail Under Construction, Fixed Guideway Discussions
Madison - Commuter Rail/BRT Discussions
Milwaukee - Commuter Rail/Streetcar Discussions
Orlando- Planned Commuter Rail/Network Discussions
Las Vegas - Monorail/Bus Rapid Transit
Albuquerque - Commuter Rail line, Planned Streetcar Line
Raleigh Durham - Fixed Guideway Discussion

Double Speak Means 'I Don't Like Transit'

The newly elected council of Huntersville North of Charlotte wants to toss a stick in the spokes of the North Corridor commuter rail. They're worried about the financing of the project which will come from a number of different sources. From the Charlotte Observer:

The current financing plan for the commuter line calls for CATS to pay for 34 percent of the construction cost with the state paying for 25 percent. Just under 10 percent is already allocated for the Gateway Station project, which would be the line's signature station uptown and will be the city's Amtrak station.

The balance -- $70 million -- would come from the municipalities.

CATS wants to build the line now so it can help shape development along the train stations. It wants to create high-density housing, along with retail, near the stops. It then wants to use a portion of the property taxes generated from the high-density development to help pay for construction, called tax-increment financing.

What is interesting about this is that the anti-transit(ATs) are always asking transit to pay for itself. So when officials get innovative in their financing plan to actually have transit pay for at least a part of itself, the ATs see a threat. They don't want the train at all. The argument, 'transit should pay for itself' is actually code for 'I don't like transit'.

Given that the city's part of the funding will come from new development like it did when streetcar lines were building Boston and other cities many years ago, its a surprise to me that this set of folks, who love free markets, would be against it. So the balance of $70 million would be funded through new dense development which will drive ridership AND pay some of the construction cost. Less cars on the road at rush hour and the ability to put the density away from existing neighborhoods? Sign an AT up for opposition!

I understand the worries about the market at the moment, but these things go in cycles and certain markets take off when others tank. Mixed use doesn't need to be vertical and most of the development will need to happen in phases. But they'll never get the densities around transit if they don't build the line. Meaning more people on the road and more junk multi-family apartment complexes in random places. But ATs like that kinda stuff. It's the American Dream, right?

Team Player of the Year

File Under Running.

Reed Connor of the Woodlands High (My high school's arch-rival) in Texas won my respect this weekend. He was in 5th place going into the last 100 meters at the Texas State Cross Country Meet for big schools when he collapsed from dehydration. He got up and wobbled the final 25 meters and finished 5th on his team to beat Southlake Carroll by 6 points. This is one of the gutsiest moves I've ever seen. He was later taken to the hospital and given 4 liters of fluid by IV and is in good condition.

If you want to see the video of this amazing feat, check out FloTrack and watch the 5A boys finish.

What is also amazing is that since 1981, Kingwood (my high school) and the Woodlands have won the State XC meet 22 out of the last 25 years. That's a pretty good dynasty for both teams.

I also want to give a shout out to the Lady Mustangs at Kingwood High for winning their 7th State Championship.

Making Connections to the Airport

Recently there has been a lot of talk of connecting light rail with airports in cities around the country. There seem to be two discussions going on of how to connect to the airport; extending a line out to the airport, and running a line through the airport if its already passing the area.

If the city is building its first light rail line, I'm not sure a move to the airport alone is the best decision for a city to make. While its good to connect the airport to downtown for travelers, they don't make up a big enough share of transit users to justify a first line. The first line, as has been said a lot lately, should be a starter line that will get the highest ridership and connect the most destinations. Extensions can move to the airport and some airports might even be willing to build or pay for that connection such as TIA in Tampa.

In Sacramento, there is a discussion going on as to whether the DNA line should extend all the way to the airport. This is covered with good points by RT Rider. The line is going to go to Nantomas and I don't see a reason why at some point the line shouldn't be extended to the airport. Because so many people go to Sacramento to the state capitol, it would seem to me that there would be a lot more trips than general generated from the airport and would make the city a bit more competitive for jobs and growth.

In Dallas, some locals are upset that the new light rail line didn't get a tunnel to love field which it will pass along its alignment. It is silly for the federal government to base this decision on cost alone (cost effectiveness strikes again) because as Richard Layman discusses, there are much more external benefits that aren't counted in a traditional cost benefit ratio usually touted by the Reason foundation and the anti-transit faction who of course don't use that same measure for roads. But now, Dallas is looking to tax flights to pay for a people mover to connect the airport and light rail station in a subway.

Austin's Mayor and a council member have opened discussions recently to build light rail to the airport. If that line goes through Riverside and up Guadalupe, it would be a good extension, and could possibly spur TOD along Riverside towards the Airport. But perhaps a phase II scheme would be best.

Some here in San Francisco argue that BART to SFO should have never been built but rather Caltrain should have been electrified and a people mover connect the station to the airport. Obviously for me its easier with BART to the airport to get there because instead of a one seat ride I'd have a three seat ride. Obviously I like it, but it benefits me directly.

So what does this mean? Is it important to connect to the airport? Depends on who you ask. Personally, I think that an airport connection by rail is a sign that the city is moving in the right direction. It should be the goal of cities to make it easier for travelers to get places they visit without cars while also making it painless to get to the airport sans traffic jam. But the regional benefits and connections should be taken into account as well.

Yes, Thank You San Francisco

Transbay Blog reports that Measure A won and Measure H, the evil parking measure lost. Thank You San Francisco.

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.

News From the Other Side of the State

Probably a bit overshadowed by the transit tax ballot measure in Charlotte these last few days, Raleigh Durham poked its head above water again to discuss a possible new transit plan after the FTA mercilessly cut the initial one using our favorite cost effectiveness measure. The interesting thing about this is that the region is very polycentric and its travel patterns seem a bit abnormal to me for typical hub and spoke transit operations. However there should be a line that connects the two major cities. The article cites a possible commuter rail BRT combination, but we'll be watching for more information as it comes available.

In the Triangle, rising costs and low ridership forecasts forced TTA last year to shelve its quest to build a 28-mile track for trains that would run several times every hour, 18 hours a day, from Durham through Research Triangle Park to Raleigh.

But the advisory group has not ruled out making TTA's tracks the spine of a rail, bus and streetcar network that could stretch across the region and into neighboring counties.