Toll Road Conundrum

It seems to me that if gas keeps going up and VMT goes down, how are toll roads and congestion pricing on new roads at the periphery going to add up. The formulas that say whether a road would be a good investment for private companies seems to be determined by models with low gas prices, so how will this add up in the future with less driving? I'm not sure how all this works, anyone have some insight?

Who Knew...

the answer to congestion was more cars. And the answer to obesity is more food right?

Taking Light Rail to the Speedway

So it's a Sunday and I'm watching a Nascar race at Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte. I'm not sure if I'm a part of that demographic but to me its better than Golf as a background while I'm surfing the news on a Sunday afternoon. Mostly because its similar to my former life as a distance runner and I can relate to the strategy.

But the point of my post is that people in the county in which Lowe's is located want to extend light rail to the track (blue line extension map here). It would be an interesting juxtaposition and show a lot of people who probably don't take transit what rail can do. If the track pays for a spur from another route to the mall it would be helpful for pre and post race traffic. That is if there are races and with oil cheap enough to race.



The one thing however I find discouraging is that they are saying if it does happen, it wouldn't be till 2020. Give me a break. We need to move much faster than that on all of this stuff. I'm finding that this country moves way too slow. Think about the time between 1950 and 1970 and how much of the interstate system was built. We're going to have to get at it if we're going to keep up with the demand, especially when gas is $10 a gallon.

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.

Betting on the Wrong Horse

Switchback is a great Boston transit blog. A recent post discusses how the MBTA bet on the wrong mode with gas prices on the rise. Some of the line is run on electricity with dual mode buses, but much of it is diesel buses.

The city bet on the wrong horse, or rather, bet on the wrong bus. Within the past ten years the T has sacrificed the A line tracks and half of the E, while pushing for a “bus rapid transit” system where residents demanded light rail. A light rail network that would ultimately cost less in infrastructure than the BRT network. All of this has been prompted by a fierce anti-rail ideology at work in both the MBTA and mayor’s office.

The anti-rail, pro-bus, pro-car agenda ignores basic logic and economics. Trains hold more people, run at faster speeds through tunnels, and offer comfortable, single-seat rides to anywhere in the urban core of Boston. They do this in vehicles which can operate for forty years as opposed to the ten to twelve of their rubber-wheeled counterparts. And they’re cheaper to run.

Personally I think building a subway for buses is insane especially when you have to destroy two perfectly good light rail tunnels to do it. You can't go as fast with drivers in the tunnels and you still get that awful bouncy jerkey bus ride and low capacity vehicles. Boston will increase its budget deficit operating these schemes. Perhaps the rise in oil will change some minds. It's not too late.

GDP and Transit

I just wrote a note on Diamajin's post on infrastructure underspending over at STB.

The article he quoted discusses spending on GDP:

...in 1960, the U.S. spent 12 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure and now spends 2.4 percent. Japan spends 10 percent, China 9 percent and India 4.6 percent...

I keep wanting to put the GDP thing into perspective. So lets say we spend 10% of GDP on Transportation. Let's say 20% of that goes to transit. Where would that leave us? $262 Billion based on $13.13 Trillion GDP(2006). Now APTA says that we spent $42 Billion in 2005 on capital and operations. That is a big difference! 523% increase.

Which when held against the $3.4 billion per year that will be promised in the climate bill for transit spending makes it look sad and small. I'm glad we're starting to turn the ship around when it comes to the transportation conversation in this country. But right now it feels like we're trying to reverse earth's orbital rotation.

Chicks Dig Low Carbon Footprints

So Wired has a story on how females are more willing to start conversation if you own a hybrid. I wonder if it goes one step further and you get even more attention if you promote transit. I'm not holding my breath.

Two Peas in a University Pod

For the last few months while I've been watching the central corridor impasse between the University of Minnesota and everyone else , something was nagging me. And it finally clicked. U of M might as well be UT (Texas). Both are trying to reroute their respective lines around campus and near the football stadiums, both routes of which would not maximize ridership. Yet they press on with little care about their affect on the surrounding community.

Here is the U of M alternate route from the Pioneer Press.


Now here are the alternate Austin routes I drew up where the yellow is the better route, however the University continues to push the red route.



I believe what this shows is that Universities for one are scared of things they don't understand, and that they know nothing about transportation planning and so are trying to solve a problem that only exists 8 times a year. Football game and special event congestion. With Austin, they're running the line right past the performing arts center, the football stadium and the track and swim stadiums instead of by the main campus and the dense residential neighborhood to the west.

Another perceived problem is that light rail is dangerous to pedestrians. Unlike those extremely safe cars careening through and around campus driven by students. But it just goes to show that Universities shouldn't control regional decisions by throwing fits. If there were a real issue, regional planners would understand and back off, but planning so that cars can keep driving through campus and less trips on transit can be taken is unacceptable.

Bill Language Translation

As promised, an update on the Boxer amendment to the Lieberman Warner climate bill. The bill language in full can be found here. Here are the funding breakdowns for each program to be funded. Here is my translation of the language below for the transit section of the amendment:

Grants for Additional Public Transportation Service

65% of the funds will be put into the formula funding program for transit already set up under section 5307. 60% of these funds can go to capital and operations funds and will be appropriated according to the urbanized area population. 40% of these funds can be allocated based on growth in the state based on the census. Also, any capital project that receives federal funding will be eligible for the funding if it provides 20% of its own funding (See section e). Operating costs will only allow 50%

I worry that some of these funds might be eligible for transfer to freeways and roads. I can't tell for sure though if this is possible, but the rules set out below from the code make it possible.

1. In a Transportation Management Area (TMA), the MPO may elect to transfer portions of its FTA Section 5307 funds that cannot be used for operating assistance to FHWA for highway projects subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. §5307(b)(2).

Requirements:

(3) In a transportation management area designated under section 5305 (a) of this title,^[1] amounts that cannot be used to pay operating expenses under this section also are available for a highway project if—

(A) that use is approved, in writing, by the metropolitan planning organization under section 5303 of this title after appropriate notice and an opportunity for comment and appeal is provided to affected public transportation providers;

(B) the Secretary decides the amounts are not needed for investment required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); and

(C) the metropolitan planning organization in approving the use under subparagraph (A) determines that the local transit needs are being addressed.

Grants for New Public Transit Projects

This is a really cool part. 30% of the $171 Billion expected would go to fixed guideway construction (Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Streetcar, Commuter Rail, and True BRT). It's subject to the same criteria as the new starts program. Now we have a little bit to worry about here if John McCain and Mary Peters stick around because they are going to water down fixed guideway as much as they can. Earlier this year they tried to make hot lanes eligible for new starts funding as "fixed guideway". This is also pennies. $1.026 Billion per year for fixed guideway projects is the basic idea.

Grants for Efficiency at Public Transit Agencies

5% of the funds will be allocated for reducing VMT, Bike and Ped infrastructure, carpool and telecommuting programs that don't include new road capacity. Funding will be distributed based on the total GHG reductions of the project applying for funding. This could include any of the following:

(A) improvements to lighting, heating, cooling, or ventilation systems in stations and other facilities that reduce direct or indirect greenhouse‐gas emissions;
(B) adjustments to signal timing or other vehicle controlling systems that reduce direct or indirect greenhouse‐gas emissions;
(C) purchasing or retrofitting rolling stock to improve efficiency or reduce greenhouse‐gas emissions; or
(D) improvements to energy distribution systems.

Like Ryan says, we can do better. But its a small start that could and should be expanded.