Tampa's Endowment Experiment

The Tampa Streetcar has an endowment for it's operations that picks up part of the tab. It was created when the line started and has been dwindling ever since. But much of that is because stocks have tanked.

In 2007, the endowment accounted for about 40 percent of the streetcar's $2 million annual operating budget. That still left the endowment at about $3.3 million.

But in the past year, the fund plummeted to $1.4 million, partly due to its contribution to operating expenses, but mostly because the endowment was invested in securities that took a beating on Wall Street.

If this idea was brough forth in the early 90's this line would be operating a surplus from its endowment but given what has happened it's getting crushed by market conditions and perhaps overly aggresive investment. As property values have increased along the line, I'm surprised a more proactive approach at capturing them and putting them into the operations as well. At some point the city will have to take over, but no one should call this line a failure when they do. With 1,200 riders a day on limited operating times and over $1 billion in development along the line, it has shown what can be done with a lot of vacant line and a streetcar.

Setting New Timelines

Yonah discusses issues related to the Columbus plans for a light rail line using the stimulus funding. I would note that it was partially because of the FTA's cost effectiveness index that this corridor project got killed. They gave Columbus a large CEI for both light rail and BRT projects. It just shows how they have always been looking at the wrong metrics and hold transit to a different standard than roads.

That brings us though to the issue of what that CEI has wrought in terms of projects moving forward around the country as well as thier timline.

One of the problems with the current thinking on transit and the "ready to go-ness" of them is that people think that the current speed at which transit projects get done is how it has always been. This is wrong and simply a function of how broken the funding system has become. Obviously it shouldn't have taken Charlotte 10 years to build their first rail line but it was trying to get through the federal funding program that took so long. This gives lawmakers a poor idea of how actually long it will take.

We need to push back hard on assumptions that the lines can not be started within a three month or even a year period after the stimulus money is let. That assumes also we don't get rolled by state DOTs (aka highway departments) which is another outrage entirely. There should be some sort of experementation with design build in these transit projects, especially since many of them will be street running, even with thier own ROW. It's not as if engineers will not be in need of funding for thier businesses either. This recession is hitting everyone, not just construction workers.

But we can see how fast things can go when they are planned from Portland and Seattle. Portland announced the alignment in 1997 and the line was open in 2001. In Seattle, it took 5 years from thought to operations. This is half the time it took Charlotte to open and possibly shows that if you have an alignment and the funding, it can be designed and moved forward in short order. In the next few years we'll have a few more examples with Salt Lake moving so fast on thier lines, hopefully a few more because of the stimulus.

OTA Flashback: 1974 Sprawl Report

Thought this report was a bit interesting. It's buried deep in the weeds here but I was flipping through and found it on page 43. From the US Government Printing Office:

Several conclusions and findings are made in this report. The high density planned community consumed 40% less energy than the low density sprawl pattern. In annual terms this means 400 million BTU per dwelling unit in the low density sprawl pattern compared to about 210 million BTU per dwelling unit in the high density planned pattern. The high density planned community cost per residential unit was $21,000 compared to $49,000 per unit in low density sprawl pattern. This is for all community costs prorated.

Water and air pollution are substantially less and water consumption less in the higher density pattern. With 52% less travel time required in the snore(similar?) densely planned community, less accidents and other psychic benefits are described. Gas and electricity use ‘is a function of housing type and structural characteristics: no variation among planned and sprawl communities with the same housing mix is shown." But, ‘significant variation in consumption of gasoline occurs as a result of the differences among community types.. . ." The report concludes that significant energy savings can be attained through greater use of mass transit.

We never learn do we.

Ellen Bozman

I had never heard of Ellen Bozman, but it seems as if she was a major driver of what has taken place in Arlington County.

She played a key role in the county's Metro transit development, which transformed Arlington from a sleepy bedroom community into a thriving urban center. Because of her efforts, the idea of high-rises with retail, living and office space centered on Metro stations was embraced, said Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington).

I couldn't find much else on her, but this is interesting.

On a side note, I find the OTA reports are an interesting look into transportation's planning past, especially the subway systems built in the 70's. If you want to learn more about what went on back then in a number of different cities, check them out.

Early Ridership Report from Phoenix

It's really too early to tell what the daily ridership will be, since the line is only a few weeks old, but here are some initial numbers, possibly heightened by the initial novelty, but lowered by the absence of college students at Arizona State.

The agency puts out its first official monthly totals in the middle of next month. But based on estimates, Metro believes its daily ridership from Monday of this week to today ranges from 20,000 to 30,000.

Attack on the 72 Rapid

A little light hearted Oakland post.

Rail Opponent Cliche Fest

Ryan points out the dumb comments the Post starts its article out with:

"Despite its substantially higher cost"

He goes on to comment:

Despite its substantially higher cost, I ordered the delicious steak the other night, instead of the potted meat. Despite its substantially higher cost, I bought a nice bottle of wine instead of a plastic jug of horse spit. Despite its substantially higher cost, I opted to burn a pile of money, rather than shell out for a copy of the worthless Washington Post.

I'll do you one better! How about all these wonderful anti rail cliches from US News and World Report:

Democratic bleeding hearts

social engineering program

nice thing to have. But

at a fraction of the cost, buy swank new buses

half the cost of light rail, build a dedicated "bus rapid transit" system

riders of the proposed Purple Line already take mass transit to work

proponents are actually hurting the cause

Who thinks US News should stick to college rankings?

Walk & Train

Ryan says:

It's easier to support a carbon tax if you have a grocery store within walking distance and can take the train to work.

Absolutely. I would likely be skeptical if I were living in Austin still and knew that I had to drive to get most places. Now that BART and the Grocery store are a half mile in each direction, I don't worry about it anymore. I fill up my car maybe once every month and a half, sometimes even longer. Think about if everyone was able to move from once a week to once every two months. More money for local business, more money for alternative energy and more money for housing near transit. Winners all around.

Reframing a "Highway" Bill

We need to stop calling it the "Highway Bill". It should never fund mostly highways ever again. It's just like the needed reframing of the "Farm Bill." Michael Pollan has called for it to be called the food bill.

Doing so starts with the recognition that the "farm bill" is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food--to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely.

If we follow this logic to its transportation end, we should be calling the transportation bill something else entirely. Livable mobility bill? This means that the bill should be written with livability placed first. Is that so hard a goal? Let's try Michael's paragraph replacing the food words with transportation words.

Doing so starts with the recognition that the "highway bill" is a misnomer; in truth, it is a livable mobility bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of people placed first. Yes, there are people who think it in their interest that driving just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap driving--to their health, to the land, to themselves, to the public purse. At a minimum, these people want a bill that aligns transportation policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to move us cleanly, sustainably and humanely.

Sounds pretty good huh? If you have something better than the livable mobility bill, let's hear it.

Streetsblog SF

Check it out. They're up and running.