TOD Will Pay Someday

Unfortunately it feels like there is a bit too much optimism that TOD will pay for infrastructure such as rail. Really though, the increase in value brought by new transit lines has too many people fighting over it, from the basic infrastructure to affordable housing to the lines themselves. We can't expect to put all of that weight on the back of a few projects. However we keep making TOD out to be the savior of all. I feel like it can do a lot of things, just not everything.

Assume the Risk

There have been a lot of issues recently over cost estimates that are starting to rub me the wrong way. I had never mentioned it before but in my head I kept thinking to myself that the cost for LRT in Norfolk seemed awfully low. The most recent estimate was $232 million for 7.2 miles. Compared to most LRT lines that would have been a steal. Phoenix was upwards of $80 million per mile while Norfolk was hovering around $32 million. Now it's $340 million which is still ok at $47 million a mile, but everyone is going crazy.

But today I saw something interesting out of Houston. The city is going to pay up front an extra $100 million for their contract and the bid winner will assume liability for any cost overruns during the project (assuming it doesn't cause them to go out of business). My question then becomes, how come we don't make all contractors stick to their cost estimates?

While I understand that things change and work orders change, shouldn't the company which came in with the chosen bid be responsible for seeing through with their magic eight balls? Perhaps that is asking too much or asking in some instances for disaster. Cutting corners leads to bad things and I certainly wouldn't want a contractor to go cheap on materials because they were trying to make money. In any event, with all these cost overruns on projects that are making LRT look bad, I don't see why more isn't being done to make the bidders more responsible for their bids.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

Well sort of. Today the 2005 dear colleague letter that then FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn released on the world requiring that all New Starts projects have a medium rating on their cost effectiveness has been rescinded. Many have hailed this as a huge step forward for livability advocates but honestly its only half of the picture. One of the reasons I believe that the medium rating was imposed was to build more cheap BRT projects and cut out subway and lrt projects. But another reason was to cut all the junk projects out of the funding loop. With only about $8 billion dollars available for new starts projects in the last transportation bill, it leaves the need for regions to pick up the hundreds of billions more needed to build out transit networks. One estimate pegged the total at approximately $250 billion dollars. That is a huge gap.

So while some newspapers including the New York Times believe that this is opening up the funding floodgates, they are sorely mistaken. It does however change a few dynamics that have been holding projects back. The Central Corridor in Minneapolis is a curious case. They have been wanting to add a station in St. Paul to serve lower income community however it slowed down the travel time just enough to push the line over the index. This is just one example of how suburban to downtown speedy travel is emphasized over shorter trips in denser communities by the existing cost effectiveness index. Yonah has specifically mentioned another Minneapolis project that I also believe is headed in the wrong direction.

Dropping the medium requirement also takes a step towards making us think harder about what we're really building transit for. Is it for existing population or the future population or both? A common comment about the current cost effectiveness rating is that it would have never funded the DC or New York Subways. But DC and New York would not have gotten to where they are now in terms of density without the investments in the subway. Really this is a chance to start thinking about how to make transformative investments in transit around the country. It's an opportunity we've been waiting for, but as with all big ideas, it needs money.

Sunday Night Notes

I realize there has been much less posting here, but if you still want links you can follow me on twitter which seems to be more regular. @theoverheadwire

There are some interesting links today however:

I don't really think cities should compete to land new jobs. Especially for government funded jobs such as Northrup Grumman.
~~~
Wal Mart doesn't create new jobs. Tell us something we don't know.
~~~
So does this mean Smart Cars are PRT?

“Smart’s not a car in the traditional sense, it’s a high- style alternative to public transportation,”

~~~
What does urban authenticity mean?

Is It a Wonder How Housing Prices Are So High?

I appreciate environmental regulations and the like, but it seems like a lot of folks in California just take it too far:

Talk of any development along the rail line has raised concern in the environmental community, some of whom believe the system will act as a catalyst for growth, as developers try to build for those who want to live near a train station.

and this:

Under proposed air-quality guidelines, for the first time in the U.S., if extra cancer risk meets a specific threshold, the developer would be told to study the potential health effects of the freeway pollution on the people who would live in the homes. That would be in addition to what the developer is already required to do: study the effects of the housing on freeway traffic and the surrounding environment. If the health risk is too great, the developer might need to modify or scrap his development plan, or spend extra time persuading the city or county to approve it.

If we can't develop near transit stations or near freeways in existing urban areas, where the heck are people supposed to develop new homes that won't affect the environment? Am I missing something here?

How ITS Should Work. Right?

How ITS Works through the eyes of a kid:



Via Portland Transport

Can One Development Catalyze a District?

And is it right to be developing once vital industrial land? It's a question that often comes up that I don't quite know the answer to. Here in Oakland many properties in West Oakland have been deemed off limits to commercial or residential development. Many council members want to preserve the industries that provide much needed jobs and an economic boost.

In Denver, there are developers who are looking to revitalize the South Broadway area around the Evans station that is primarily industrial. Much of the project is a mixed use redevelopment on six acres that was once a superfund site. The developer is a single developer which also begs the question of how a market gets started. Once he proves that the area is changed and continues to build more and more projects, other folks will follow suit. But ultimately the developer is the one who will boom or go bust.

I find this interesting because everyone is always looking for the next big neighborhood or district. In the past improvements have been predicated on good bones. The gridded street network already exists and a light rail station is already near by. But at the moment the market isn't there. Could it be a single developer who creates a market? Or are markets organic and ultimately unpredictable. I guess we'll find out.

Around the World: Argentina & Hong Kong

Fearless Overhead Wire correspondent and world traveler @nspicer just got back from his honeymoon in Argentina with @autgoff and took a few transit shots because he knows that I'm a nerd and I appreciate these things. He's also recently been to Hong Kong and rode the Star Ferry. Here are a few shots from his travels. Thanks Spicer and Anna!

OT: There's More to College Than Football

I like football. I watch a lot of games during the season but as a former athlete in an Olympic sport I got really annoyed at the Football coaches at Texas fairly often. They have always been shortsighted in terms of other sports and academics. Take for example Jamaal Charles who is now the big play maker for Kansas City. The kid was super fast and ran track at Texas in the offseason. The short story of it all was that track in college gave Charles something to do in the offseason to keep his focus on something other than the street.

Back in Port Arthur, track had kept Charles focused. It had given him something to do during football offseason, when cousins found trouble .

Now I often defend athletics because I was an athlete who benefited from competing for a division one school. But there were times when I had to fight my guidance councilor to take harder classes. At times she would try to give me easy classes because of catering to the lowest common denominator in the program. People who just needed classes to stay eligible to play.

Speaking for myself, I chafed at the idea of not being able to take classes like Military History to 1900 because others said they would be hard. (One of the most fascinating courses I took in Undergrad outside of my major classes) But this also speaks to the fact that colleges don't see football players as part of the student body. In fact it is evidenced every time we get a good athlete who wants to run track and play football. Usually football wins out:

Charles says he was told that if he wanted to maintain his place as the Longhorns' starting running back, he'd have to abandon track and make football a year-round commitment.

There were many guys who liked to run who were told they couldn't. I don't doubt that studying more tape helps. But Football isn't the center of the universe. If they are enrolled in school, let them take the classes they want. And if they want to play another sport that helps their football playing in the offseason why not let them?

Merry Christmas

Hope everyone is having a good Christmas. Here are some fun links for you:

Census shows slow in sunbelt burst.
~~~
Holland looks at per KM pricing.
~~~
Intercity trains in Germany beating the pants off of planes.
~~~
I WISH buses all had 5 minute headways.
~~~
Is China building HSR too fast? Like Robert, I feel like someone is trying to affect the US debate.

Road Building Paradox

Has anyone ever heard of the Downs - Thompson paradox?

“Downs-Thomson paradox, also referred to as the Pigou-Knight-Downs paradox, states that the equilibrium speed of car traffic on the road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys by (rail-based or otherwise segregated) public transport. It follows that increasing road capacity can actually make overall congestion on the road worse."

Sounds like some sort of variation of induced demand.

Pressure

Some telling comments from the Austin Chronicle:

Council Member Sheryl Cole sits with Leffingwell on the Transit Working Group; she had heard Allen say there he believed pressure to meet a November 2004 rail referendum deadline had shortchanged the design and engineering work on the Red Line. In Allen's assessment, inadequate early planning, design, and engineering work, combined with a failure to engage sufficient outside expertise, had led to an unrealistic budget and schedule.

I wrote about the quick switch from LRT to Commuter Rail in my Master's report. Capital Metro had only been working on the Red Line plan for a few months before they made the decision to put it before voters in the summer. They had been talking about LRT up until January of 2004. Contacts at UT had mentioned that Capital Metro had stopped talking to them cold turkey to pursue this other plan. From my Masters report (Thesis)

According to John Rishling, Vice President for Campus Planning at the University of Texas, light rail planning continued until January of 2004 when talks with John Almond, the lead engineer for the rail project, all of the sudden stopped. Rishling stated that the Pickle Research Center in North Austin between the red line and the Union Pacific line is being planned as a residential campus for students of the University of Texas and transit was needed to connect it to the main campus. Maps in Rishling’s office suggest light rail be built down San Jacinto Street but even by August he had not heard anything from the transit agency except for what he read in the news...In March of 2004 Capital Metro announced their proposed system.

From Doug Allen's account it seems as if they didn't have enough time to think this plan through before the election. More than likely they devised the plan for the Red Line in two months based on years of putting the alternatives against each other. In other words it smells of bad push politics from people like Mike Krusee, which we knew all along was spinning away from light rail and pushing for rail towards his district, not in Capital Metro's service area.

But even more hidden gold from interim CEO Doug Allen:

In October's meeting, Allen said the cost of the Red Line commuter rail system "probably could and should have" been $300 million (to build it out properly, with double tracking) to serve the transit ridership potential in that corridor – still a good price for a 32-mile system.

I don't think this should be hard for everyone to understand. 38,000 riders for LRT in 2000 versus 2,000 riders for Commuter rail in 2004. It's not rocket science. The politics was messy and Capital Metro allowed themselves to get pushed into it. This didn't start with the current contractor, this started back before 2000 with Krusee who was head of the House Transportation Committee. Again from my Masters Report:

Representative Krusee proposed a starter red line replacing the 1998 consultant’s green line light rail in 2000. Consultants in 1998 believed that the green line was a better route for ridership production however it was turned down by the voters in 2000. It seemed that commuter rail was on Senator Krusee’s mind even before the 2000 election. In a 2000 Austin American Statesman article, he was quoted, “I wish they would be more open-minded to alternatives to light rail”.

His fixation on that freight line led to a poorly planned line and here we are seeing the results in 2009. Thanks Mike, glad you had your revelations after you lost your power to do anything about it.

One More Electric Transit Mode

The electric trolley canal boat. What?

Detroit & Turin

I often wonder if the continuous comparisons of Detroit to the Italian City of Turin are apt or even fair. Sure both were the respective auto industry leaders but Turin has a much richer history and deeper roots than Detroit ever had before the car. Turin was the home to Savoy kings and a key point of contention during the period before the 20th century for its rich agricultural lands. It also has an urban core with palaces, ornate churches and still standing roman gates. While Fiat and Ford might have a lot in common, I imagine it was much easier to set Turin back on the right path than it will be for Detroit. I just wonder if its fair to compare the two.

After visiting Turin, it's quite astonishing to think that it once had so many issues. Everywhere my parents and I went was fairly exciting from the large public market to the Egyptian Museum second only to Egypt itself. From a superficial perspective it didn't seem any different from Milan which is the largest economic generator in Italy, ahead of Rome. But it seemed as if there was more for the Piedmont region to work with. It wasn't far from the alps for skiing and wasn't far from wine country either. With this in mind I feel as if Detroit has a lot more work to do than Turin might have had. And while some of the lessons such as using the skills you have to reinvent yourself are part of the toolbox, I feel there are a lot more tools that need to be built from scratch.

This post is also another opportunity to share pictures...

One of the original malls



Turin from the needle



The largest outdoor market i've ever seen



The Superga



IGuido car sharing



Buses and Arches




South of Turin is Wine and Food Country



This is the town of Barolo for you wine lovers

Monday Night Notes

Is a new business model emerging for merchants and park n ride lots?
~~~
A drive thru in Portland apologizes after an employee refuses service to a cyclist, discusses possible cycle through lanes.
~~~
GE is going to get some business in Africa for its locomotives
~~~
GHG emissions in China are a quarter of the US emissions per capita.
~~~
It's kind of annoying when cities that weren't paying into the regional transit agency want in when there is commuter rail. Cities in Texas seem to like to do this.

But most Denton County cities, including Lake Dallas, rejected membership and the sales tax requirement. When DCTA offered those cities a second chance at membership in 2006, only Shady Shores and Corinth talked seriously about buying in.

~~~
Does the Northeast Corridor need an EIS to get ARRA funds?

Half the Story McCrory

While it would be nice to believe that Light Rail changed the world in Charlotte, Mayor McCrory is doing a bit of oversell if this article is complete evidence of what he said to some streetcar folks in Fort Worth.

McCrory is credited with pushing through a transportation plan that, with the help of a $200 million federal grant for light rail, revitalized blighted Charlotte neighborhoods. On Friday, he visited with about 200 advocates of returning electric trolleys to the Fort Worth streets.

Now that light rail is on the ground in Charlotte, he said, "our bus ridership is not just people who have to have it but people who want to ride it. Bus ridership is all races and classes. The bus system is unbelievable now."

What happened in Charlotte was not only the construction of light rail and the planning for a rapid transit network, but most of the half cent sales tax went into improving bus service. This is what the referendum focused on back in 2007. If passed, it would have severely hampered the bus system as well as the LRT expansion. But as a reward for the investment, Charlotte has had substantial gains in ridership directly related to the upgraded network and improved service.

Playing with Matches

It looks like an amendment was put into the federal transportation budget that would allow Detroit to use a LRT line that it builds with its own money for a federal funding match of the next segment. The funding for the initial segment would come from foundations. While lines have been funded philanthropically before such as Galveston's trolley, I believe this is a first to be funded primarily with foundation money.

The interesting thing about this amendment is that it would allow the Woodward Ave LRT to be constructed much faster than it would have otherwise under the usual new starts process. The general wait time for funding is 10 years and many cities find that such a time commitment increases costs and stretches political will. But there is a catch, the amendment doesn't say anything about the NEPA environmental process which could hamper the project. The amendment reads as follows:

SEC. 173. Hereafter, for interstate multi-modal projects which are in Interstate highway corridors, the Secretary shall base the rating under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States Code, of the non-New Starts share of the public transportation element of the project on the percentage of non-New Starts funds in the unified finance plan for the multi-modal project: Provided, That the Secretary shall base the accounting of local matching funds on the total amount of all local funds incorporated in the unified finance plan for the multi-modal project for the purposes of funding under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code and title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That the Secretary shall evaluate the justification for the project under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States Code, including cost effectiveness, on the public transportation costs and public transportation benefits.

But the reason why the amendment had to be created is because federal funding has lots of strings and these matches are quite tricky. And while many cities would like to skip the new starts process initially by building the first line themselves, the NEPA rules are not structured to allow this. Several different cities have tried successfully and unsuccessfully to do something similar with their match process however the key sticking point is always the NEPA process and following the environmental rules.

Initially Houston looked into using the Main Street Line as a match for the next projects but that idea smoldered. Metro did however get an investment "credit" in the form of an Earmark for future fixed guideway construction. What happened to this money is unknown, though it seems as if it was just put into the pot for the five line expansion.

In 2005 Kay Bailey Hutchinson sought to fund 100% of two lines in Houston through the same mechanism while the city saved up for three others. This was blocked by Tom Delay and John Culbertson (who is still blocking the University Line) because they didn't feel it was following the law. Of course this was just a good excuse to block light rail for those two jokers. Houston eventually put the lines into the New Starts process and is seeking 49% of two out of five lines. Because they weren't able to use the first two lines as a match, they are likely leaving $270M on the table because they are not going for funding on two they are building on their own.

Salt Lake City looked to build their five lines faster by creating a memorandum of understanding whereby 20% of the total projects cost was funded by the FTA. This would fund the Mid Jordan Line at 78% federal and the remainder of the Draper line while UTA built the others as a match. However the office of management and budget rescinded this deal in 2008 when they felt that it was in violation of NEPA. It is believed that the feds decided that this wasn't legal because when the MOU was signed all of the lines entered into the contract with the federal government. Because not all the lines went through the NEPA process, it was thought that they would be constructed outside of the rules set forth by the federal government for environmental process. The FTA is said to still be honoring the deal, even if it is outside of the MOU document.

This was also worrisome to the FTA because it was seen as a precedent that would set off a wave of deal making which it eventually did with Charlotte. In 2008 Charlotte tried to make a deal that would have funded the Northeast Corridor at 80% while platform extensions for the South Corridor and the Northeast Corridor were constructed with local funds. This deal never came to pass. Finally San Francisco built the T Third line with local funds but went through the NEPA process therefor allowing it to be used as a match legally within the federal process. Nancy Pelosi still had to put an amendment in a spending bill but the line is currently being used as a match for the Central Subway project.

With all these examples, the federal match amendment still doesn't address the NEPA issue that came up in Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Ultimately it would be nice for cities to make big deals so that they can build transit networks faster than they would ultimately be able to under the current rules that keep lines in planning for ten years. So while Detroit might have gotten this match language, I would expect the OMB to jump in at some point and derail it because once the match project is seen as part of the whole deal, it is likely that they will believe the first segment would be subject to the rules of the new starts process including NEPA as well.

Bus LOS

I thought this comment by Engineer Scotty over at Portland Transport was quite adroit.

Imagine if a transit agency acted like (and had the political and financial resources to do so) ODOT or WDOT. There would be "bus levels of service", ranging from A to F or so, allocated as follows:

Level A: Everyone can sit where they want.
Level B: Passengers have to occasionally say "excuse me" as they walk past other (seated) passengers while boarding or disembarking.
Level C: Someone has to sit next to a stranger, without an intervening empty seat.
Level D: Passengers have to look real hard to find the few empty seats that are remaining; the aisle may occasionally be blocked.
Level E: The bus is SRO.
Level F: The bus is crushloaded.

Any level of service below C would be considered an unacceptable level of service, and would cause planners to add additional buses to the route. But since this is the DOT thinking, they would be adding buses ALL THROUGHOUT THE DAY, not just during the AM and PM rush.

It says a lot, I think, that transit agencies are frequently encouraged to increase usage of existing services (i.e. add congestion), but DOTs are permitted to try and build their way out of it.

Similarly, Jarrett made a comment about how if all your favorite restaurants were empty, you'd likely not have a restaurant to eat at anymore. The ensuing comments are likely to be of interest.

Tuesday Night Notes

I don't know if I want my buses to be described as “Quiet as a tomb”
~~~
If Oklahoma City builds a streetcar before much of the country...
~~~
The opposition in Madison wants to pull an Austin by having an election before all the facts are in. This happened in 2000 and things worked out pretty well....right?
~~~
Streetcars and traffic are tricky. Yonah is right that these issues should be dealt with but every place is different and will have different solutions.
~~~
Salt Lake City residents can have more bars! Put them near transit they say.

"Clustering bars near public transit, they agree, could reel in visitors, reduce drunken driving and send a signal that Utah's capital doesn't shut down after dark. "

Sunday Night Notes

Design of train stations is important. My favorite airport in the US is Austin, because when you get off the plane, the high ceilings make you feel free from the cramped space. I think good train stations can give that same feeling.
~~~
Salt Lake City is looking at Streetcar network plans. Just another arrow in the quiver.
~~~
The Houston Chronicle interviewed the outgoing chairman of Metro. From afar, it seems like he's done a good job at moving the network forward. I hope he gets replaced with someone as good. Another interesting thing to note is the opposition from the congressional delegation. Sometimes I have to wonder why cities get represented by the suburbs, which seems to happen a lot, especially in Texas.