Clean Air Adds Life

Imagine how much more life we could have without all the carbon. Another reason why the wires around San Francisco are music to my lungs.

The project tracked the change of air quality in 51 American cities since the 1980s. During that time general life expectancy increased by more than two and half years, much due to improved lifestyles, diet and healthcare. But the researchers calculated more than 15% of that extra time was due to cleaner air.

A Suburban Double Standard

An interesting quote from the folks in Massachusetts.

Egan said that Governor Deval Patrick and Aloisi remain committed to bringing rail to the region because "we will not get the same economic bang for the buck" with bus service.

This is in response to the South Coast commuter rail alternatives analysis in which they were examining express buses as an alternative. I never understood this need to study the alternatives to a commuter rail line like express bus when for the most part the reason to build the line would be to take advantage of the rail ROW. It's either cost effective and useful or its not.

Now on the issue of bus and rail and the quote above. It seems like a bit of a double standard. Why would you say something like that to the suburbs about rail when you are doing exactly the opposite in the core with the Silver Line BRT tunnel. Can't have it both ways guys.

San Francisco from the Sky

I'll try and do a Photo Dump at some point this weekend but here's a good one I took from the plane. The big brown dot downtown is on the plane window. Too bad it couldn't be clearer.

Eliminate Public Transportation

John Hodgman (aka PC) is brilliant.

"Eliminate Public Transportation. The industry is ready to commit to this relationship, but not until fickle Americans stop catting around with Amtrak and light rail"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
You're Welcome - Auto Industry
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

H/T Hub and Spokes

Pre Easter Linkfest

Here's a few links from the wide world of transit:

In Denver, the Daily Camera posed a question about the possible Fastrax expansion tax hike to fill the funding gap for all the lines. There were a few interesting nuggets in some ranting. Most of all though, they aren't really seeing the one possible solution to this mess, shifting money from roads to transit. Here's one from an anti growth guy who doesn't quite get that growth happens whether you like it or not, but he makes an interesting point about paying for your impact.

The fundamental reason we need more transit and more roads is growth. And the fundamental reason that taxes keep going up and service levels keep going down is the failure of the majority of the Legislature to impose impact fees on new development to pay for growth-related infrastructure. Why don't they impose such fees? It's simple - these fees cut into the profits of developers and land speculators, and they are big contributors. In this pro-development political environment, transit doesn't solve problems; it just encourages more development but in different places.

The commenters also leave much to be desired. This is one reason why we need to stand up to the likes of O'Toole, because his crap gets distributed through article comments like this.
~~~
Could inadequate transit cost Tampa?
~~~
California State cuts to transit are killing local agencies. It makes them look for more funding and look like the bad guys in all of this. Adequate blame should be announced in some way or another.
~~~
No more stepping into the street for a streetcar in Toronto.
~~~
Trains jammed for Arizona Diamondback games. Also, it seems to me that because sports fans are going to be perpetually confused about transit TVMs, why not just allow tickets to be POP.

Metro estimated that 5,000 to 6,000 fans used the trains for their trip to and from Chase Field on Monday. The process repeated itself, but in smaller numbers, Tuesday and Wednesday.

~~~
A two station solution for the transbay terminal CAHSR issue?
~~~
More cuts, Boston.
~~~
Hippocrite, thy name is Tim Pawlenty. Remember when he vetoed funding for expanding Twin Cities transit? Now it's all cool when Joe Biden sez.

Upgrades, No New Transit for Chicago Olympics

So says the bid book for the 2016 Olympics bid:

Chicago’s consolidated and compact venue plan places 21 sports, the Olympic Village and the IBC/MPC along Lake Shore Drive, a magnificent thoroughfare on the shores of Lake Michigan. An additional 4 sports will take place within the Olympic Ring. Venues have been proposed near existing public-transit lines and high capacity roadways, maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and eliminating the need for any new lines or roads. Thorough pedestrian and vehicle flow modeling will ensure the safe, efficient movement of all constituent groups.

In addition, the plan is to have a two tiered dedicated road lane system for moving people around and increase headways of existing transit.

Olympic Lanes will connect venues and provide freeflowing, safe transport for Olympic Family vehicles and spectator shuttles on a network of more than 590 km of dedicated roadways.
...
To meet the heightened demand for rail transport, Chicago will increase the frequency of train cars during the Games period.

Now that's not to that using funds to upgrade existing systems in need of serious funding is bad. That is an extreme need Chicago and other legacy systems have needed for a while. The book states that over $1.5 billion would be budgeted for track, signal and terminal facility upgrades of CTA Heavy rail lines, $2.8 billion for Metra Commuter rail upgrades. This is half of what is planned for O'Hare at $8.2 billion dollars. (Update: Payton says that these are already budgeted in regular formula funding, meaning there would be no new expenditures for the Olympics) I would like to see this coincide with a plan and start of high speed rail lines into Chicago from other regions. It would be amazing if a plan was set in place to upgrade infrastructure like this so that it could be in place for the Olympics. Talk about stimulus.

But the plan lacks imagination for my taste. Especially considering what could happen if they spent $10 billion dollars on dedicated rapid streetcar lanes. That would be 333 miles of new fixed rail infrastructure that would serve the city long after the Olympics. Think about the reduced energy usage, the reduced operations costs per passenger and the increase in value that would be generated by such an ambitious expansion plan. Alas nothing like this is planned and no new transit infrastructure would be built.

So if Chicago is really getting nothing new out of this in terms of transit but the idea of pedestrian ways is something I'm willing to think about. Is there specific bike infrastructure for the city in these ped ways? Will there be consideration to keeping these ped ways after the Olympics are over? The big question is though, is an Olympic bid worth it?

I'm still fuming at Gavin for screwing this up for San Francisco. It would be amazing to have the games here and it surely would have pushed for serious upgrades to infrastructure and a speeding up of long term projects that need to be sped up. That said, its expensive and you have to weight the pros and cons. But being able to live in the city and go see the track events would have been amazing for this former aspiring olympian. I'll get to the Olympics eventually. Hopefully here in San Francisco.

H/T Payton C via FB Status

BRT >> HOV >> HOT >> Lane

If you pave a road, anything with a rubber tire can go on it. Meaning at some point, someone will want to co-opt that street for a personal vehicle. Is it a process. Don't get tricked. How long till BRT becomes HOV becomes HOT becomes a regular lane? The pressure is on.

Don't Lecture If You Can't Change Yourself

In an article on the new Indian auto sensation, Projjal Dutta calls for the United States to and other countries around the world to invest more in transit to change the future land use patterns that we know will result from all the automobiling that is in front of the Tata Nano. But he calls out the government for just doing the same as it always has in the stimulus package at 80/20.

As with many other issues, the world will expect America's "talk"--say, urging China and India not to become auto-centric--to be accompanied by "walk," at home. That, unfortunately, despite early glimmers of hope, is not happening. The stimulus bill has allocated about 8 billion dollars to transit, compared with 30 billion to highways. This is roughly in keeping with the traditional 80/20 split of federal transportation funds that have been enshrined since the Eisenhower days.

I agree. We can't just lecture other countries about what they should do when we continue to fund the same levels we always have. How are we supposed to solve the problems in the world if we can't lead by example.

The president's stimulus package has put dollar commitments behind promises about promoting green-jobs and increasing renewable energy generation capacity of the U.S. Yet, despite the concern and awareness within the administration, American lifestyles are inextricably linked to very high automobile usage. Until that bull is taken by the horns, climate change cannot be properly confronted.

This is why I keep harping on the folks at SF city hall in the Emerald Aristocracy. Fake green and gizmo green is not leading by example, its just delaying the inevitable. Check out the Forbes article, it's a good read.

Government Work

I always find it a tad funny when photos show up of other countries in official government publications (web or paper). Take for example the web site of the United States Senate Banking Committee. Senator's Shelby and Dodd look quite content on each side of a line of foreign LRVs. Now I still can't tell where they are from, but I know it's not within the United States. Anyone know where this is? The best guess from some knowledgable folks so far is Helsinki. Perhaps we're going socialist afterall.


Via wikipedia

Calling Shennanigans on The Emerald Aristocracy

Looks like the Muni budget crisis isn't just a function of the economy, but a reshuffling of the deck in order to keep other budgets running without as many cuts. In fact, according to Beyond Chron, $80 million dollars is work orders from other agencies within the city.

Muni’s $129 million deficit means the MTA Board is exploring painful choices that would cripple service, but $80 million of the problem is “work orders” from other City Departments. Newsom directed every agency to trim its budget, and some unloaded it on Muni by charging for services done for free.

Some of these include millions for 311, which apparently charges $1.96 every time you call and ask them to look up next muni for you. That is almost 50 cents more than a muni fare meaning that when those people who called step on the bus, they are actually adding $2 to the trip. Another issue that annoys me is that I have never seen a police officer on the bus, yet SFPD is looking for $12 million out of the budget.

What are we going to find tomorrow from the emerald aristocracy and thier gizmo green? You know, the ones that think electric cars are the answer in a city that couldn't park them anyways.

H/T Transbay & NJC

Russian Subway Dogs

I bet you didn't know that stray dogs in Russia had gotten so smart that they have become accustomed to riding the subway to and from "work". I think this is a bit of a spoof and hilarious. What do you think?

We Now Have an Administrator

According to the Washington Post, Obama has tapped Peter Rogoff for FTA Administrator. Already beats a trucker.

Peter M. Rogoff, a leading expert on transportation funding issues, will be nominated to serve as administrator of DOT's Federal Transit Administration. He's a 22-year veteran of the Senate Appropriations Committee and has served as Democratic staff director to the transportation subcommittee for the last 14 years. Rogoff was the lead Senate staffer on the .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) law and the youth drunk driving “zero tolerance” law, widely credited with saving tens of thousands of lives. He also advised lawmakers on the initiation and financing of Amtrak's high-speed Acela service and on the financing of new light rail and bus rapid transit systems.

He's a financing man that's apparently been around since Istea.

The expert on infrastructure budgeting and finance issues has served on the Senate Appropriations Committee for 22 years, the last 14 as staff director of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee. He is a veteran of the last three surface transportation bills dating back to 1991.

He was a guest of the "road gang" which I find a funny name for a transpo frat. I didn't find much else in a quick google search, so we'll have to ask some questions over the next few days.

Houston's Light Rail Discrepancy?

Leave it to the anti-rail nuts to find the details. But I do find this interesting. If there was a letter to the FTA that showed doubled cost, what was it for?

On March 4, the Metro Board voted on a contract with the Parsons Group to design, build and operate four new Light Rail lines. The cost for the North Line would be $387 million, and the cost for the Southeast Line would be $441 million.
...
According to letters dated on March 23 from Metro to the Federal Transit Administration, Metro indicated that the current net project cost estimate would be $896 million for the North Line and $911 million for the Southeast Line.

Now it would be interesting to know why lines would cost ~$170 million per mile for surface light rail. Honestly, that is ridiculous. Obviously the nutcases that have always been against light rail are going to have a field day, but I have one guess as to why it will cost so much. The deal that Metro cut with the City of Houston to build the lines includes complete reconstruction of the street from curb to curb. So not only would this be the construction of the rail lines, but construction of the street, sewer systems and sidewalks that border the line.

METRO is also giving something to the city: $300 million of utility upgrades. For example, if a sewer line needs to be larger or needs to be replaced due to age, METRO will install a new one.

In fact the recent North Corridor planning document had this to say:

The typical life of a water transmission main is 40-50 years. For the North Corridor, research indicates that the lines, including the Churchill Street Line and extending all the way to the intersection of Crosstimbers Street/ Fulton Street, have reached the end of their life span.

The life of a sewer line is typically 30 to 40 years, unless the lines are rehabilitated. From the City’s GIMS database, it appears that there are several sewer lines that are older than 40 years. It is not clear if these lines have been rehabilitated. These include distinct segments along most
of the length of the Corridor. The construction dates for some segments are unknown.

Current City regulations require storm water detention for all new development. Hence, any new developments that are proposed will be required to design for storm water detention.
...
The Transit Street itself is characterized with a combination of industrial, residential and commercial uses, which would normally have the capacities needed for redevelopment.

However,the condition of water mains and sewer lines appears to be quite old along this Corridor and replacement of these services should be contemplated as transit is being constructed.

I'm not completely for sure that this is the deal but it's my best guess as to why the lines could possibly cost so much. The need to replace that infrastructure would be there anyways, but why not try and get the FTA to foot some of the bill if possible? That is what comes to the minds of a lot of transit agencies who are trying to build new lines, if we can get more money, why not try.

I personally think that its a really messed up accounting exercise that allows light rail and even BRT projects around the country to get attacked for thier high price tags because of necessary replacements credited to thier accounts. I want more information before I go off the handle on insane light rail costs, but if it's that much for just the light rail, Houston got bad engineering estimates and needs to start over again. That much per mile should not be tolerated for surface light rail. Even if the utilities are included, I'm inclined to say the prices are too high. I have a feeling though, that we're missing something...

Future Housing Near Transit Hit Hard

While we've seen housing that exists near transit hold its value and become a hot commodity during the downturn, we also see the flipside, new housing near transit is not getting built because of the lack of demand for housing, people just don't have money. This is true in Seattle and in the East Bay where big plans exist for transit villages around Link and BART. In Seattle:

For-profit developers proposed more than 1,500 condos and apartments within a 10-minute walk of a station. Now, with the trains to carry their first paying passengers in three months, most of those deals are on hold. Project after project has been delayed or derailed, victimized by tight credit and related economic woes.

In the Bay Area on the Freemont line the plans are getting hit the same way:

All along the East Bay’s Interstate 880 corridor, from Oakland to Fremont, cities are putting plans for hundreds of units of market-rate housing on ice. The projects can’t go forward until the credit crisis thaws, allowing developers to obtain loans that they typically used to build.

I wonder how much more could be built though if they didn't have to worry so much about parking, the bane of every TOD's existence.

In Fremont, for example, where the city wants to build 300 condominiums near its BART station, plans originally called for the housing to sit atop a subterranean parking garage. To avoid the added cost of building an underground parking lot, the developers turned to a new scheme that calls for the multi-story housing to wrap around an elevated parking structure.

The Dallas donut (an apartment building wrapped around an internal parking structure) is usually what the market will bear after (edit: was until) transit, if only it were easier.

Oh Noes! Street Parking Havoc!

So says an article in the Virginian Pilot. I had to chuckle when I saw the head line, "Light-rail work creates street-parking havoc in Norfolk". Havoc they say, pandemonium ensues and all is lost!

Machismo Burrito Bar owner Bill Caton worries it will drive him out of business. Like many businesses in densely developed Freemason, his relies on street parking for his customers.

But then we find out just how many spaces will be lost. A whopping 40. Someone at the city of Norfolk should have taken pedestrian counts before, during, and after the light rail construction. Then I checked the Pilot's website and what were the ads around the article? All for autos. Sure its not a direct correlation, but we know who pays for a lot of advertising budget for the news. Parking story? Big News!!!

Bruxelles Finishes Subway Segment

Our friends over at spagblog have an update on the completion of the last part of the circle line in Brussels.

Passengers travelled for free on the 4th of April on the Brussels Metro, on the occasion of opening the last segment of the circle line, connecting Delacroix and Gare de l’Ouest stations. The whole metro network has been reorganized as well: The 2 line leaves and arrives in at Simonis, where every second train continues to Roi Bauduin as line 6; and the remaining 3 branches of the former 1A/B line are served by lines 1 and 5.

Chris Leinberger Says It

I've seen a lot of these quotes recently.

Rail transit drives walkable urban places. I've never seen one dollar of real estate investment invested because of a bus stop. But if you have [rail] transit, it's a different story altogether.

Guerrilla Streetcar Movement

Historians in LA are checking out historic houses along the streetcar lines that used to run all over the region. That got me thinking, we have housing evidence of streetcar lines in the city, but what if there were a guerrilla effort to stripe all the streets that once had streetcars on them. If people could see what had been lost, would they want it back?

Philanthropy Intersecting Transit

I just had a wild and crazy idea. Much of the capital fundraising for philanthropy seems geared towards building new museums and other major pieces of infrastructure. In particular I was thinking about how Gap money man Don "More Parking" Fischer is looking to spend millions of dollars to build a new museum in the Presidio. The approximate $100 million could also be used to build a subway station along a Geary subway line.

But I wouldn't say that we shouldn't build the museum. I think the Museum should be attached to or at least part of the Subway station. In this way, new subway lines would be strings of culture funded in part by the philanthropic minded of the city while also providing a public good in transportation.

While we are always saying that we need to keep land use and transportation in one mindset, it seems that we could be thinking of better ideas of how to keep the large amount of donations that come from philanthropic interests moving towards not only the public good of increasing culture, but the public good of reducing emissions and improving movement and air quality for all citizens of the city. I would donate money to these causes and I believe others would as well for the double benefit that comes from it. I know I'm crazy but sometimes you just gotta throw ideas out there.

People Want Rail, Clean Energy...

but they don't want to pay for it. I'll pay my share. Where do I sign? And where can I pay up for a San Francisco Metro network?

-86% believe that investing in alternative energy will create jobs
-84% support investment in fuel efficient railways
-Solid majorities support policies that transfer wealth to individuals and businesses who invest in clean technology (84% like tax rebates for individuals who reduce energy use, 79% support the same for businesses, 73% support tax rebates on hybrid vehicles, 72% support policies that both reward business that reduce CO2 emissions and penalize those that don’t.)
-68% support investments in energy independence, even if it raises energy costs.
...
While this should come as no surprise, it’s worth noting that in spite of the overwhelming support for good policy, no one really wants to pay for it. From congestion pricing to gas taxes, overwhelming majorities are opposed to those options that—as framed in the survey—suggest that specific economic pain may be imposed on the specific survey responder.

Obama's Rail Envy

Bring me some Budapest or Frankfurt anyday.

Why not start building high-speed rail? One thing that, as an American who is proud as anybody of my country – I am always jealous about European trains. And I said to myself, why can’t we have — (applause) — why can’t we have high-speed rail? And — and so we’re investing in that, as well.

"This City is Supposed to Be Green"

Yes it is. But we have a fake green mayor. So this argument falls on deaf ears at city hall.

"I get that times are tough," Shelley Keith, 19, said as she waited for either a 14-Mission or a 26-Valencia for her trip home to Bernal Heights on Friday afternoon. "What I don't get is why cut public transportation. This is supposed to be a green city."

Transit riders get it. It's San Francisco's leadership that can't get their heads around that idea. Wake up you emerald aristocracy. It's times like these we need transit most. Congestion pricing for carbon cars anyone?

The Mission

If you choose to accept it, is to only build a transit system for people who can't afford to have a car. If you deviate from said mission, you will be endangering the... eh why should we listen to guys like this?

Once again, UTA has demonstrated that it doesn't have a clear idea of its mission. Should UTA provide sensible, economical public transportation to the Wasatch Front, or should it just build things? Should it try to serve the population that cannot use automobiles, or should it spend public funds in an impossible quest to lure wealthy commuters to mass transit?

In fact yes, public transit should provide quality transportation for those who can not use automobiles. But we shouldn't say you're poor so you can't have quality service. Perhaps we should start saying, you're rich, so why should we subsidize that suburban freeway. You can pay for it. There are many reasons to provide great transit service instead of just adequate including the idea that better transit for those who need it most is better transit that can be used by all. Complaining about it just makes it look like the forces of better transit are winning. Cheers to that.

The Others

John over at RT Rider has an interesting post about his observations of a lady who clearly didn't feel comfortable at the bus stop with folks that weren't like her. This comes on the same day that I have a discussion with a person I had invited to a concert next week. Since the show is downtown, I asked if we could meet somewhere off of Muni so she didn't have to walk through a somewhat seedy part of Market Street by herself. She responded that she didn't take transit. Oh she'd tried it a few times but transit had always let her down.

The first thing that came to mind was oh man, we are not going to get along, the second was, how much different is the transit riding experience to females than it is to someone such as me who is somewhat tall, somewhat driven to take transit, and can be a bit scary myself when I haven't shaved in a bit? Would ridership go up if the situation were improved such that females felt safer and more comfortable on transit? I know many girls that are pretty hardcore about transit and aren't worried at all. But then there are those that I know that don't like to take it, especially alone. I think improving it for those types would improve it for everyone. Is that a standard to meet?

Muni History - Video of Twin Peaks Tunnel Opening

George B sent this to one of my email lists and if you're from San Francisco you'll appreciate it for sure.

So Basically...

the TEP was just a way to figure out which routes to cut. Awesome. You know, more people would take transit if you weren't always screwing them over. Though its not just Muni. You can give a big kiss to your state legislature for giving transit the bird over the next five years. And Gavin, you can take your Gubernatorial run and shove it down your fake green... anyone else angry?

Milwaukie Max Gets into PE

I hope that means that the New Starts Report lists are coming out soon. Can't wait for that data mine. Makes me wonder what other lines made it into Preliminary Engineering. Here's an interesting look though into what happens when transit agencies submit to the FTA.

In applying for preliminary engineering, TriMet sent the transit administration a six-foot stack of documents on the project.

What a waste of paper. I'm sure everyone has a copy.

The Problem is Not Just in Atlanta

Jay Bookman always has great columns in the AJC about how messed up things are in Atlanta and Georgia in general. But after reading it, it just sounds like every other MPO or State issue in the country. Too much money gets political and not data driven attention and that means a lot of money generated by Metro areas gets funneled into the less urban parts of the state. Even within metro areas the funding goes to the suburbs rather than urban areas. This is why I'm worried that in most places, even funding the MPOs by bypassing the state won't be good enough to step the tide of urban underinvestment.

If transportation funds were instead allocated on the basis of data, need and transportation impact, metro Atlanta would fare much better. This is where the need is greatest; this is where the impact would be most noticeable. But that’s not how things work.

State leaders are now trying to muscle through a “reform” of the system. But rather than make our transportation planning more professional and data-driven, the goal is to make it even it more political. For example, it is supposedly “reform” to give the Legislature the power to spend up to 20 percent of transportation money on projects it gets to approve. Now, how many professional transportation planners sit in the General Assembly? Do you think that money will be allocated to where it would do the most good for Georgia, or to where it would do the most good for powerful legislators?

In Texas, they are deciding on a bill to allow regions to tax themselves, and in recent years it's been state legislators who have cut it down for what I can see because they just are against taxes. It's not about letting people decide for themselves that they need more local funding. In fact, this need to raise taxes is a direct function of funding not being allocated correctly in the first place.

I do have to disagree with Jay on one thing, traffic isn't the issue. They've had more than enough money to build roads that are rediculously huge and part of the reason why traffic is so bad is because of Metro Atlanta's land use problem. They have let developers go nuts wherever they want and subsequently people are living in one place and driving everywhere to get there. I highly suggest A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe for some real estate fiction based on Atlanta.

Ridership Ahead in Phoenix

It's really not known when the initial novelty of the line wears off but I would say around 6 months you really know what you're gonna get. With that said, Phoenix is showing signs of promise at sticking to over 35% of projections.

Ridership for the Valley's new light-rail system appears to be stabilizing at a level well above expectations, Metro's chief executive officer said Wednesday. Although passenger counts for March were incomplete, Rick Simonetta cautioned, data collected through three and a half weeks show the average number of boardings during weekdays was more than 34,300.

Giving Up the Ghost

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I'm tired of always being on the losing end of things and have decided to switch. I'm giving up being pro rail and deciding to go with the winners in the anti-transit movement. I've taken a long hard look at all the BS rail projects I've been advocating for over the last three years of this blog and decided that really they are too expensive and don't give the flexibility that buses give. In fact, building more rail is likely to cause greater gridlock.

I'm also thinking about leaving San Francisco and it's hatred of cars. Because of its lack of zoning, I can become a developer in Houston and make tons of money building anything anywhere I want, unless there is a deed restriction of course. I'll be sure and build lots of parking and hopefully I can meet up with my friend Robert Bruegmann who has converted me to the ways of doing things right.

And can we give up on this lefty fantasy for high speed rail already? I'm tired of having to fight off people that know so much more about HSR than the experts. Especially folks in Palo Alto. They really know thier stuff. Why can't we just let them have their way and be done with it. Besides, rail is a 19th century technology.

Finally, stop making me pay for other people's transit. We subsidize the hell out of public transit and in a free market world (the United States is the best place in the world because it has a completely unfettered market) it should pay for itself. This article says everything I want to say and more but just felt like I couldn't being a good liberal and all.

But maybe the taxpayers grew tired of subsidizing a failed government-run transit system. According to the March 29 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the St. Louis Metro system is bleeding money. It faces an operating deficit of $45 million in 2009 – expected to reach $50 million in 2010.

All transit is a failure. I'm just realizing this now but wish I would have just given in years ago. I want to be on the winning side for once. Let's stop building rail lines and start building more roads. And get those bikes and pedestrians off my street. It was designed for cars and should stay that way.

Anyways, if you believe that I would ever say any of the stuff above Happy April Fools. Hopefully you didn't get suckered again.

Curious Cameras on Trams

I thought this was an interesting video from 1908. I think people knew the camera was on the streetcar, and just like today were trying to ham it up.

Calculating Social Justice

I love how the blogosphere works. Someone posts on an older story and makes it relevant again and it screams across the blogs like a meteor. Today STB posted on an older Intermodality post that got to Ryan which I imagine is where it got picked up by Markos of teh big Orange.

Kos' post also brought me to this post at A Future Oakland that put forward some fun stats that drive me crazy every time the social justice folks bring them up, which they do often. The issue I have is with the use of the National Transit database to compare subsidy across different mode types for the sole purpose of saying that one mode is better for poor or minority folks than others. Why they always want to pick this fight is beyond me and its a symptom of thier not being able to connect the different types of modes and thier function to regional job opportunty expansion for lower income job seekers. Check out this chart from Public Advocates dot org, a law firm devoted to social justice.

You can see that the chart doesn't discuss income levels but rather race, I imagine as a proxy for income levels? I'm also not sure what they mean by subsidy but I'm guessing its Capital funding+operating per rider? And as an issue, these lines all perform different services at different distances which affects the costs. No mention that BART and Caltrain riders pay higher fares than AC Transit riders. No mention that per passenger mile (a standard measure across modes), Caltrain and BART are far more efficient than AC Transit. There are a couple of reasons for this and AC's would be better compared to itself if it didn't include the less productive routes or $40 a trip paratransit but those are necessary services.

I want to believe in the social justice movement but they shoot themselves in the foot with dumb charts like this that don't tell me anything except that they don't understand transit operations or regional connectivity to jobs for lower income workers. If I were arguing on the social justice angle, I would start by saying that funding for road expansions is being wasted on suburbs that are leaching tax base and making people spend more of thier hard earned money on transportation. We also shouldn't be saying that AC is more efficient because thats false based on per passenger mile comparison and its operating type. Comparing AC to Caltrain per rider based on 20 mile trip versus a mile or two mile trip is rediculous and doesn't get us anywhere. Based on the 2007 NTD here are the comparisons for operating costs:

Caltrain is 27 cents per passenger mile.
BART is 34 cents per passenger mile
AC is $1.32 per passenger mile.

If we're going to look at capital and operating per passenger mile, it comes out to this in 2007:

BART: 50.9 cents per passenger mile
Caltrain: 60.3 cents per passenger mile
AC Tranist: $1.57 per passenger mile

Versus a Per Trip operations calculation:

AC Transit is $4.02
BART is $4.21
Caltrain is $7.28

What the argument should be is that expansion funding should stop going to stuff like ebart and expansion freeways and should start going to core expansion of AC Transit, Muni, BART, Caltrain Metro East etc. Put the transit where the riders are and it will be helpful for everyone to connect with job opportunities.

This culture war against rail that takes people to job centers in places like Concord and Walnut Creek needs to stop. Would it be more efficient to run buses? No. First that means more cars on the freeway because less people would be taking transit. It also means that more of downtown Oakland and San Franciso would be parking lots inducing less walking trips overall. But if we didn't look at regional transit systems, we would be allowing the bay area fiefdoms of transit to limit the job opportunities for low income workers. In Portland, the Max lines actually allow workers to reach a greater number of opportunities. This 2006 paper on economic development for the FTA by Strategic Economics shows an interesting chart below. But basically regional connectivity provides more opportunities for jobs that make it possible for upward mobility.

A preliminary analysis of transit ridership by industry and occupation in Portland, Oregon indicates that fixed guideway transit connects to more diverse employment opportunities than local bus. An Entropy Index was used to measure the diversity of incomes for occupations in industries with the highest percentage of transit ridership in the region. Entropy index scores are stated as a decimal and the lower the number, the more concentrated the occupational and income mix within that industry.

As Table 1 shows, industries with high percentages of bus ridership also tend to have low Entropy Index scores for an overall average of 0.54. For the most part, these were industries with a high percentage of low wage jobs. However, industries where workers use fixed guideway transit and/or bus and fixed guideway transit to get to work had a much greater diversity income diversity with an average index score of 0.89. This analysis demonstrates that fixed-guideway transit provides connectivity to jobs with different income opportunities, and possibly greater opportunities for advancement, while bus provides the best connectivity for workers in predominantly low-income industries with little opportunity for advancement.

If anything, the issue of expansion should point to the fact that suburban jurisdictions have too much power in how transportation funds are allocated. If it were equitable towards the core, services such as AC Transit would get more funding for more service, but it wouldn't make them more efficient in moving people. They are still a bus company.

This should tell you that MTC is shafting Oakland and San Francisco by not spending more on more efficient rail and metro type service for trunk lines that would serve hundreds of thousands of people. Compare the expansion of BART to San Jose versus a Geary Subway. A Geary Subway would cost around $3 billion and carry 100,000 riders easy the first day. The BART to San Jose line will not get anywhere close to that ridership number and cost a lot more money. These are the decisions that are being made based on regional politics rather than real expansion needs. The up front costs are more but the efficiency of operations leads to less cuts and better travel times for all riders in the core and connections beyond.

Just because people are poor or of a different race doesn't mean they deserve inferior or just one type of service. A network of service that serves different travel sheds is the best way to get people to thier jobs and open up the region for opportunity for all. The fight against the modes that take people further needs to be better thought out as a regional strategy for improving core service rather than pitting modes against each other, especially operations as efficient as BART or Caltrain. It's not very productive and the way the social justice movement is going now can only fail if they are going to bring data such as the chart above to the game.

Flame on...

The Indigo Line

The Fairmount Line is the only T Commuter rail line that stays within the Boston city limits. It's also been neglected over the years with poor maintenance and limited stations through one of the more challenged neighborhoods in Boston. However there have been recent plans by the CDCs to add five or so stations and make this line a part of the rapid transit network and use the new station construction to get better service on the line as well as more opportunities for affordable housing. Because of the patterns of parcelization and built out nature of the corridor, it would be hard to expect a major renaissance but small progress is to be expected.

Better service would definitely improve the corridor too. It will be interesting to see how it works out. Recent planning and funding put forward by the Patrick administration suggests that this will be done soon but rejoicing should wait until its actually complete. For more information on this corridor, check out the report chapter by Reconnecting America that discusses tools and policies for revitalization. (Warning, 38MB)

Waco Streetcar?

If this gets built before Austin builds its light rail/streetcar line, I'm not sure what I'll do.

The Foot Bus to School

I remember walking to school as a kid and then riding my bike in middle school. Aside from being a public health benefit, I also think that kids learn direction and wayfinding this way. It's an important lesson that I think is overlooked much of the time.

I find it interesting that a small town in Italy is looking to cut greenhouse gases by creating foot buses, groups of kids walking to school together. Seems like a great idea to me. From the New York Times:

They set up a piedibus (literally foot-bus in Italian) — a bus route with a driver but no vehicle. Each morning a mix of paid staff members and parental volunteers in fluorescent yellow vests lead lines of walking students along Lecco’s twisting streets to the schools’ gates, Pied Piper-style, stopping here and there as their flock expands.

McCrory Gets on the Streetcar Wagon

It's interesting that the Charlotte Mayor is pushing for a streetcar over the maintenance bay that Keith Parker has lined up for stimulus money. Some of the tracks for the line are already in the ground and it would connect an east side destination with downtown. I walked the route when I was there but it's certainly a case where the streetcar would make a more physical connection between the two places. However I tend to agree that fixing the bus barn is of greater importance though I would like to see them do both.

But here's another idea. CATS laid tracks on Elizabeth Avenue that aren't being used. Why couldn't CATS install more streetcar track in phases but not operate it until it has a line long enough to span across uptown?

There's another thing I don't think McCrory gets. He says there was not enough stimulus money for roads. I think there was too much for roads. If more money was allocated for transit, they could have done both of these projects.

Public Transit Keeps You Fit

I would tend to agree with this. Especially considering my own experience that I walk much more than when I lived in Austin because I'm not just walking to my car and driving somewhere but walking to the store and taking transit to work.

The researchers say that the fact that transit trips by bus and train often involve walking to and from stops increases the likelihood that people will meet the recommended 30 minutes of moderate physical activity a day, five days a week.

According to them, people who drove the most were the least likely to meet the recommended level of physical activity.

The Noe Google Buses

These shuttle buses from Google (and other companies) come into the neighborhood in the evenings and mornings picking up tech workers and bringing them down to their respective south bay campuses. Many times I'll see the buses zooming up 24th street from the direction of the BART station on my way home and see them also almost bottom out at Dolores and 24th on the hill ridge. At times I myself will curse the Google kidz under my breath because of thier company heads' inability to locate near public transit so that these riders would patronize the system set up for everyone. How many of those workers would rather have a 15 minute ride on the J instead of a 40 minute ride to the campus.

I'm kind of torn on these shuttles. On one hand, it's a really huge freakin bus running up a residential street. But it is getting people that would likely be driving down 101 into more fuel efficienct ways. I don't have the same problem as others seem to have, complaining that affluent people have come to live in the neighborhood.



On the other hand, it's very stupid and un-environmental for these companies to locate such large office clusters away from conventional transit hubs. For all this talk of being green and forward thinking, companies like Google prove with their locational decisions that they don't understand how much transportation and land use plays into greenhouse gas emissions. But most of silicon valley is like that. Worst. Employment. Sprawl. Evah.

Because so many people want to live in a place that is walkable like San Francisco, you would think that businesses in the South Bay would look harder at trying to make more places like that instead of allowing even more junk down there. Facebook has actually caused a price spike in Palo Alto for helping thier workers live closer to work. I think this is a better solution than the shuttle buses but these companies are also skewing the local housing markets.

For "campuses" like Google, it seems that they could have built an office building downtown (they do have some offices in San Francisco) and saved more of thier employees money by allowing them to easily take transit to work. Instead they get more free parking which I would say if there is free parking at work, it is even more incentive to not live a location efficient lifestyle. Especially if you think you're special because you have solar panels over the parking. I wonder how much more Greenhouse Gases each of their employees emits because they drive a lot versus the amount of greenhouse gases those solar panels save.

Why People Are Going to Hate You

Because you're floating a bill that would make transit planning a state function instead of a more local one. That is dumb on so many levels.

The main reason the measure is so politically fraught is that it seeks to take metro-area transit authority away from the powerful and long-entrenched Metropolitan Council. Hausman says the present concentration of transit dollars and planning power in the Met Council and the Counties Transit Improved Board (CTIB) creates inefficiencies and unwisely forces the whole state to hew to a long-range rail transit policy dictated by a handful of metro entities--particularly Hennepin County and the city of Minneapolis.

Why would you take the transit authority away from the regional planning agency? This makes absolutely no sense unless you want to steal funding for "other" transportation priorities. One of the problems in the Twin Cities is that the current righty Governor appoints members of the Metro Council which controls regional policy. Somehow fix that first.

Oh for the Love of...

You can't make this up:

It would mean that the Millbrae-to-San Francisco route would have three separate electrified options for riders. Isn't that more than a bit redundant? Rail planners don't seem to be bothered one whit by the concept at this point. They are forging ahead.

How many roads go to San Francisco?

H/T BATN

China Metro Extension

Line 4 phase II gets the go.

Hadn't Thought of That

Some officials in the UK are saying that it would be cheaper to build new rail lines instead of renovating existing lines because they took into account people's time cost during the reconstruction that would disrupt service.

Building from scratch, he said, would not carry this cost, and it was "by no means clear that ostensibly lower-priced upgrades are always better value than new lines including new high-speed lines".

Additionally, he said the government had to take account of "the true cost of the disruption to passengers in services cancelled or diverted year after year".

He continued: "For the future, we need to assess the relative merits, including disruption saved, of building new lines rather than highly disruptive and expensive major upgrades of existing lines."

I hadn't thought of it that way but it seems like an interesting proposition to me. Reconstruction always seems to cause problems, and if they built new lines, that would open up the capacity on the old ones for later rehabilitation.

On the Hiawatha Today

So if you follow my twitter account you'd have seen my tweet noting that I was on the Hiawatha Light Rail line in Minneapolis. What you didn't see is what I was thinking on my way to downtown Minneapolis. It was strange now that I think back on it. A colleague and I were on the train and just chatting away with our bags in our laps but I didn't feel like it was out of the ordinary. I felt perhaps like some do when they dream in a foreign language after learning it for a long time. I've learned to take transit and expect it to be there yet this isn't a serious option in many of our regions and cities and that makes me a bit sad.

It should always be so easy to just hop on the train. In the last few weeks I've been able to not drive a car since I left Chicago. I took the Orange line to the airport, flew to San Francisco, took BART home. Today I walked down to BART, flew to Minneapolis and rode light rail to downtown. It's second nature now I guess, looking for the easy accessible transit. During those rides I was able to chill and not worry about whether I was going to be late. I was able to check email or listen to a podcast. I didn't need to worry about parking my car. I just needed to be. Is that so hard to understand for folks so opposed?

Design Your Own Streetcar Route

Very cool idea. Check out Urban Milwaukee and draw a map.

HOT Lanes, Sprawl, Not Transit

So says the FTA about stimulus cash. What a joke. I sure hope things change soon because I'm getting tired of this type of BS. Is anyone else encouraged by the DOT Secretary's blog? I am.

As county leaders press forward with Grand Parkway plans, Metro leaders are looking for a Plan B for two rail lines they had planned to use federal economic stimulus money to help fund. Metro’s pitch to fund the North and Southeast lines with stimulus funds fell short of the feds’ scheduling mandate.

Metro proposed to “get the ball rolling,” within 90 days, according to its brochure requesting $410 million in stimulus dollars. The transit agency also said $70 million could be used to convert 83 miles of high-occupancy vehicle lanes into high-occupancy toll lanes. Last week, Metro leaders said they learned that federal transit authorities preferred the $92 million it will receive in stimulus funds be used primarily on the HOV conversion.

This comes at the same time when Texas wants to use other stimulus funding for another sprawl road. Again, how would this ever match a cost-effectiveness measure?

Photos of Interest: Chinese Trams

Leroy Demery who often posts with Mr. Setty at PublicTransit.us has loaded photos from 1983 when Chinese Trams still operated. Fascinating!

Scott Bernstein Part 2: It Is All Potentially Reversible

Yesterday we brought you a first listserve post by Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago about some streetcar history. In further thoughts, he discusses how we can get at least some of what we lost back.

I sometimes skip long posts, but this one is certainly worth the time spent reading. All inserted links are my doing in order to try and give greater background and some edits have been made for capital letters and spacing.

Guest Post 2: Scott Bernstein

Here are some further thoughts.

The definitive history of the interurbans is The Electric Interurban Railways in America by George W. Hilton and John F. Due, Stanford U. Press 1960; 463 pages, very thorough analysis and directory of operating companies and maps, indexed; still in reprint but not hard to find a used copy.

It's impossible to fully describe what happened to the street railway systems without some description of the relationship they had to the electric power industry.

The divestiture you and I guess Andy refer to came as a result of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, aka, PUCHA, which left it to the newly minted SEC to implement via regulation. SEC was created, strictly speaking, to create and implement accounting standards, the lack of which were widely believed to be at the heart of the stock market crash and subsequent Depression. Hilton and Due state this clearly as follows:

"...the SEC interpreted the provisions concerning the elimination of holding-company systems to require that the power companies divest themselves of their electric railway affiliates and dissolve the pyramided holding company structures. As a consequence, the interurbans that were elements in the holding company systems were separated, usually by public sale of the stock...Most interurbans had been abandoned before the act became effective."

Hilton in particular believed that the interurbans represented a flawed interlude in the development of mass transportation, and he quite strongly and almost angrily stated this opinion when Congress revisited the Snell accusations and the GM-NCL case in hearings held April 4-11 1974 (Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, 93d Cong. 2d Session on S. 1167, part 4, Ground Transportation industries). In this testimony and subsequent committee discussion, he offers interesting opinions on why certain streetcar systems survived both the early wave of abandonments and the divestiture rulings, and most of these have to do with urban form, density, and the availability of special right of way (note--he's an economic historian, not a physical planner or urban historian).

In the 1960 work, Hilton and Due acknowledge that other means were used to extend the life of these systems-- State and sometimes municipal investment and support, conversion or merger into publicly owned systems, and inter-line cooperation of marketing and fare-media (which probably extended the life of the excellent interurban networks in Ohio and Indiana, among the best in the nation), among other methods. This testimony, in my opinion, actually makes a strong case that abandonment wasn't inevitable, rather, it was result of failure to grasp the networked nature of the tangible (infrastructure networks) and intangible economic networks) that are essential to successful places.

The PUCHA passage bears some further examination.

No small part of the political impetus to pass PUCHA came from enmity between two people--Samuel Insull, founder of the American electric utility industry, former secretary to Thomas Edison and head of the Chicago-based Commonwealth Edison empire and affiliates; and Harold Ickes, confidant to FDR, Secretary of the Interior (where many of today's separate domestic cabinet agencies were formerly housed), and civic leader in Chicago and the North Shore suburb of Winnetka. Simply put, they despised each other; Insull's business model required demonizing the concept of public ownership and Ickes' view requiring that it be embraced.

At the time that PUCHA was being conceived, Insull controlled not only the remainder of the former traction empire controlled by Charles Yerkes (who interestingly went on after having been pushed out of Chicago to help lead the construction of the London Underground) but also much of the midwest electric transmission system, the main midwestern interstate pipeline system and the local natural gas utility, plus Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. too. Insull wrote the first check to the Commercial Club of Chicago for underwriting what became the Burnham/Bennett Plan of Chicago, but did not play a role in its development or in its subsequent marketing (as far as I could tell, Dennis I know has studied these matters too and may have a different opinion). Insull, while vilified for his monopoly, helped buy much public goodwill in playing both sides of the smoke abatement campaigns in Chicago for decades--electric utilities were powered by very inefficient coal-burning power plants, but so were railroad locomotives. He was able to sell railroad electrification as a civic and public health virtue, and simultaneously to sell natural gas as a "smokeless fuel for a smoke-free town." (To convert from the use of so-called manufactured gas to "natural" gas required tuning, retrofitting and/or conversion of all gas-fired appliances in Chicago, which was amazingly accomplished in 1 year, 1931; also, one of the themes of the 1933 Century of Progress Chicago World's Fair was that it was billed as the first "smokestack free fair.")

Nonetheless, Ickes and others were able to paint Insull as the prototypical villain at a time when heads needed to roll, and was convicted of securities fraud (reversed in 1934 but he spent his remaining years a broken man). To be fair, Ickes presided over much of his era's "recovery" investments through the Public Works Administration, and on the transportation side, the majority of the PWA's investments were in highways not in regional mass transit systems (an important exception was PWA investment in Chicago's subway, but Ickes refused to support building east-west tunnels for Chicago's streetcar lines, an action that bears further examination).

The divestiture and subsequent efforts to keep these systems viable, both the urban and interurban street railways, took a number of bizarre turns. In Chicago alone, a simple listing of the changes in policy, court rulings on bankruptcy proceedings and re-organizational changes along with maps runs over 400 pages (Weber, Outline History of Chicago Traction 1936, and it gets even more complex after that). The influences that needed juggling were truly vast, not half-vast; Frank Gruber's point about the iconic importance of the nickel fare posted yesterday is a good example, there were similar examples almost everywhere.

PUCHA seemed to be passed without regard for the potential urban damage that divestiture would likely cause. Around 1920, a federal commission on the future of electric railways failed to come to any firm recommendations for future federal interest, and as far as I can tell, that was the last time that a serious national examination of this essentially urban form of mass transportation occurred. But it was made clear at those hearings, in industry publications, in discussions held at various local governmental trade associations, that these private corporations were playing an essential public service (sound familiar?) role.

By divesting, public transportation lost a more or less guaranteed source of revenue for capital investment, whether it was made directly, through rate-basing of these costs, or indirectly, by using the backstop credit facilities of their holding companies.

And this occurred at more or less the same time that the fascination with modern road building and the idea of "limited ways" (later "superhighways" and "limited access highways") was taking hold (in the 1920s, Insull similarly promoted "super" transmission lines and pipelines).

Perhaps someone on the list can comment on this, but in reviewing the Burnham/Bennett Plan, and associated documents from the resulting Chicago Plan Commission, the transportation focus, outside of the central area, was on inter-city travel, not on internal circulation or accessibility. (this is also the point expressed in the late Paul Barrett's excellent The Automobile and Urban Transit: The Formation of Urban Policy in Chicago-1983) I suspect this was largely the case in city planning in the era that followed. In framing the issue in this way, and leaving it to the private sector to sink or swim w/ regard to mass transportation, a powerful force for decentralization emerged. Similarly, Burnham and contemporaries did not grasp the notion of the networked city, and in re-reading, that era's fascination with the promise of regional highway networks and what promised to be a viable airline industry evokes Henry Ford's comment that "we shall solve the problems of the city by leaving it."

So why go over all this?

Because it is all potentially reversible.

And because it is essential that we figure out how to make it so.

As we've discussed on this list, only by switching from liquid fuels to non-motorized and electric transportation can we meet any of our energy independence or climate goals.

And only by reducing dependence on individual vehicles to a greater reliance on mass transportation can we transition to a nation of great cities and regions.

Here are some tools to think about in framing methods of getting there--

1. Local electric distribution utilities never lost the legal right to power electric transportation; all 50 states have a common method of enabling electric distribution utility financing of all or part of the necessary systems, which is a rate filing to help finance these systems. This offers opportunities for cities, transit operators, developers, metropolitan planning organizations and states to build new kinds of financing mechanisms to more systematically support local and regional surface transportation infrastructure. A similar case can be made for local governments and special service districts (which own and operate almost all of the nation's airports outside of NJ, MD, Alaska and HI) to partner with the electric utility industry to support the infrastructure necessary for inter-city high speed rail.

2. Deregulation of the electric utility industry has been a mixed bag, but in over a dozen states a fait accompli. So in a sense this is an opening to partner with contemporary holding companies too. These companies need to re-certify their "market-based" rate making authority every three years with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, another opening for the new administration to address potential urban consequences of energy and climate policies.

3. PUCHA was repealed in the 2005 Energy Policy Act ( one outcome has been at least 100 municipalization efforts, 20 successful, most recently Winter Park Fl, but the repeal also opens up the potential for other kinds of ownership too)

4. A national debate on the future shape and location and purposes of the electrical grid has started and needs an urban voice, no less than does the analogous debate about transportation infrastructure.

5. A push by leaders in the public accounting profession and in the investment community for more transparency in State and municipal accounting led to the creation of the Government Accounting Standards Board in 1984, and their rules on accounting for infrastructure investment, aka Statement 34, implemented from 1999 to present, lay a first-time basis for disclosure of the life-cycle costs associated with different types and patterns of major capital investments. More recently, a push for better state and local disclosure in the waning days of the Bush administration, has been taken up in the Senate and House Banking committees. This is a real opportunity to show well how the hidden assets of cities and urban places perform.

Biden Goes to Bat

Joe Biden says what we've all been talking about for years. I'm glad he's out there stumping for Amtrak which will bleed over to transit in general I believe. You gotta love comments like this:

"We subsidize our highways and airports more than we subsidize Amtrak," said Vice President Joe Biden. "So lets get something straight here - Amtrak has not been 'at the trough.' Amtrak has been left out much too long."

H/T ASD

Curitiba Subway

This article is from February but it was just brought to my attention. Seems as if those BRT lines just aren't enough.

Brazil's Paraná state capital Curitiba is planning to build a subway line and highway concessionaire Triunfo Participações e Investimentos (TPI) (Bovespa: TPIS3) is seriously studying the project, TPI president Carlo Bottarelli told BNamericas.

The subway initiative would be a first for the city and a first for the highway concessionaire. The city is planning to build a US$1bn, 22km system that will cross the city from south to north, Curitiba business relations secretary Luiz de Carvalho told BNamericas.

It also shows you the costing differences between Brazil and the United States. 13.75 miles of Subway is costing $72 million a mile. That's pretty cheap. If we could do that here, I think we'd have more Subway lines.

H/T ASD

Ever Wonder

How you could fit more bikes on a tram network? Stuttgart shows us how.

H/T Spagblog