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.

What is "Economic Development"?

What comes to mind when someone says that light rail, streetcars, or BRT will bring economic development? My first guess is that people imagine that more buildings will be constructed along the route and the economic impact of that construction is what comes to mind. But what about other measures of economic development like worker productivity and connectivity to the regional employment pool?

I think too often economic development comes in one form when we're talking about transit, which I think might be going down the wrong path. We know that transportation decisions which provide or increase access to a place are likely to increase its value and ability to develop. But what about all the other benefits such as fostering denser employment clusters or connecting workers of all economic levels to regional jobs? Increases in the quality of workers that an employer has access to is another measure of economic development. Allowing workers to save money on transportation in order to spend it elsewhere is local economic development as well.

The related issue is who gains from this economic development. With the building construction based economic development, its easy to assume that developers and the people that buy the new condos are the only ones who benefit. This type of thinking creates a flash-point on which opposition to your project can zero in on to say you're not helping the people that need it the most. It's a valid concern but it's also missing out on the creation of tax base that goes back into the budget for the whole city to use. Denser areas for their part are huge economic engines. Not discussing this larger view of economic development is doing a disservice to the project, especially when you think through how the specific project will or will not help the situation.

If the main reason for a project is economic development, it would be helpful to describe the economic outcomes that you expect to achieve with the project. A streetcar or light rail line is going to provide a mobility benefit, but it is how we talk about those benefits that ultimately allow people to understand what the project is really about. Many projects don't do a good job at this and are maligned by the opposition. Many bad projects get oversold, hoping that "economic development" will save the day. I believe the key is to figure out whether the project is doing what its supposed to be doing, and move forward from there.

Thursday Night Notes

Should companies buy naming rights to stations in order to help pay for them?
~~~
America's greenest Mayor moving on.
~~~
Should Mayor's act more like CEO's and push their city's "brand"?
~~~

Wednesday Night Notes

Steve Patterson discusses the passing of an influential figure in city planning's past who often advocated for widening streets and euclidean zoning.
~~~
There's been an interesting discussion going on about industry clusters. I wish I had more time to write about them. The interesting thing is that these clusters don't necessarily have to be urban. Rural clusters such as wind farms in Texas and wine making in Sonoma show lots of promise in raising wages while other clusters such as Tech are looking to intensify to provide amenities on par with what urban workers are looking for. I hope others tackle this subject because I'd like to see some opinions on the cluster's effect on urbanism and urbanization in these rural areas.
~~~
A pretty cool spread on the future of Denver. via Denver Infill Blog
~~~
Happy Birthday Streetsblog.net. Here's to next year!
~~~
I've also started tweeting more article links. Follow @theoverheadwire or visit the bottom right of the blog for more links.

Light Rail Kills Babies 2

That's what the opponents told the folks in Salt Lake City. They've come a long way since then and are probably doing the best job of just getting things built of anyone in the country.

But now the opponents are going with the next common denominator attack. If they build light rail, say they should have built BRT. If they built BRT they would be saying only use buses such as is happening in Oakland. This is at the time when UTA is actually building out a real transit network with all different transit modes including streetcars, light rail, BRT and bus networks.

"I don't think it's done any great favors to transit down here," said Salt Lake City resident Stephen Pace, who led the anti-rail group Utahns for Responsible Public Spending. He said UTA should have focused instead on buses that have the same right-of-way preference over cars as trains, but are more flexible and require a less massive investment.

This is the ugly side of the mode wars where people who fight it don't think ANY money should be spent on transit, even if they say in public we should. It's not a nod to smart planning ideas but rather what is cheaper. It shows because these attacks come amongst vigorous transit expansion in all modes. It's also interesting that opponents are starting to attack the conservative credibility of UTA's leaders. A lot of the anti-tax folks are coming out to argue against any spending via taxes.

Pace rails against the "so-called" elected officials who champion fiscally conservative values but are "just as deep in the federal trough as anybody else" to fund TRAX extensions into their communities.

It makes me wonder, what is fiscally conservative anyway in terms of development and infrastructure expansion? Is it doing nothing?

This is also happening in Tampa where anti-tax conservatives are starting to feel as if they were left behind by their elected officials who understand that infrastructure is better funded collectively. The polarizing effects of the national debates are starting to trickle down to pure ideologies.

How ironic that Republicans, one of whom I first supported over 20 years ago, and one who pledged never to impose new taxes when he came seeking my assistance in running his first campaign several years ago, would be the leading proponents of a new tax that could siphon as much as $300 million per year from the residents of Hillsborough County.

What's even better is that the author of the Tampa article also believes that people have a choice whether to spend money on gasoline or not, even when they construction of the communities they live in are based on the automobile alone.

Sharpe writes that the proposed tax increase of $85 per person is "... less than the three-week price rise in the cost of gasoline." Perhaps. But the option of paying for gas is ours and not an imposed burden by our government.

Funny that imposed burden.

Infrastructure Spending

There's an article in the New York Times that discusses the lack of major infrastructure projects around the country funded by the Federal Government. For the most part it seems as if major infrastructure projects are having to go at it alone locally.

Another approach is to finance new projects several notches smaller in cost and boldness — and in contribution to economic growth. Denver and Salt Lake City, for example, are extending light rail and bus lines into the outlying suburbs, at a cost of less than $5 billion apiece.

The Federal Government is a limited partner in these investments. For example while the Feds pay 90% of freeway expansion, more recent experience for these transit projects shows there is only a 50% match, and in more recent new starts reports that has been sliding down. Denver for example is asking for less than 40%.

With federal funds dwindling it also begs the question, if the Federal Government is not going to give regions funding for projects, why are regions sending the federal government any gas tax money? Sometimes it seems like a fairly inefficient funnel. Ultimately the MPO is the acting federal government at a regional level where there usually is no real governance. Since regions are the economic engines for the country, it makes a little sense but the federal government has too much power to tell regions what they can and can't spend money on.

But the benefits of having the federal funding mechanism dialed into the region is during a severe downturn. Ultimately that funnel can become a spigot pushing projects faster than they would normally go by providing jobs. In thinking about it this way, perhaps something they can do to help places like Denver or Salt Lake City is take over the capital funding for already under construction projects and allow those cities to use their existing capital money for operations or other projects. There are plenty of places that already have transit networks that could get pushed up if there were a guaranteed capital outlay.

I don't quite understand why the large goal oriented projects have stopped or are at least slowed. My only guess is that things have become so politicized and the no taxes groups have taken over the political landscape, making everyone else afraid to make a decision without getting hammered politically. Ultimately there needs to be a way to pay for needed infrastructure improvements, even outside of a crisis.

The Usual Statements

Will there ever be a day when we don't see this sentence in a newspaper article?

Huntersville Mayor Jill Swain said the N.C. Department of Transportation, "from the top down, recognizes that north Mecklenburg's roads are overwhelmed, and Barry Moose's comment shows we need to move the traffic through our area faster."

More sprawl subsidy on the way!

Austin's Trends

There is a lot to like but a lot to reframe in a recent article in the Austin Chronicle. CAMPO, the local MPO is looking to go a different direction with the regional transportation planning they've been doing and has stumbled upon visioning as an acceptable way to move forward. Unfortunately survey respondents are split between what is basically the Envision Central Texas model and the sprawl as usual. But why are they split? Is it because they weren't told the true costs or that they don't mind wasting their money? A telling part of why folks might not have chosen the more sustainable method is the following:

The trends concept is basically a recipe for continued sprawl: It leaves regional development patterns up to current policies and market trends. It assumes that all $2.4 billion worth of projects in the current investment pipeline get built.

Market trends? Since when was sprawl market based? I always assumed it was fueled by a big fat subsidy to home owners through unequal housing subsidies and road subsidies. I must be wrong since the frame is that it's actually the market pushing that direction. The biggest challenge for advocates as shown by this paragraph is reframing the debate. We need to jump on it and own it. We should be the fiscally responsible ones, the ones who care about whether locals get to keep their hard earned money. It's also because shifting demographic and market trends are swinging away from what they used to be.

I do like the idea of allocating 50% of monies to the centers in the region which would go along way towards improving transit ridership numbers and hopefully focusing growth on employment as well as housing. Hopefully they actually build transit into the centers instead of around them. I'd probably focus on that first along with better pedestrian and bike amenities.

But there are many other considerations to deal with. First is affordability. How much does that housing and transportation cost eat up a family budget. How much money is going to be left in the typical Austinite's pocket by this plan? What are the citizens going to get out of it? That determines how the local economy grows. This should be part of the decision making matrix. Too often these decisions are made in silos. Integrate them with housing plans, water plans, employment plans, state plans, school district bonds and every other plan under the sun. How are you going to house your workers affordably? Is it more affordable housing plans or is it allowing greater supply creation? How are you going to provide energy on a smart grid to all these people? How does that work together with transportation? Trolley bus wires? We could go on...

Another is how much money can be saved in terms of infrastructure if you go with the centers plan. If you spend less on sprawl, how much are you going to have in your pocket for other worthy investments? Transform did this in the Bay Area with stunning results. Hopefully we can focus on what people care about, saving money. In the end as Professor Davies always said, if you want to get people to pay attention, "hit them in the pocketbook".

Monday Night Notes

Hartford has been brutalized by parking. The loss of tax base to the virus of surface parking is staggering.
~~~
Can you reduce GHGs and still grow?
~~~
Is Paris more accessible than London? Some physicists say yes because the ants told them. Via Price Tags
~~~
Can space be found for affordable housing in New York City?
~~~
An interesting thought, the city as a living machine. How can we bring cities back to a pre-city natural state while still growing? This is an idea that is being explored in many places. A variant on this was discussed last year when discussing plans for the Lloyd district in Portland. It opened up some interesting discussion in the comments.

Station Locations and Employment Centers

I don't quite get why folks in Bellevue are so set on keeping transit out of the center of the employment district. For some reason many of them irrationally believe that the line will end life as we know it, yet in all respects the line will improve the center's economic standing by providing more access to the jobs for the regional workforce. The solution of one Bellevue council member is to place a station along the freeway and provide a long walkway to the center of the district.

Others argue that Denver has a bus connection, so why should it be that big a deal that the employment center is connected to the train station by a bus? For one thing, Denver's bus mall is dedicated to transit alone and has buses coming so often that you can always see the next one approaching. I seriously doubt that a place which has fought against light rail so hard would put dedicated bus lanes downtown and run such a service. But really what is the point of rapid transit if it doesn't go into the center of activity? The more apt comparison is Bellview station in Denver (funny how the names are the same) right next to the tech center, which we have discussed in previous posts. That should be used as an example of what to avoid when locating a station near a major employment center.

Apparently there is a lot of research that discusses the issue as well. Robert Cervero has looked at this issue in a paper called Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices. Ultimately the findings show that the further the station is away from office buildings are, the less likely workers are going to use transit. If the station is near the office, workers are three times more likely to take transit to work.

Also employment density matters as well. The greater the employment density, the more people will take transit. In the Bay Area, the Cervero paper cites statistics that for every 100 workers per acre more, 2.2 increase in commuting by transit. In the Twin Cities, Professor Gary Barnes of the University of Minnesota found that the central city and CBD were greater attractors of transit ridership than suburban offices. So for every increase in 1000 people per square mile in residential density, CBD ridership increased by 2.43%, central city destinations increased by 1.15% and suburban job locations increased by .63%. Ultimately where you are going matters just as much if not more than where you are coming from.

For light rail lines, transit ridership increases the more jobs are within a half mile of the station. Using LEHD data, if you look at recently constructed light rail lines and employment within a half mile of the station, the number of jobs is related to the number of riders that a line gets. Here are a number of recently constructed lines charted against workers.

So with all this evidence why would anyone ever think about running a line outside of an employment district instead of right through it to capture more riders? The goal should be to boost and improve accessibility for workers, who make up 60% of transit ridership, not make it harder for them to use transit.

Previous posts on this subject:

Importance of Employment Centers
When Road Engineers Do LRT

Sunday Night Notes

Long Beach is looking at streetcars
~~~
Quatar has a $22B deal with Deutsche Bahn to build freight, passenger, and Metro rail lines using Siemens technology.
~~~
Having the last train leave at 6:30 is a ridership killer. Commuter rail lines with limited time tables make no sense to me.
~~~
Major developments along the North Corridor Commuter Rail line in Charlotte. My question, will it actually be Transit Oriented?
~~~
Is the housing bust going to actually halt suburbs? I feel like this will be short lived unless something bigger changes.

Get Riled Up!

Want to get riled up? Check out the back and forth at the National Journal between highway lackeys and the good guys. "You're trying to take away our freedom to drive 100 miles to work everyday!" This one from the head of the truckers:

However, many of the proposed solutions encroach upon our freedom of mobility and our right to live where we want. Smart growth land-use strategies are simply ways to encourage living in high-density areas offering mass transit, which counters the preferred lifestyles of most Americans. Instead of changing the transportation systems to modify our behavior, we should improve our transportation systems to match people’s behaviors and preferences.Personal freedom is a defining characteristic of the American way of life...

This gem is from the head of the highway users alliance:

If so, I assume you would reject policies that would limit the choice of new homes that can be zoned and built, force people to pay to park in front of their home, add high tolls to their car trips, require paid parking at suburban shopping centers, divert their taxes, and involve the federal government in local land use planning, right? Afterall, these unfortunate souls do not need to be punished for living how they were forced to live, right?

We are in total agreement in fact -- Americans should be free to live where the want to live, work where they want to work, and shop where they want to shop. And as they choose freely without armtwisting from the federal government, we should provide the transportation system that is finanically, politically, and environmentally sustainable to support that free choice. We could start our plan with the one mode of transportation that could theoretically support itself with a reasonably set gas tax paid by its users.

I just fell of the couch laughing. Man those users sure do pay for the system! We can let people live however they want as long as its with cars! This is amazing yet not surprising. This is what we are fighting against.

Match Points

Every place in the country wants to spend more money on infrastructure but none of them have it. Los Angeles and Denver want to pay for their transit systems and Governor Goodhair in Texas wants more roads but doesn't want anyone to pay. No new taxes!...? But isn't a toll a tax? All arrows point to the federal government but they aren't budging any time soon. What gives? Always money.

What I also don't get is why Denver isn't asking for a full New Starts contribution for its Fastracks money match. They need as much and even more than they are asking for, 39% and 28% for two corridors. Why can't they ask for 50% of each? Roads get 80%! I don't get it! They need the money to complete the project.

Los Angeles on the other hand is going looking for more. $9 Billion and soon. Mayor V says LA should get money because they are putting up their own, but isn't Denver putting up its own? Isn't Houston putting up its own? It's Salt Lake putting up its own?

“What we’re saying to them is we’re one of the few cities coming in with our own money,” Villaraigosa said in an interview yesterday. “You figure it out.”

Perhaps he has those other cities in mind. Cities are living up to their end of the deal and more. With the feds giving out money, many have struggled to criticize, feeling like they might get the spigot cut off. Well right now there isn't a spigot at all, so its probably time to start railing on the folks in Washington to get moving already. Apparently Peter DeFazio has already started. Get rid of the clowns that are advising Obama or at least shut Summers up and get some infrastructure spending going. LA is putting up their end, Denver is putting up their end. Metro Regions keep getting the shaft, give them a hand and create some jobs already!

E2

If you missed them, there are some really cool webcasts from PBS on many of the issues the livable communities cares about.

H/T Grush Hour

Open Up Your Eyes

Tonic is one of my favorite bands of all time. And its kind of funny since this was their first song on the radio and in video. Their second song If You Could Only See was probably on your radio every day in 1997. But this video is interesting to me because of the sprawly nature to it. As I look back at it, I try to think about what was going through my head when I saw it the first time. Probably something along the lines of, that would be awesome to skate through these neighborhoods. There's so much space for you and your friends to goof off. It's certainly something you couldn't do on a city street and this neighborhood looks just like any other suburban neighborhood you could find.



Update: Ughh. You'll have to go to youtube to see it. Universal obviously doesn't think that people sharing their videos is a good thing. When are these people going to learn about the internets?

Head to Head

Check out this time lapse transit line video. Atlanta was way ahead...



via @ttpolitic

No Traffic

It's the title to a great album by a band called the stereo. It's also the scream given off by NIMBYs everywhere in their quest for the status quo. Most recently developers of the Sacramento Railyards won versus the traffic tattlers who cried traffic when the rail yard development environmental impact statement didn't say that the traffic and pollution was going to be too scary to build the project.

Kopper, who filed one of the lawsuits, said despite the court ruling, he believes the city hasn't adequately reviewed potential consequences of the added traffic. "The public and decision makers really do not know how much impact this project is going to have on the traffic before voting for it," he said.

But why should it? This project is going to put 12,000 housing units and 25,000 people right at the terminal of the eventual CAHSR line and on the doorstep of downtown. If anything, this project is going to slash VMT and environmental impacts that would have resulted in those 12,000 units being situated elsewhere in the region. In theory its the perfect example of the trip not taken. I'm worried about the foot traffic.

Transfer Rights

I don't quite understand why transfers of development rights aren't used more in cities looking to densify areas around transit and preserve open space. It seems like a really easy way to show instantly the benefits they are recieving and make real progress instead of just hoping for it.

A Madison Strain of Crazy

I'm always a bit surprised (but shouldn't be) when I read an article like this about how extreme conservatives believe that folks interested in smart growth and livable communities are trying to push their lifestyle on everyone else. They raise the specter of the iron curtain and soviet apartment blocks that were designed and built in the same era as Pruitt Igoe and other poorly thought out urban renewal projects that followed the ideas of Le Corbusier in the United States and around the world. I would hope those mistakes would not be repeated, and all urbanists know better.

But everyone who reads here knows the histories and the market distortions of sprawl which has absolutely dominated the market over the last 60 years. If anything, its they who are forcing everyone to live their lifestyle, a sick distortion of the actual desires of at least some Americans such as myself who want to live in an urban walkable environment. By not providing a choice in living, or transportation, the opponents of livable communities are telling us that the actual market doesn't matter and that they know what is best even though they would like us to believe that their way is the choice of the people, even those who don't have a choice.

We know that not all in their circle believe this way and ultimately building cities shouldn't be a partisan issue. The road towards transit and walkability is a sustainable one from a fiscal and environmental standpoint. I think many times we overlook the power of fiscal arguments for the movement at our own peril. The research on sprawl is not good, and people are starting to get it, a bit late, but at least they are starting to see how value is created by cities and urbanism is a fiscally responsible choice.

For those who still believe we're forcing a move towards urbanism, if they continue down the same path, spending money in ways we can't afford to continue, they might find that they have less choice in the future rather than a real choice now.

Use the Land to Pay the Tab?

The city of Charlotte is contemplating buying a dead mall. The same dead mall is at the end of the proposed streetcar route. It would be interesting if they would decide to view it as an opportunity to be innovative in their financing. If they go Portland style, they could put together a development agreement and sell to a developer who might be able to do something interesting and urbanist with the property, provided there is a market for such a thing. It's also quite possible that this development could pay for part of the streetcar, some affordable housing and other amenities.

Does anyone know why Charlotte would want to buy this property? It's not clear that there is a true goal in mind, which could hinder any thinking, innovative or otherwise.

Do Not Count Here

A lot of what I do at work depends on the census. I need data to make accurate maps and analyze trends in TOD and employment and other things. My current favorite dataset is the LEHD. Apparently though the folks at the census know that its hard to count. I don't doubt that it is. But I really wish that Michelle Bachman's district would have a big green dot on it. Perhaps one that says don't count at all. That way we would get rid of her and her census idiocy all together. I also hope the rolling averages work out from the ACS. It would be really annoying if they skip the long form in 2010 and then we were stuck with lackluster data until 2020. We already have to suffer 10 year old data. Think about where you were and what you were doing in 2000. Things changed a bit since then?

The Market Must be Right

There's an article from London Ontario with the ever awesome Troy Russ of Glatting Jackson discussing what light rail can and can't do. One of the things it can't do is change the market around its stations. While there is a lot of hope out there that just building a light rail line will solve most if not all the worlds problems, hope alone won't make it so.

"The biggest misconception about transit is it's the reason development happens," said Russ, a planner in an American company, Glatting Jackson, who has designed rail lines in Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Orlando and stations in Denver.

Much development we've seen with recent light rail lines has been from the ability to expand the sphere of a market like downtown, but not change it. The line also has the power to shape an existing market. This is what the Portland Streetcar did when it pushed most of the development in downtown for the last decade along its corridor. I also believe that the streetcar allowed the market in Portland to feed on itself creating a synergy that wasn't possible without it or regulations that shaped growth around it.

So I would urge caution when pumping up that local light rail project or streetcar as the answer to a lack of development pressure. Alone without other regulatory help that swings the pendulum away from today's road paradigm, the tracks will lay dormant. But if you can figure out where the market is going to be next and lay down the rules, it's likely that shaping the development will be as easy as aligning poles on a magnet.

Setting the Table for a Buffet

Perhaps a knowledgeable and keen businessman such as Warren Buffet is the key to restoring the railroads to prominence in this country. It would be interesting to see if such a large buy in BNSF is going to give others a small push to start thinking about passenger rail as a buy situation as well. One of the things that I think he will benefit from are the billions of dollars that will go into rail lines between cities for high speed rail. Because the government is pushing harder for HSR than anything else, and so far it's a popular program, he knows that if he plays correctly within the confines of the current government parameters, the sky is the limit. Who knows, perhaps he'll be on track to follow in Vanderbilt's footsteps.

Spinning the Dials

The state is stepping forward to do scenario plans for the State of California. It will be interesting to see what the wizards over at Calthorpe associates can put together. They've done similar work for Salt Lake City, Austin, and Portland. But I don't think anyone has seen it done at this level before.

But even if a formal state plan doesn't emerge, Vision California could affect state policy. The impetus to reduce carbon emissions is one example: State agencies eventually could draw on the studies to require local governments to allow additional high-density development near bus and train stops. "Once we build the base cases, we have a tool where we can spin the dials," Calthorpe said. "Let's just get the information together. That's a giant step forward in itself."

Ultimately the scenarios will show how much the path we are going down now will cost. My guess is that it will be shocking but educational to know how much we just toss away.

Sunday Night Notes

I wish there were more time in the day. I have some land value and transportation reading to catch up on.
~~~
Senators driving buses? Electric ones?
~~~
If the Corridor Cities high ridership route is so circuitous, then why does the model say it will get more riders? When do we get to blow up the new starts process? And when do we get to stop wasting money on sprawling development that creates these situations?
~~~
It's quite an intense process to secure rights of way especially in Dallas on the way to the airport.
~~~
Richard Layman posted this about innovators. I thought it was worth the read.

Setting Up Fiscal Sustainability

I was interested to see former Texas State Rep Mike Krusee talking about the subsidization of roads and others at the CNU Transportation Networks conference talking about his conversion from evil, especially after we know he screwed Austin back in 2000 and 2004 essentially getting them into the mess they are in now in a somewhat roundabout way.

What was especially interesting was to hear him mention that he was the one that wanted to look at how much roads cost and thus authorized the study to index how much roads cost in Texas. What did they find? No road pays for itself. None. Curiously, that study or any mention of it exists no where on the TxDOT site. The only memory of it existing is on the blogs that picked it up after it showed up again in a newsletter. We covered this back in 2007 and notice that the pages that once kept this information front and center at TxDOT are gone.

It seems like information like this would be extremely powerful in pointing out everywhere around the country that essentially our way of funding expansion of roads now is broken. And even though he's not one of my favorite people for many reasons, Krusee made a basic point that I think is important even if we probably don't agree on the outcomes. We have enough money in the system. We just need to start allocating it correctly.

Over the past 50 years, Krusee argued, the federal government was using tax money that came by and large from cities to subsidize roads to areas without access otherwise. "City dwellers have subsidized the land purchases and the development costs out in the suburbs," said Krusee. What's more, the gas tax, which city dwellers pay when driving on city roads, but which goes to freeways largely outside of urban cores, is "a huge transfer of wealth from the cities to the suburbs to build these rings."

This admission is important, and it points the way towards sustainability for the whole urban economic system. Once we realize that we can't keep expanding roads(or sewer, electrical systems which have similar costs to the roads in terms of return according to Scott Bernstein) further and further out, and that the goals of the interstate system have been co-opted by suburban development forces for fiscally and environmentally unsustainable practices, the more of an effect we'll have on changing every citizens fortunes, not just those who build sprawl.

This also brings me to a point that Scott Bernstein made at the conference, that in these hard economic times, we need to really focus on how these investments will create value and wealth for people and cities in hard economic times over the long run. As my college professor Shane Davies always said, if you want to make change, you "hit people in the pocketbook".

Stories Like This

When I see headlines like this, It makes me a bit upset.

"Woman Raped Along Uptown Light Rail Line"

Not just because someone was violated against their will, but also because the insertion of along Uptown Light Rail Line vilifies the line itself for something it really had nothing to do with. If you read closer into the story, the woman was not riding the light rail line and was assaulted downtown walking on a sidewalk. Could have been any sidewalk and she could have been leaving any bar. But the headline screams "transit is dangerous". These kind of associations happen all the time and will continue to happen. I just wish they didn't.

Monday Night Notes

Chris Leinberger tells us that "value capture" is the term of the next year. Though I wish he would dig a bit deeper.
~~~
Izmir imports trams from China.
~~~
Is McCrory for transit or against it? He likes the train when he's in Tampa, but doesn't want to spend money for the streetcars or an extension of light rail. Kay Hagen understands.

Hagan rode to her new Charlotte office – a symbolic short hop – on the Lynx light rail line, a reminder that earlier this year, she secured $24 million for the Charlotte Area Transit System

~~~
Edmonton will levy a fee on suburban developers to pay for new transit.

Job Centers Should Be Center

As Becks notes, I think its important to start thinking 20 years ago about transbay capacity. Unfortunately we haven't had a real conversation in the region about it. A second tube (I believe with four tracks for commuter rail and BART) is certainly needed to reinforce San Francisco and Oakland as the central job centers of the region. But why waste $10B on a new tube as Rafael from CAHSR blog says in the comments when you could be creating more jobs in the regions other centers.

Instead of demanding the construction of a second BART tube for $10 billion, perhaps we should be asking why everybody and their grandmother absolutely, positively has to work in downtown San Francisco to begin with.

I'm pretty sure San Francisco's CBD only has a certain small share of the region's overall jobs, perhaps 10-15% at most. I'm guessing here but for the most part this is the case in most of the country. But the reality is that since the jobs are clustered so tightly, they demand usage of alternative transport. They also are places of agglomeration and its not an issue of the execs getting a corner office but where face to face meetings and deals happen at lunch. (This is a whole other topic but I don't believe E-working is every going to replace working in an office with other people) There is a reason why the first BART system was built, because leaders of the area wanted to be the Banking Center of the West Coast and needed that critical mass of density and prestige to achieve it.

Another issue here is that of sprawl. There is this belief that the highways and housing policies were what caused the sprawl with the thought that more people could just drive into the central city. But in reality its even more nuanced than that. We've been building these roads out but when we do that we create these job centers and edge cities on the periphery that increase the outward migration pattern. People keep moving out and towards the exact point at which they can have a thirty minute commute or less from their job center. For jobs such as finance or research or science that are transit oriented, this means less people taking transit and more people deciding to drive their cars. I'm fairly confident that less Chevron employees take transit to work these days. It also means less urban office parks with parking lots that increase reliance on SOVs even more. We see this with Pleasanton and the continued movement of people out to Stockton.

If we're truely going to be transit oriented and sustainable in this region, we can't put a cap on the jobs in the center cities and continue to push jobs out to the periphery. If you don't spend that $10B on a second tube and push for more development (residential and employment) in BART's current reach in the inner East and West bay and even more money on an actual urban rapid transit network to connect to the existing bus network, I would argue that you're going to be spending much much more money to try and get people to and from their exurban and suburban job centers let alone the difference in city services (water sewer police fire) that must be supplied to all of these new suburbs and growth.

At Rail~Volution

Posting is going to be slow over the weekend as I am at Rail~Volution. Got some good sessions lined up including one with Ryan Avent, Aaron Renn (The Urbanophile) and Adam Gaffin (Universal Hub). You can follow along on twitter with the hash tag #RV09.

Tuesday Night Notes

It's just not like when we grew up. I remember riding my bike to school.

"The biggest problem presented in the report is the fact that cities are being planned especially for cars and for adults,"

~~~
Redevelopers have tighter funding these days.
~~~
Learning to live without a car. Moving from the burbs to the bright lights.

I used to make a big grocery shopping trip just about every Saturday, driving several miles to a store and throwing half a dozen shopping bags into the trunk. Now I can walk to a supermarket three blocks away

~~~
Suburbanization and climate change. They are linked.
~~~
Apple will spend some cash to revitalize a Chicago Subway Station.
~~~
I couldn't agree with Ryan more on this point.

There is a terrible chicken-and-egg problem to transportation planning, in which planners express regret that there is so little transit demand and so much traffic before building new roads. They have to accommodate the demand they've got! But you can't have transit demand if you don't have transit, and if you don't recognize that, then you're doomed to keep building roads forever. No one in the mind of the planners has yet invented a substitute for the automobile.

~~~
The electric transit revolution is upon the British. Trolleybuses return.

Who Said That?

The leader of which country made the following statements?

He said one great problem facing cities was historic under-investment in public transport, which meant services were under heavy strain or, on city fringes, non-existent. Better planning was needed to ensure communities were not separated from jobs and services. "Isolated communities breed social exclusion and entrenched disadvantage," Mr **** said. 'Increasing density in cities is part of the solution to urban growth, alongside greenfield development." He said the development had to happen with regard to climate change, with carbon emissions reduced through better design and greater consideration of water use.

Why Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The willingness to punish for past and possible future transgressions was not unnoticed either.

Kevin Rudd wants to seize greater control of urban planning by denying infrastructure funding to states and councils that won't agree to improve public transport and ban haphazard housing development.

If only didn't spend more money on cars than transit here in the United States and had rules with teeth. But in the current system everyone has to get theirs whether they deserve it or not.

Monday Night Notes

Have you ever had a picnic on the grass on a major bridge?
~~~
Officials in India are calling for high rises. I'm surprised they didn't go up before.
~~~
Businesses in the UK are starting to use carshare companies instead of keeping their own fleets.
~~~
Integrating BRT with a Metro should be a no brainer.
~~~
I can see why folks in East LA wanted a subway. Its a dense area and it would have been nice. But whining about it and getting upset right before it opens seems a bit lame to me.
~~~
Lots of regulation of safety on commuter rail are causing a strain.

Funnel Cloud

While these are nice pleasantries, I think the Obama administration needs to back up their words with action. Metro regions are the economic engines of this nation yet the stimulus is evidence that they are still not getting the attention they deserve from the administration. There's a great opportunity in the transportation bill to funnel money directly to cities, but the administration has decided just like the Bush administration to push it back, even though it could act as a second stimulus.

The Obama administration may funnel more federal aid directly to cities and bypass states, Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, said during a Chicago appearance with her former boss, Mayor Richard M. Daley.

I'll believe it when I see it happen.

Voting for Streetlights, Manhole Cover Locations

I don't quite understand where there is this want to vote for transit improvements that aren't related to tax increases. The most recent example of this after Cincinnati's issue 9 is Boise, where local city council member Dave Lister is looking to put a measure on the Ballot that would require a 50% vote to build a streetcar even though there is no tax increase involved.

The precedent for this is Capital Metro in Austin, which is the only public agency in the United States that has ever required a vote for city services for which it already had the money to construct. In fact if a vote was required for every rail project in the United States we might not have successful rail projects in San Diego, Houston, or Denver who's first lines were built with existing funds without voter approval.

We don't have votes for road expansions, only bond measures to pay for them. We don't have votes for water treatment plants or new sewer systems that we have money for. Perhaps if we need to raise money we would ask the people. What is so different about rail transit infrastructure that requires a pure democratic vote? Isn't that why we elect city council members? To make more informed decisions on these issues than the general electorate can take on.

It's actually a road we've been traveling down in California and other places where elected officials wimp out behind expected voter mandates instead of taking a strong stand. Many places have councils that have taken a stand against streetcars and other projects which is great because they are stepping up to say yes or no, but whenever a council gets close to making a decision in their favor, it seems like these pure democracy votes pop up for something that doesn't require a tax increase. Ultimately infrastructure decisions shouldn't be left up to a vote unless there is a tax increase involved. I imagine that nothing would ever get done if it were the case that every infrastructure decision needed a vote. It's bad enough as it is with lacking political will in this country to do anything forward thinking, why put another layer on it?

Abu Dhabi Moving on Tram Plan

When I think of Abu Dhabi I think of Nermal. You know, the cat that Garfield always wanted to get rid of and send to the middle eastern region.

Jim Davis, Garfield via Photobucket

But soon you might be thinking about tramways as Abu Dhabi looks to potentially build 340km of tramways.

The project, known as the Abu Dhabi Light Rail Transit/Tram study involves 340 kilometers of tram lines and is one of several major transportation projects that make up the Surface Transport Master Plan. The department expects the LRT to start operating in 2014.

What I'm wondering about with these tram plans in middle eastern cities is are they connected to urban development plans that focus on walkability? It seems that a common complaint about the system in Dubai is that buildings aren't really in sync with how the transit operates. But that is likely a building design issue with urbanism in the area around the line. I say this mostly because it looks like there is a good grid pattern in the city.

I'll Juice You Up

In St. Paul the utility company is going to have to rip up the streets anyway for light rail so they are trying an innovative energy rebate program and testing smart grid technology. Sounds pretty interesting.

The area is being dubbed “the Innovation Corridor,” says James Lockwood, a spokesman in Mayor Chris Coleman’s office. “Since all the utilities have to get in there to move lines because of the installation of light rail, they saw this as a great opportunity to figure out what to do to create smart grid technology to improve energy efficiency for businesses and homes,” he says.

I just hope they aren't asking for free cable...

California Air Raid

Just like the transit folks, the CRA is not going to take it from the state anymore. Or at least they are not going to let it be taken. Recently the state supreme court ruled that transit money couldn't be just thrown into the general fund and now the redevelopment agencies are trying to block to keep California from stealing their money as well. Who is the plaintiff? Why Union City who has been trying to redevelop around their BART station.

In Union City, the State raid threatens to delay the 100-acre BART Station District redevelopment project. The project, a collaboration between the Union City Redevelopment Agency, other local transit agencies and the state and federal governments, includes remodeling the BART station to create a two-sided station with additional parking; nearby new housing; new offices; and retail space. This transit-oriented development has been in the works for 10 years.

Here's a solution. Fix prop 13! Fix the budget process and hold a constitutional convention. Cut out the shell games because everyone is tired of you not bringing enough lunch money and bumming off of them.