Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Action Results: Dodd/Shelby Amendment Put In Bill
Monday, September 10, 2007
ACTION ALERT: New New Starts Capital Transit Project Rules Would Fund High Occupancy Toll Lanes
Update: Now Posted on Daily Kos, also folks have been asking about the info on Hot Lanes, the proposal is in this Federal Register Document.
The Federal Transit Administration(FTA) has issued a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) for the New and Small Starts program that provides funding for major fixed guideway capital projects such as Light Rail, Heavy Rail, and Bus Rapid Transit. The proposed rules are alarming on a number of levels. Most notably in that they downgrade the importance of land use and economic development despite congressional direction to the contrary, and they propose to redefine the definition of fixed-guideway to include transit funding for highway lanes that use tolling schemes.
The fiscal year 2008 appropraitons bill moving through congress is an opportunity to formally weigh in and stop or alter the proposed FTA rule. If finalized, the new rule making policy will hamper the ability to build new transit lines for the next 5 years!!!
Why is this important? Because some of FTA'S proposed rules would entrench policy issues advocated by folks from the libertarian Reason Foundation and the O'Toole/Cox cabal. The proposed rule ignores current transportation law regarding required project justification criteria and adds new Federal intervention into the local decision making process.
More issues With the new rules after the jump:
1. It would allow High Occupancy Toll lanes to qualify for New Starts funding -
This would diminish the ability of cities to get funding from an already crowded grant program. HOT Lanes qualify for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and we all know there is a lot of funding there. Over 300 New Starts Projects(Light Rail, Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, Bus Rapid Transit)were authorized by the SAFETEA LU transportation bill and the argument by the FTA as to why they have such an intensive scrutiny of proposals is beacuse of the high demand for limited funding. Adding High Occupancy Toll freeway lanes to the list of eligible projects further straings the ability to fund new transit projects.
2. It would make the dreaded cost effectiveness INDEX the primary factor in deciding the fate of funding for New Starts projects -
This is the same measure that is killing the Tyson's Corner Metro extension and has killed light rail plans in Columbus Ohio. Almost every city that is looking to build new transit projects is worried about this measure, and now its being made even stronger. This measure is the reason why
3. The rulemaking pushes cheap not completely dedicated guideway bus projects -
The irony of the cost effectiveness index is that in reality, it fails to capture the full benefits and cost effectiveness of a project. The index evaluates the cost effectiveness of a light rail project versus corridor improvements such as bus rapid transit or improved local bus service. What this does is force cities to choose bus rapid transit projects over citizen -backed light rail projects that may have greater community benefits but also a higher initial price tag. Also, the measurements for the Very Small Starts program are set using the Southtown rapid bus project in
4. The importance of Land Use and Economic Development measures are reduced or ignored by the FTA -
Congress elevated land use and added economic development as project justification criteria in SAFETEA-LU. The US Department of Transportation (DOT), however, ignores this and has combined them into one measure with a combined weight of 20% in the overall rating process. The FTA states that it is too costly to implement the economic development measure but the cost and burden to grantees such as cities and transit agencies is not considered when local jurisdictions are required to adopt the FTA's travel demand models which have many issues. The fact that they use those models to determine the Cost Effectiveness rating which decides who gets funding is a problem in itself as it can't address all the benefits of fixed guideway transit. Furthermore, FTA argues that is too difficult to separate land use from economic development and that the increase in property values associated with proximity to transit is merely a result of improved time savings alone. I'm sure many zoning offices and developers would be surprised to have it categorized so simplistically.
5. Could lower ratings for cities who are trying to address future rather than current congestion issues -
The FTA would like to measure the New Starts program by the benefits to highway users but ignores the idea of induced demand which means when you build a new transit project, the space from cars that are taken off the road by transit is filled by new cars. The want for transit opponents to push money from the transit program into congestion pricing schemes and not so rapid bus projects would result in less useful transit projects in corridors that might have real future need.
Contact Your Congressman or Senators
--Ask them to stop the proposed rule and give the Department of Transportation a clear directive that the FTA Must:
1. Comparably wight all 6 project justification criteria(including: Environmental Benefits, Land Use, Economic Development, Mobility Improvements, etc) recognizing the importance of transit-supportive land use and economic development to fostering successful and sustainable projects rather than just the cost of the project.
2. Maintain the current definition of Fixed-Guideway transit
3. STOP RAIDING THE
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Streetcar Watch
There were a lot of stories this week covering the expansion, creation, or history of streetcar lines:
The Tempe Chamber of Commerce is creating a streetcar committee and there were articles in local papers discussing the idea: East Valley/Scottsday Tribune.
Portland has approved funding to keep the Eastside streetcar moving. The Oregonian is following the story.
Little Rock has a streetcar system and is thinking of expanding to the airport. THV has the article. I was struck again by how cheap Little Rock can get it done. Their last expansion was only 7 million a mile and the article makes it seem that they could keep the cost that low again. I've created a map that shows the extension area below and it seems like they would use former railroad ROW. This would make the costs of the line more like railroad costs which is much cheaper.The Portland City Council took a leap of faith Thursday, forced by a deadline to quickly commit $27 million toward building a $147 million extension of the streetcar to the east side.
The project carries some financial risk for the city, but the commissioners agreed that the streetcar could spark the kind of development boom on the east side that has accompanied the westside line through the Pearl, the west end of downtown, the River District and South Waterfront.
"We hope to knit together the east and west sides of the city in ways we would not be able to do otherwise," City Commissioner Sam Adams said.
North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Hays says that a planned extension to Heifer International's headquarters would leave only three or four miles to cover to reach the airport. Hays says extending the line to the airport would allow visitors to take the streetcar directly to downtown hotels. Central Arkansas officials are looking into the feasibility of the proposal and a consultant is helping explore the idea. Running the line to the airport would cost an estimated 20 million dollars. Federal grants would cover 80 percent of the cost.
And finally, a series of History Lessons about Sacramento's Streetcar system over at the Sacramento History Blog.
Part 1: Sacramento Streetcar Suburbs
Part 2: Central Street Railway
Part 3: PG&E and It's Predecessors
Part 4: East Sacramento and Elmhurst
Friday, September 7, 2007
Gimme-Gimmeism & Employment Sprawl
This is something that the county bus system should be doing and they're not," said Stephen Gerritson, executive director for Commuter Challenge, a Seattle non-profit. "To some extent, Metro is dropping the ball here."Really? Well I guess the question is what is a good corporate citizen? Obviously Microsoft chose to locate their campus in a sprawling area instead of in the city which has the most commuting options. To me it doesn't seem to be a problem of the county bus system but rather of businesses that decide to locate in unsustainable locals. I have this same problem with Dell in Austin or Chevron in the Bay Area. They located out into nowheresville for cheap land but what they really did is transfer transportation costs onto their employees, specifically employees who wanted a different lifestyle than the auto-oriented trash that we see today. Does anyone wonder why young professionals flock to certain cities like San Francisco, New York, or Seattle? I'll give you a hint, its not to live in Redmond Washington or San Ramon California so they can be closer to their work campus.
This same idea can be applied for people who live in sprawl. Cheaper house? Well pay more for transportation. A study by the Center for Housing Policy showed that for every dollar saved on moving further out, a 70 cent transportation increase was had. We don't seem to let those folks off the hook for their choices so why should we let Microsoft off the hook for theirs? While hard to do now because of their entrenchment in Redmond, what would really help is a move closer to the transportation spines of the region or the creation of a new dense city like center with light rail access to Seattle. People shouldn't blame the County bus for not wanting or being able to incur $2.4 million in operating costs to serve one company, specifically a company who chose an inaccessible area.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The Limited Vision Line
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The Numbers of Density
Which Way Does It Work?
But wait, it gets better. There are complaints that UTA is bowing to a developer to swing the route away from a popular mall but really it looks like it might be the best way to go in order to connect the intermodal center that will connect the commuter rail line with the Airport and downtown and the mall. From the Google map it looks like there is a lot more opportunity for redevelopment along 600 as well. But see for yourself below. The Yellow line is commuter rail, the blue is the route folks are upset about and the red is the alternate route. The red box is the mall and the blue box is the basketball arena. Personally it looks like a no brainer.
Monday, September 3, 2007
A New Subway Station
Sunday, September 2, 2007
New Transit Advocate Resource
Also, if anyone has any additions or knows of a good transit advocate blog to add to the aggregation that isn't there let me know. theoverheadwire at gmail dot com. There is a list of all the blogs in the aggregator at the right of the page.
I hope this is a positive addition to the transit blogosphere and allows people to get a look at what is happening in different cities.