Sign Em Up for a North Corridor

While the libertarians in Charlotte are still whining because they got destroyed in the election, the city is moving on. Charlotte allocated $30 million dollars for engineering studies for entrance into the FTA New Starts Program. Now it is great to report that but I'm starting to wonder what is going to happen with the program now that a lot more cities are seeking expansions. A lot of cities are going to be seeking funding for multiple lines now that they have starters which makes me think that the program better change soon to accommodate the natural increase, before we even start to talk about increasing it.

CATS plans to periodically assess how it stands with the FTA as it proceeds with the two-year engineering study. The council approved a $9.5 million payment to STV Monday, enough for the first phase of the study.

Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory stressed that the engineering contract is structured so there are "outs" if the initial engineering reports aren't favorable.

He also cautioned that even if ridership numbers appear to meet federal requirements, "we'll be in competition with a lot of other cities."

I'm worried now after the Dulles issue that the FTA will just string cities along. It's also annoying that cities are worried about competing with other cities for such a small piece of transit pie. You could spend $30 million (seems like a lot of money) and do everything right and get rejected for being a dollar over an arbitrary cost measure. Which by the way is based on ridership numbers that have seemed a little low lately. It's ridiculous that it has become a competition of cost rather than creating a quality transit system. It seems to me that we should be working together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil with a multitude of solutions. Charlotte's first rail line, which has been about 3,000 riders a day over projections, has been a success but local planners are worried after what happened to the Dulles line. Apparently the initial rejection (It's now paused) of that line has greater implications than we thought, but we can hope the next administration is better about transit and funding it. From the T&I hearing, looks like we might have a shot.

Electric Transit Paragraphs Back in Report

As was reported last week, Paul Weyrich was really mad that his paragraphs on the importance of electric transit were taken out of the National Surface Transportation Report. Well this week Renew America reports that it was a misunderstanding and they will be put back in.

Both Weyrich and Commission Vice Chairman Jack Schenendorf — in discussions with us — agreed that a dispute (again see last week's column) over a last-minute deletion of a pro-rail transit section of the commission study was a "misunderstanding."

There seemed to be agreement among the majority commissioners, including Steve Heminger of San Francisco — whose role in the controversy was discussed also here last week — that the situation "wasn't handled right," and that the deletion "should not have been made." The Bay Area Metropolitan Commission executive director has now signed off on a revised draft of the deleted section which was crafted — with Weyrich's approval — primarily by Commissioner Frank McArdle, a contractor from New York. (Bear in mind, again, we are referring here to discussions among the pro-rail majority. Peters and Co. are out of this particular loop.) The wording changed in some emphases, but in the end still stipulated that "Public transportation, especially in the form of electric railways, must and will play a significantly larger role in Americans' mobility over the next 50 years and beyond."

He also went on to say that he wouldn't be voting for John McCain, in part because of his role in trying to kill Amtrak.

Weyrich knows that Senator McCain, throughout his career, has been very anti-rail, and in that respect "would be [even] worse than the present [Bush] administration," whose Transportation Secretary Mary Peters (a big highway booster) has fought tooth and nail (as commission chairman) to block the pro-rail efforts of Weyrich and others allied with his 9-to-3 commission majority.
...

The Arizonan has said shutting down Amtrak — he's if elected — would be "a non-negotiable issue" for him. Short-sighted, indeed.

I'm guessing thats a deal breaker.

House T&I Hearing

On the 17th there was a hearing on the National Surface Transportation Policy Report. CSPAN has the unedited video. It's a long video (3 hours), but here are a few highlights I got while listening through it. They aren't direct quotes because the stream can't really be rewound and I haven't seen a transcript, but I typed the ideas I thought were interesting.

Rep. John Mica (R - Florida)

- Hopes that infrastructure is a major part of the stimulus package because the money will stay in the United States -

Unfortunately we know that won't happen...

Mr. Oberstar (D - Minnesota)

- the administration won't be here when we make decisions on these things anyways -

Mr. Defazio (D - Oregon)

- China and others are making massive investments. Moving towards a third world transportation system - We are investing less than we need to in order to just maintain what we built in the Eisenhower era - I look forward to discussing this issue with a more enlightened administration -

Rep. Duncan (R - Tennessee)

- Streamlining environmental processes are important 7-10 years here is way to slow - Want to reduce the dependence on foreign energy sources - We are spending megabillions in other counties besides our own - We need to start keeping our money here and providing for the American People -

Steve Heminger - MTC

- 120 M more citizens by 2050 - Most of those American's will live in Metropolitan areas
50 areas account for 60% of GDP - 90% of market share for Auto related air pollution, congestion, transit ridership - Over 40,000 people die on highways every year that's a 9-11 every month -

Frank Busalacchi Wisconsin DOT

- Intercity Passenger Rail must be a part of a multi-modal solution. We don't envision rail replacing other modes -

Matt Rose - BNSF

- High Speed Passenger Rail must be in the Next Transportation Bill - must not overburden freight railways and build corridor service -

Frank McArdle - NYC

- 1 Bedroom Apartment in Manhattan for $20,000 dollars - 30 years later $800,000 dollars - People want to be in Manhattan that works well because of its transit system - It creates value -
We now rely on petroleum for 97% of the energy that runs our transportation system -
2/3rds of all petroleum goes to our transportation system -

Pat Quinn - US Express Trucking Company

- Bottlenecks create more goods on the road creating more trucks and more congestion -
There is no alternative today to congestion pricing due to the needs that need to be met - I don't like saying that from my position but it's needed -

Tom Skancky - Transportation Consultant Las Vegas Nevada

- When you add 1 Federal dollar to a project it adds 14 years to the process - NEPA is part of that but not the whole thing - $1 billion project today costs tax payers $2-3 billion dollars to 2022 because of inflation, bidding etc. - 5 years instead of 14 years per project would save us money -

Paul Weyrich - Chairman and CEO of Free Congress Foundation

- Half of the country does not have any mass transit, and of the cities that have transit, many don't operate a system worthy of getting people out of their automobiles - People do not like to ride buses - Which is why the commission recommended an increasing dependence on electric rail, particularly cities that don't have it now - It is imperative that we offer people a choice - No one wants to put a gun to anyones head and tell them they have to ride transit, we want to have the kinds of systems in place such as in new communities - Transit in the great society aimed at transit dependent. Became thought of as a program for the poor and elderly. Look at Metra in Chicago. Most of the people riding that system are Republicans, most are business people, most come into Chicago with their suits and briefcases-

Mr. Oberstar (D - Minnesota)

-A strong message to congress, do not reauthorize the transportation bill - We need a renewed mission statement for transit -

Mr. Baird (D - Washington)

Q: We need to do dynamic scoring of infrastructure investment that captures the value of investment - The FTA has established a cost effectiveness index, how do you calculate that bump in economic development?

Mr. Oberstar (D - Minnesota)

Why can't the investment consequence be calculated into the cost effectiveness index? These are investments in the community, why can't they be calculated?

A Step Towards Death, But the Ledge Is Still Far Away

The Washington Post is reporting that the FTA has all but killed the Dulles Rail project. Everyone is saying almost because they know it isn't dead. Governor Kaine, Senator Warner and others are going to fight back hard and I expect you'll see some congressional intervention. Virginia Transportation Chief Pierce Homer told the Washington Times, "We believe there will be rail on this corridor, the only question is whether there will be a federal partner in doing that."

At issue according to Administrator Simpson is funding for the capital maintenance backlog of projects that Metro has not completed along with the change orders not submitted in writing to the FTA. Officials dispute the amount but any backlog has been exacerbated by the year to year funding that is not permanent and often in doubt.

Much of Northern Virginia has been planning their new growth along the rail line because they learned from the Rosslyn Ballston Corridor that has created walkable neighborhoods, boosted tax base and shown that TOD is a real solution to autocentricity. This is a real blow to their efforts as well.

But what does this mean for everyone else? The implications of this death are not just for Metro and Northern Virginia but the rest of the country as well. Heavy Rail line expansions have been limited lately due to costs because the FTA doesn't measure all the real benefits of these projects. If this project goes down, what does that mean for expansions of Heavy Rail in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Miami? Other regions are building light rail and staying away from heavy rail completely. A complaint is that the areas aren't dense enough, but neither was the Rosslyn Ballston corridor before that was built, so the economic development issue needs to be addressed before the next transportation bill comes out.

For more commentary on this, I suggest a visit to The Bellows, or DCist for commentary and comments about the project.

Calculating the Taxpayer's Real Expense

There is a discussion going on over at the Capricious Commuter about transportation funding resources. It was mentioned in a comment on a previous entry that 63% of the area's resources are going to transit when it only carries a limited amount of trips. But CC sets us straight by trying to calculate how much we spend all together on transit versus cars, not even counting all the parking garages.

So if we consider that, in 2005, the most recent year for which I have stats at arm’s length, Bay Area motorists drove nearly 58 billion miles, at AAA’s average U.S. operating cost of 52 cents a mile, that’s $30.2 billion to add to our transportation funding formula, and that still doesn’t include the purchase price of new cars.

That’s like a once-in-a-generation statewide transportation bond measure, but just for the Bay Area. We all, collectively and for the most part unwittingly, agreed to approve and finance that funding package.

So here’s the new math: $3 billion a year for transit, including fares paid by individual commuters, and $31.9 billion a year for the streets, roads and vehicles that operate upon them. That would be 8.5 percent of the Bay Area’s transportation spending.

My favorite comment, "We all, collectively and for the most part unwittingly, agreed to approve and finance that funding package." We only seem to complain when gas prices get a little higher.

Central Corridor Issues

I often wonder if the Twin Cities is ever going to get its act together on the Central Corridor. I think Governor Pawlenty is part of the problem by not getting funding for the project earlier, and now holding out. He's acting a bit like the FTA with the Dulles Rail line or Arnold with High Speed Rail. All wanting to hold it back until it dies.

Property Rights, Transit , and Urban Design

Property rights activists in Denver are fighting hard to curtail the eminent domain abilities of the Regional Transit District. While I do personally believe that the government shouldn't be able to just take your property and redevelop it at random, I also believe that there are certain urban design considerations that should be allowed when land must be taken for transit. At issue here is what happens after RTD takes land and builds a parking garage which is an allowed transit use. The second part is the ability to wrap that parking garage with retail which is what property owners do not want their land taken for, what they call economic development. This taking for economic development was the subject of the recent supreme court case Kelo vs City of New London.

Now this is a very thin line drawn in the sand, but what is the difference between pure economic development and good urban design? I don't think RTD is trying to take the property to build a casino or shopping mall. I do think they should be able to do as much with the land as they can to make it pedestrian friendly and a part of the surrounding neighborhood. No one wants a hulking parking garage on their street face or as a next door neighbor and RTD should be doing as much as it can to get a return on their investment, which in transit is ridership and revenue.
In order to get a return on investment, they need to create an environment that supports transit usage from modes other than the automobile and trip reductions.

In my dream world I wish that transit authorities had real estate departments that could buy up key pieces of land at fair market price (not through eminent domain) and lease them after the line is built when value has been created. I've actually wondered at times if a non-profit entity could be set up that raises money for the transit agency's capital projects. At one time the way streetcar companies made money off of land was by building lines to it. In Hong Kong and Japan, the rail lines make money off of developing property more than operating the trains, but they operate in a symbiotic way generating ridership and demand as well as an efficient means of transport.

I'm not sure how this is going to end up, and I'm not sure how you can legislate the difference between economic development and proper urban design issues, but there must be some way to strike a balance between ugly and nothing.

LRT Vehicle Design Elements

There have been many discussions recently about light rail but not much about vehicle design. Well there are a number of elements that make a tram attractive to passengers, not just from a visual standpoint, but also from a physical comfort standpoint.

Visual Appearance:

Whether its a Porche designed tram from Skoda to one of the older PCC's that used to run in most american cities, appearance has mattered a great deal to patrons. Recently tram designs have gone from functional designs that served tram companies from the 50s, 60s, and 70s to the more stylish models that are seen today. Some will say that today's designs aren't as classic. Below are a few examples.



The Trams in Prague are functional and to those who ride them familiar. Many of you know my favorite below, the Siemens Combino Supra "Caterpillar". It's a bit boxy but others such as the Siemens SD70 Avanto used in San Diego, Charlotte, and Houston are much more streamlined.





Seats:

Now some don't think this is very important, but there are a few who push the need for soft seats every chance they get. It's important to be comfortable, especially as Light Rail travels further out of the city and people need to sit longer. I noticed that seats in Denver had nice cushions while the Muni LRVs here have hard seats that I wouldn't want to sit on for very long and don't. I usually stand, but its not uncomfortable for the few minutes I'm on. The PCC seats remind me of school bus rides in 9th grade. They aren't super plush but they aren't uncomfortable either.


Flickr photo of Muni Metro Seats by Digiyesica.

Flickr Photo of PCC Seats by Jef Poskanzer.

Complaints about trams aren't just for folks in the United States. A blogger in Prague has been complaining and for some of the commenters, it seems a bit like sour grapes. There is also a facebook group against the new trams as well which my dad happened to take a photo of this fall in Prague.




Accessibility:

This is a major issue and drives a lot of decisions in planning for new light rail lines, streetcars and tramways. Buses, even low floor, have ramps that can be flipped up and down. Many light rail vehicles have level boarding which means they pull up next to the platform and there is no need for a ramp or bridge plate. This makes the train more accessible, especially since in trains, wheelchairs don't need to be strapped in with belts as they do in buses.

Flickr photo of Level Boarding in Seattle. Photo by Bejan.

Portland Streetcar Bridge Plate. Photo by the City of Albuquerque.

This brings up another important consideration of LRV design which is aisle width. Moving around inside of the vehicle is important. A currently cited issue with many BRT vehicles is that the aisles where the wheel wells are very narrow. Light rail of the low floor variety is rather wide in the center.

Flickr Photo NJ Transit LRV Interior. Photo by Manish Karnik.

All of these things are important. Depending on the length of the trip, some are more important than others. More standing room in streetcars is better because there are lots of ons and offs while LRVs need more seats for longer distance passengers. And then there is the future. What will future designs bring? I've only covered a few of the most discussed elements but does anyone have more of what they look for in a LRV?

"...They Wasted Everyone's Time and Money"

Update: I wrote this post last week and this morning right after posting, there is an article in the Washington Post about Mary Peters Ideology when it comes to transit and investment in infrastructure. You can find it here.

In the Washington Post there was an article which discussed that even though the Dulles Airport Extension to Metro has gone through all of the hoops that the FTA has set up for it, it might still not get funded. Why? Because the Bushies don't like rail transit. In fact they don't like it so much that they are willing to kill it because of a famous road project that cost way more than it was supposed to and still hasn't delivered on its environmental offsets; The Big Dig.

Federal officials remain skeptical of the plan to extend Metrorail to Dulles International Airport and might reject it, even though their consultants recently found that the proposal meets requirements for full funding, government and project sources said.

Officials with the Federal Transit Administration say they are concerned about the price tag and the specter of another Big Dig, the Boston project built by the same contractor in charge of the Dulles rail line, which took years longer and cost millions more than planned, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations are sensitive. In addition, the agency has been reluctant to promote large-scale transit projects.

And what is this comment about moving away from infrastructure as Quade points out? Surely that can't be true? Why didn't they say the same thing about three other projects in the New Starts pipeline that have big budgets? Seattle's line to the University($1.6 Billion), New Jersey's Access to the Core ($7.3 Billion), and the Long Island East Side Access Project ($2.6 Billion). But the Dulles project is about $2.06 Billion. So what's the rub? Why pick on this project? This screams a basic ideological bias. But tell us something we didn't know right? Congressional backers of the project even stated to the Post:

Officials on Capitol Hill, in Richmond and at the airports authority's headquarters have speculated in recent days about what the problem might be. Some say the FTA has long been skeptical of expensive rail projects; in recent years, it has more often championed bus rapid transit projects.

Bingo. There has been no recent evidence to be against big rail projects. In fact does anyone know of a big rail project that hasn't delivered recently? I know the Silver Line BRT in Boston hasn't delivered on promises and locals call it the Silver Lie but light rail projects in Denver, Houston, Charlotte, Minneapolis and St. Louis have delivered, all of them far exceeding ridership projections.

But basically the DOT is waging an ideological battle. And so far, as Ryan states at The Bellows quite succinctly, "...they wasted everyone's time and money".

As the linked Post piece makes clear, it’s not the Silver Line’s specifics that are the issue, it’s an ideological opposition to big new transit lines. I think that’s dumb, but I think it’s even more dumb to nonetheless pretend that normal operating rules apply with regard to consideration of big new transit lines only to back out for ideological reasons after all the planning has been done and construction is underway. At any moment during this process, the feds could have said, we’re not going to go ahead with this money, because we don’t like new heavy rail lines. Instead, they wasted everyone’s time and money.

This comes just a few days after the release of a National Surface Transportation Commission Report panned by DOT Secretary Mary "Bikes Aren't Transportation" Peters where the dissenting side led by the Secretary claimed falsely that there were not enough cost-effective rail projects to spend money on. Looks like there is a project in DC that needs some money and has merit. And there are more like it such as the Subway to the Sea in Los Angeles.

But in addition, there have been rumors floating around that certain pieces of that report pertaining to light rail and electric transit were approved by the commission but taken out mysteriously before the final printing. When learning about pro-rail segments being taken out of the report, Commissioner,Staunch Conservative, and rail advocate Paul Weyrich stated,

“It is disappointing that after the paragraphs indicated were passed by a nine to three vote that someone without ever asking me would see to it to do away with these important policy considerations, Weyrich said to NCI. “ It is the kind of gutter politics which make people hate their government, and Washington in general."

Now we know where the battle lines are drawn. It's time for a new direction.

Local Money for Starter Lines

There has been a lot of news lately on the federal process in Kansas City and in Houston. Kansas City is floundering and their leaders have about 10 different ideas as to what to do. Some say streetcar (please no), others say rapid streetcar or LRT (yes) and others are even calling for subways (perhaps but not likely). Aside from that, the debate is also about whether to go with federal funding or not. Some argue that it needs to be done with federal funding because then the starter line will get 50% funding (It should be 80% like freeways but that's another post). I'm going to argue that cities today should start on their own. The reason? Time and Politics.

What has time got to do with it? Everything. Because time means political will and citizen backing, time means money and time means solutions. The shorter amount of time that occurs between the start of the idea and operation of the first line, the better off the city is and the more people see tangible results.

Charlotte just opened its first light rail line and used federal funding to build it. The CATS experience serves as a warning to new transit cities who take the network view on transit expansion. When we look back at it now, it does not seem like such a long time, but the 10 years or so it took to build caused a lot of trouble and roadblocks along the way. Charlotte escaped but others have not been so lucky.

The time it took for this project to be completed led to cost overruns because of inflation and a referendum that almost stopped expansion. The Seattle streetcar (This is just a time comparison, not technology) took from idea to opening only five. The Seattle Streetcar didn't seek federal funding, didn't have to wait for the federal government to approve the process. Phoenix's Light Rail system first showed up in the federal process in 1999 and will be completed next year 2008.

But why is this important? The time it takes to build a line is not and should not be ten years. Whole interurban and street transit networks were built in 10 years at the end of the 19th century. The wait for federal funds in todays highway centric government is not worth the wait in

A. Cost
B. Political Will.

The cost issue rears its ugly head when calculating for inflation. You can't calculate that far ahead of time as to what inflation is going to bring. And you don't start buying materials until later on in the process. Charlotte saw this happen as are other projects, not just rail. And recently the Light Rail to Milwaukie in Portland has a high cost estimate, I'm guessing because the planning is keeping up with the federal timeline (Now 10 years standard). Not that this is a starter line, but its been under planning for so long, its no wonder the cost keeps getting higher.

Another issue is political will. The longer the process is, the less people who were involved at the start are likely to still be involved and 10 years in politics is eons. Charlotte was lucky to have the same Mayor and Transit Chief throughout the whole ordeal. I would say that is one of a few reasons why Austin moved to commuter rail, because they lost pro rail leaders along the way like Kirk Watson who now happens to be back as the head of CAMPO.

But not only do leaders matter, the opposition solidifies behind mistakes and as we saw in Charlotte can led to a referendum or a no vote for more funding. Salt Lake City has been the beneficiary of good news and good moves when it comes to politics. And we saw they will be rewarded with a huge 70 mile expansion and 5 new lines. This is after a starter line and very short extensions that have surpassed ridership expectations by leaps and bounds breeding confidence in the system and creating a mostly (there will always be naysayers) positive political environment.

So the time issue is important. The next issue is the expansion. Generally large cities are trying to build expansive transit networks instead of just one line. So the starter line is really just that, a start. But its an important step again because of the politics aspect. Cities such as Houston and Minneapolis are enjoying pro transit political will because of their great ridership numbers and community benefit. Minneapolis went with federal funding for the first line and is going for it again for the Central Corridor. If they keep up at this rate, they will have a transit network in 50 years with 5 lines. Remember, 50 years is the total amount of time it took to build the national federal highway system and all they are going to get through the federal process is 5 lines and maybe a city center streetcar?

Houston on the other hand, along with Salt Lake City and Denver will build 5 new lines in the next ten years. Why? Because they got political will from their starter lines and have forged ahead with local and federal funding for expansion. Salt Lake City signed a deal for the FTA to pay for 20% of their expansion after upping their sales tax for new transit while Houston will likely get 50% funding for two lines. Houston was able to build light rail on its corridors because they also got their rail bias ridership set and networked the corridors in the modeling. This means that any cities first line might be able to qualify for federal funding because its a good candidate, but it will be even better for expansions to other areas of the city which might not have as good of numbers. Cities might also be able to spend a little more money on the starter making sure everything is right instead of letting the feds take out elements that increase ridership like an extra station here and a subway segment there. The rail bias adjustment makes the extensions better able to qualify for federal funding under the cost effectiveness measure.

So if we are playing by the current rules set by the FTA and current funding levels, you can bet that cities will be waiting even longer for transit money. Especially if cities that already have starter lines are starting to ask for money for expansions making the field even more crowded than it is currently. In short, if you want it done fast and you want to build out fast, build it yourself, and come for help on a network later.