Thursday, March 5, 2009

Go Ahead, But You Should Pay For It

High Speed NIMBYs on the peninsular should be allowed to advocate for the line to go underground. But if that happens, they should pay for it. I'm not paying for their choice to locate their house near a working railroad track. No one else should have to pay for that when there is a perfectly good surface and elevated alternative. Again, where were these people in the fall? Squeaky wheel always you know...

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Betterments

Part of the problem with costing complaints for light rail is that everyone wants to throw everything into the project. From repaving the street to urban decor such as special pavers and street lamps. I'm all about these "betterments" but we need to understand that attaching them to the light rail project only makes it more expensive and gives opponents fodder when they go on about cost per mile estimates. In reality, the repaving of a street curb to curb should not penalize a project. If anything it should create a better mobility score for increasing the number of people that can use a street. Where's the transit SYSTEM user benefit for that?

But because such improvements are underfunded in general, cities see FTA funds as a gravy train for getting these important elements done. If we can figure out a way for these pieces of the overall puzzle to be eligible for another funding pot dedicated to pedestrian mobility that would be great. But we shouldn't have to. This is just another reason why the cost effectiveness measure that can kill a project based on a penny over a certain standard is dumb.

Indian TOD & FAR

In Pune India, the government is changing the zoning along the BRT line to a level not seen anywhere else. I can only assume that the term FSI is the same as our FAR or floor to area ratio. It's interesting how terms work out in different languages. A FAR of 4 in the US means you can build a 4 story building using the whole plot of land or an 8 story building using half the land.
The proposal states that 4 FSI will be granted to properties upto 200 meter distance on either sides of the BRTS routes and 500 meters on either sides of the Metro routes.
...
"Nearly 30.50 km of Metro and 120 km of BRT routes are to be developed in Pune. For these routes to be successful, enough ridership and high-population density is required. Therefore, additional FSI is necessary. The mandatory reforms under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) also calls for densification along the Metro and BRT corridors," the proposal states.

Where Were These People in the Fall?

And we wonder why papers are dying. Because articles on specific topics such as transit are completely worthless and misleading. High Speed rail is not bypassing Sacramento, it is the eventual Northern terminus. If you read the article, you might think it was never coming and Sacramento was left out for good unless the train turned a magnificent profit.

It's good to see the mayor pushing for the connection, but at the same time, why are all these people trying to change the plan after the cake is in the oven. Sure there are design issues to hash out and detail stuff, but trying to open the discussion back up on the route for the first phase just makes it seem like you weren't paying attention. Which in all likelihood they weren't, which possibly goes back to the poor newspaper reporting.

Sea Change?

Is the economy leading to a change in land use? Eh. I'd like for it to happen, but the allocation of more money for highways in the stimulus bill leads us in a different direction that I'd like to think we're going. The major evidence will come in a few years after the transportation bill is finalized and money starts moving to projects other than roads. Perhaps we will see that acceleration they're talking about then.

By the way, if you want to see where Interstate bridges are going to crash in your congressional district, DOT has maps.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Salt Lake City Gone Wild!

They have transit fever in Salt Lake City. A state representative is proposing even more taxes to build out the light rail system and a Davis streetcar. What did they put in the water up there? I need to get some of that stuff.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Connecting the Dots

Looks like BART to San Jose has hit another snag because of the economy. The ~20 mile extension from the Fremont station all the way to the San Jose airport via downtown has been delayed for a number of years because of funding issues. Last fall the county passed an 1/8th cent sales tax to fix some of this but according to one analysis it won't be enough. I'm not sure if this is really true because the projections show flat sales tax revenues until 2036, which seems to me to be seriously wrong.
Board members used words like "shocked" and "astonished" at the report by consultant Bob Peskin, who analyzed sales tax projections through 2036. Once inflation is factored out, his sales tax projections are essentially a flat line.
But if true, this comes at the same time as a SPUR report that states suburban job growth imperils emissions reductions due to increased driving. As a practical goal, the region should focus growth in the more urban downtowns and urban areas that aren't office parks.
The city, and other urban areas better served by mass transit than suburban business parks, must adjust policies to attract a greater share of office development and employers, concludes "Recentering Work: The Future of Transit-Oriented Jobs in Downtown San Francisco," released by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.
So while the BART extension to downtown San Jose might seem like a good idea, its important to note that the round about way in which BART reaches downtown doesn't connect the areas which hold most of Silicon Valley's jobs but rather takes the path of least resistance (ie: existing ROW).

This is a big problem. The line which was conceived many years ago is a continuation of BART and regional authorities poor planning for rapid transit integration with land use. While it might have been state of the art as an idea decades ago, we've learned so much since then about TOD and how connecting destinations strengthens them. No longer will the suburban to urban model work with parking lots catering to the automobile. We need a better analysis of what to do but unfortunately it seems like nothing will stop this move from going through.

The map below shows job density in the valley (From LEHD 2004). Areas with the darkest green are over 20 jobs per acre. But the new BART line (dark blue) touches only the clusters downtown and extension of the VTA light rail line (light purple) go nowhere near the jobs that would attract transit riders.

The VTA Light Rail line hits a lot of the dense job clusters but underperforms because it is seen as slower. I don't know how many people who live in San Francisco have told me that the killer for thier connection to a job in San Jose is the slow round about light rail. This will be the same excuse for BART to light rail on the other side of the Valley.

SanJoseJunk

When we look into these long term Bay Area projects, we need to push planners to think about where people work and where they want to go. It's really important to think about these long term strategies to connect people with jobs and connect jobs to each other. If we're going to be dependent on a knowledge economy here in the bay area, allowing people easy access through transit to amenities and each other is the best way to facilitate energy and emissions reductions. Even if TOD springs up along the new BART line, it won't be as good as connecting the existing clusters of dense jobs with tons of redevelopable parking spaces (see above photo) that might not be needed with rapid transit easily accessible.

Don't Leave Things Behind

I was encouraged the other day when I got out of a cab and the driver asked me to check the seat to make sure my cell phone and wallet were in my possession. It was a nice gesture that I hope takes off in other places, perhaps on public transit as well. A good example of where this would have helped is in Sweden, where an elderly woman lost her life savings on the train on her way to the bank.
A woman lost her life savings when she forgot 500,000 kronor ($86,206) on a Swedish tram as she was headed to the bank to deposit the money, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
That is crushing. It's really sad that no one realized it was someones savings and it's really upsetting that there wasn't some other way for her to securely move her money. Though if I had such a huge sum of money in my possession, it would be tied to me...even stapled to my clothes. Hopefully they can recover the money, but it seems as if it might be a lost cause.

Taiwan HSR Doubles Annual Ridership

High speed rail in Taiwan doubled in patronage over the last year. Apparently the increase also corresponded with an increase in public transit ridership.
Domestic flights continued to suffer as a result of the high-speed rail. Last year, the number of passengers on domestic flights dropped 22.5 percent from the previous year.

Ministry statistics meanwhile showed an increase in the use of public land transportation systems. The number of passengers taking the high speed rail rose from about 15.56 million in 2007 to 30.58 million last year, close to a 100 percent increase. Despite the impressive passenger growth last year, the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp announced on Friday it would reduce the daily train runs from 942 to 816, starting on March 16.