Extended Chicago

Chicago is looking to extend their Red, Orange, and Yellow El lines at their ends. I'm not going to say that I know Chicago as well as some other cities but I'm wondering if 9 miles of rapid transit on the outside edges for $1.7 billion is a higher and better use than greater capacity in the core? Especially with the Olympics coming up.

Considering the North South deficit of rapid transit on the Western edges of the El network, would North-South LRT/Rapid Streetcar lines and dedicated bus lanes be a better use of money? What do you all think?

Shameless Plug

So at work we're starting a blog. The basic premise is best practices and information on Transit Oriented Development including hopefully posts from experts from around the country and more information about the work we do. I don't mention work here much because well I'd rather this blog stay my own opinion and not drag work into it. But in this instance, I thought folks would be interested in what is going on over there. So check it out if you get a chance.

Think Different

I think Atrios has the right idea:

I'm not saying travel time is not an issue at all, but fundamentally such projects are about reducing car dependency and changing land use patterns. We generally don't talk about them like that, and the Feds mostly don't think about them like that, but that's really what they're about. Simply speeding people from point A to point B isn't the purpose, the purpose is to provide a different way to get around and eventually a different environment in which to get around. If travel time is too important, then basic utility might be sacrificed by, for example, reducing the number of stops.

The feds put way too much emphasis on travel time savings. There is no way that 3A and 3C are going to have the same ridership contrary to what the models say. By skipping one of the densest neighborhoods in Minneapolis, you're reducing the ability of the line to serve more people for more trips as well as change the land use patterns even more. Yonah also makes an important point:

As a result, transit networks are encouraged to extend out into the suburbs, rather than be densified and reinforced downtown. This policy encourages sprawl; though more suburbanites may find themselves taking transit to work, they won’t be using it to go shopping or out on the weekend.

But there's another aspect as well. I believe you have to connect major destinations in a region and this is something the Southwest LRT is doing. Connecting Eden Prarie to Downtown is an important goal, and doing it quickly is important as well. However there is a trade off between the goal of speed and the goal of actually connecting destinations and origins. If there is a corridor that might be a little slower, but ultimately connect many more people, it shouldn't be discounted based on speed, but should increase the value based on access. This is something that is currently lacking in the New Starts process and something that needs to change if we're ever going to build meaningful transit lines that connect people with where they want to go.

Southwest Airlines CEO Fires First Shot

And so it begins. the Southwest Airlines CEO believes that the federal government shouldn't give it a competitive advantage.

After his speech, I asked Kelly whether his company would likely oppose high-speed passenger rail, given how precious every dollar has become to the airlines. Southwest's opposition years ago was a key reason a previous effort to build a high-speed line linking Dallas, Austin and Houston died. (Trains are seen by many as likely to compete with and in some cases perhaps eliminate short-haul flights.)

He said it's too early to oppose any particular plan, but said federal support for bullet trains shouldn't put airlines like his at a competitive disadvantage.

Perhaps if you can't beat them, you should join them. But airlines aren't looking that far ahead yet. Perhaps they'll start screaming when gas prices go back up again. I don't quite understand why they can't see the future in which higher oil prices make life for airlines hard. If last summer wasn't a wake up call, they'll be getting water splashed in their face soon.

Doubling Down - Town

The New York Times has an article about the railyards in Sacramento changing into a new neighborhood. While the market is somewhat down from mid-decade, it seems as if industrial areas adjacent to downtown are still a hot commodity.

When completed, the old Union Pacific property will become an extension of the downtown, effectively doubling its size...

Although it is playing up the history of the site, Thomas Enterprises plans to make new and old buildings harmonize through the use of similar materials, notably brick and glass.“This will not be ‘suburban urban,’ ” said Mr. Rich, alluding to the faux-historical style of many recent outdoor shopping centers. The Railyards, he said, will be “gritty, like a city.”

This will also be the pass through for the DNA line phase 1.

Future Planning

It looks like Shanghai has long term plans for it's metro system.
~~~
Developers are looking at TOD around HSR stops in California.

“I think not only is it something that is a good thing, it’s certainly going to be a phenomenal planning tool for the next generation of growth,” said Perry Dealy, president of Dealy Development. “The opportunity to take the high-speed stop hubs and convert them to maximize their mixed-use, high-density potential is great. You’d have what I’d call a TOD, transit-oriented design, starting with residential, work-live, retail, entertainment and other kinds of venues that are part of the mixed-use characteristics.”

~~~
Yet another transit line starts out already worrying about costs more than connecting people with places they want to go.

“Dorfman says the projected cost of the line ranges from $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion, depending on the final route. Those numbers put the proposal give the project a Cost Effectiveness Index of $30 per rider for the length of the line, just outside the range required by the Federal Transit Administration for federal funding.

In order to move into the next step which would be to begin preliminary engineering you have to reach that $29 CEI number, so we’re very close to that,” she said.

The CEI is messing up basic planning. I can appreciate getting rid of some of the insane gold plating that is rampant in LRT planning, but I can't understand how a single computer index based on modeling that everyone knows is bs can decide that a route that goes where people want to go is too expensive. So instead, we'll build the cheap route because its cheaper, not because it's better.

We Don't Want Faster Transit

In a recent meeting with Merchants on Geary street, they believe that access would kill their businesses.

The first of their reservations is that construction will scare away customers; and second, that faster transit will encourage bigger buildings which will spell disaster for small businesses. Reservation number one is reasonable; but number two is whaaaaa? Is your argument seriously "we need slower buses because small businesses can only survive if nobody can get to where they're going on time"?

Really? That's the exact reason why I never go to the Richmond. Because it takes to freakin long to get there without a car! Seriously people, how long do we need to go in these circles before we realize that rapid transit in San Francisco would facilitate the movement of not just people, but money into merchants wallets from other neighborhoods. There are many nights when I think I might want to go to the Sunset or Richmond to get a bite to eat but I don't want to waste 2 hours on Muni. Might as well cook at home. Fast transit does not kill business, slow transit does.

Million Per Metro

Pinning good transit to a metro population level seems like a good idea to me. In India, regions of 1M or more population will now be eligible for 50% federal funding for a metro system if the locals paid the other half. Here in the United States, regions are lucky to get 50% funding for one commuter or light rail line. I think we should go even lower. A region of 750,000 or more should start construction so by the time that other 250,000 moved in they would have options as to where to live along the newly constructed lines.

Imagine if we had metro subways in all of our metro areas over 1 million people as a base for greater transit improvements. Considering between 1990 and 2005 about 45% of new transit trips were made on metro subway systems, it stands to reason that the construction of these networks connecting the major employment and population centers in a regions core will dramatically increase transit ridership. Look what has happened in Washington DC over the last 40 years or so. That is something we should emulate and India gives us a view into how to do it. Where's that type of vision for America?

A Shotgun Wedding?

Meteor Blades has a post on teh Orange Satan that goes more towards the middle of the cash for clunkers argument. He believes that even though our goal should be moving more towards better transportation systems and land use, we're still going to have automobiles until we get those systems in place. He then ties the idea of cash for clunkers with transit.

Money for the CARS program should have its own budget, not taken from spending for renewable energy projects. And every dollar spent should be legislatively tied to a matching dollar added to the federal mass transit appropriation in the following year. Funding for both these projects should come from increased taxes on gasoline.

While the cash for clunkers program that actually makes people double their mileage instead of letting them off the hook might move us towards more efficient vehicles, transit and land use is so far behind that I don't believe a 1:1 add to the fund won't really help much. It seems to me like keeping the status quo, because outside of that funding, 80% of federal monies still goes to cars, plus the other side of the 1:1 cash for clunkers, which is still subsidizing people to buy cars. I can appreciate that people are still going to drive cars. But we didn't get to be a single minded car driving society by the free market alone. There are a lot of subsidies that made it so and the pendulum swung too far, and we're still pushing to that side, when we should be aiding a swing back to the center on both transportation and land use.

Assorted Quotes

More HSR in Spain:

By then 90% of the population will be within 30 miles of a station. New lines have already been opened to Segovia, Valladolid and Malaga in the last 18 months. New links will eventually connect France and Portugal.

~~~
Madison has a choice between Airport and Downtown Amtrak Station

Moreover, they argue a First Street location has unlimited potential for sparking "transit-oriented" development of apartments, stores or offices that could generate millions in new property tax revenues while providing a catalyst for the long-awaited overhaul of the blighted East Washington Avenue corridor.

"Compare that to the airport, where you have zero opportunity for anything like that," says Barry Gore, a Madison-based urban planner who has previously worked on transit issues in Chicago and the Twin Cities.

Check out the Obama story at the start of the article.

H/T Planetizen
~~~
The Streetsweeper has this to say about the Lazarus piece:

Lazarus at one point says that we will need to make our cities less comfortable in order to force our population into mass transit. Are these Japanese or European cities so uncomfortable that we will stop visiting in such great numbers? Are they so uncomfortable that their own inhabitants are fleeing in droves? I think not. So, why do we visit there (repeatedly) and long for what they have, yet fail to bring it about in our own country. Even our own "world class" cities cannot pull it off with the same panache as they do. I don' t think that we want their comfort level, because we are Americans and we deserve more.

A coworker mentioned the other day that only 20% of Americans have passports. Another lower number actually use them. I wish more people would go and see other places. Just to get a feel of not America.