Missing Something?

Something is missing from all this talk of Climate. We keep talking about it but how can we educate the rest of the country that just building electric cars is not going to solve their problems. Grist has a post up on the Grand Climate Plan. See what's on the list.

1. Carbon pricing
2. Efficiency standards
3. Carbon-free electricity
4. Smart electrical grid
5. Electric cars

The author, Adam Stein notes there are gaps. Most glaring to me, nothing about land use or transit. Nothing about walking or cycling. These are some of the best ways you can personally reduce your carbon footprint. I personally drive only once a week now to visit my Grandmother. When I lived in Austin I drove three or four times a week even though I lived next to the Number 1 bus, the most frequent in the city. Land use matters. But what happens when everyone gets electric cars. Are the freeways all going to suddenly free up?

But how come no one talks about it? Is it really because its not that sexy as Rachel Maddow thinks it is?



Or is it something more? What is the deep seeded want not to take transit or build denser? Part of it I know is our entrenched non market based land use system. It's not like your ultimate mobility is compromised by driving less and walking/biking more with optimal land use. Why are the livable community groups so separated from the enviros on this? I can't quite make it out.

More Savannah Streetcar

I received this comment from Gary L. (Maybe this Gary L?) on the last Savannah post tonight but thought it would be of interest to everyone.

Savannah first began talking about a streetcar on River Street when the waterfront was rebuilt in 1975. They actually acquired the former Norfolk Southern freight branch trackage in 2001. About that same time they bought Melbourne W-5 car 756 from Gale Creek Enterprises. The car was delivered back to Savannah on Wednesday afternoon Novemeber 19th. It unloaded itself under power off of the trailer onto tracks at the Roundhouse Museum.

Training of motormen will take place next week, with operations on River Street to start around December 10th.

This is to our knowledge the only self powered hybrid streetcar in existence. It is 21st century technology packed in a 62 year old body. It can accelerate as fast as a PCC car and has been set up with a top speed of 28 mph. This is because on River Street it will not be save to travel even that fast. Tests so far have seen it use less than 1.5 gallons per hour.

It is fully ADA compatible with two wheelchair lifts installed in the stairwells.

Here's a video of the Melbourne vehicle:

A Shrinking Market Not Suitable for Rail Investment?

A lot of discussion about the auto bailout is out there by people much smarter than me so I'll leave that to them. But in a discussion about Detroit and its possible shrinking city status because of a drawn down auto industry, the Urbanophile states that transit expansion or initial construction of light rail doesn't really make sense in a low or no growth market. In the case of Detroit, he believes that a shrinkage strategy should be employed and money should not be wasted on movement and economic strategies such as light rail.

Detroit wants to build a big rail transit system. This is a variation on "silver bullet" thinking where Detroit will build light rail on Woodward and suddely life will be pumped into the city. It's possible I guess. But while that strategy might be appropriate for higher growth locations like Columbus, I don't think it is where declining cities like Detroit need to be spending their money. Detroit has much higher priority needs than this.

Perhaps this was made for greater discussion today by an article about Buffalo's light rail line, which is one of the new light rail lines that was built after the 1981 light rail return spark in San Diego. Buffalo was one of the cities that was low growth building new transit versus many of the high growth regions. Expansion also was stalled by politics and a lack of priority. Extensions have been on the books for a while and as of now, they total over $1 billion.

After San Diego, the class of the late 80's light rail included Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, and Buffalo. All of these lines have been successes in some ways and failures in others. San Jose for instance runs straight up the corridor it should, but the land use decisions along the line and its slow speed perception have doomed it so far too low ridership compared to peer lines. But we've learned a lot since then about focusing development, ridership induction, and urban design.

One thing those lines did that we know better about today is that they were designed to bring people from the suburbs to the Center City acting as extended parking lot. The lines that have succeeded the best today are those which connect multiple places and destinations. An example of this is Denver which just opened its southeast corridor just a few years ago which connects the Tech Center, Multiple Universities and downtown Denver. It has similar ridership to the Houston light rail line which connects downtown with the biggest medical center complex in the world. They both attract similar ridership with similar counts of jobs even though the lines have different distances (numbers on this are forthcoming).

The lesson from this is that if Detroit or Buffalo as shrinking/low growth cities are looking to bring people from the suburbs to downtown and hope that the line works without combining every other planning and infrastructure tool, it will be doomed to fail. A key to making expanding transit work on major corridors is the connection of destinations as well as a focusing program on bolstering those destinations.

One of the major mistakes that Buffalo made in its planning and subsequent allocation of funding was that it didn't take the line out to the University which was just a few miles further away. Cleveland, which is a city that is in a similar situation as a low growth city has made the Euclid Corridor their priority and have recently redone the whole street with BRT. They have also invested heavily with new public infrastructure and civic buildings. Obviously you know where I stand on the technology but the investment infusion and focus is something Cleveland did right. This is in stark contrast to the waterfront line which they built and just waiting for things to happen. They did not. Another simple improvement Cleveland could also do is move the Shaker Heights line further out a mile or two into a major suburban job center connecting that center with downtown with rapid transit.

So if you are a place like Detroit, Buffalo, or Cleveland which have a negative or low growth outlook, if there is a high capacity corridor that is ripe for investment, just holding back on the transit is not going to solve anything. In fact, you're taking away an organizing tool from the toolchest and increasing your longer term city and transit operating costs which all too often in these cities means service cuts, especially with a high cost energy future.

Weak market cities need those destination connections and a reason to organize or else there is likely to be a vacuum and development will happen in the business as usual sprawl fashion instead of focusing it making things even worse. Just because a city is low or slow growth doesn't mean development doesn't happen. The important thing is to be more fiscally conservative in your investments that promote new development. The long term viability of the city depends on creating value and not spending money on frivolous infrastructure such as road or water extensions that will make life even worse further down the road.

Of course these need to be long term strategies instead of short term fixes. Just building a light rail line and stepping back only works in Sim City. But if we're serious about helping these cities out, giving them the investment tools and pushing them to make the right investment decisions will go a long way towards a better livable environment, reductions in energy consumption, and long term fiscal strength.

GMing the System

For years the auto industry hid behind Jon Dingell as they constantly lobbied against requirements to raise fuel efficiency. No more hiding behind those coat tails. Waxman is in charge. Now let's not forget what Waxman has done in the past. His own constituent pandering led to a ban on federal funds being used for a Westside Subway, one that would have been much cheaper than it is now. That's not to say that prudence wasn't necessary after the explosion, but once it was deemed safe to tunnel it shouldn't have stayed a ban.

He recently redeemed himself when he helped to lift the ban, but let's hope there aren't any more of these types of issues. To be fair, I don't see any of these problems arising and I see a new generation shift. We're looking at the environment, energy and transportation different than before. And the vote today shows that shift happening.

Sources inside the Democratic House Caucus say the vote against outgoing Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. John Dingell turned partly along generational lines - with young turks lining up against the old - and partly because of Dingell's record on environmental issues.

They would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those pesky kids.

A Green Deal

Time Magazine has some commentary I can believe in. A New New Deal:

But not all government spending is created equal. Obama needs to pump serious cash into the economy in a way that promotes his long-term priorities. That means billions for energy-efficient and climate-friendly infrastructure like wind turbines, solar panels and mass transit, but nothing for new sprawl roads that ravage nature and promote gas-guzzling.

He's right, water and other basic infrastructure is complicit in the growth as well as roads. Doing things that can focus future growth in sustainable ways should be on the top of the list. Arnold and others would do well to pay attention to this.

Electric Grids, Gas Taxes and Transit Expansion

David Roberts has a post up on how a gas tax isn't enough. He's right. There is no way we can ever raise enough money for anything we really want with just a gas tax. Especially if we really want to reduce VMT and increase walking, biking and transit. Well as usual, I'm going to do some thinking out loud and let you all shout me down or make the thought better.

What if we got rid of all those laws that pushed apart electric companies and transit companies? Some comments have been made about just getting people on transit instead of changing the vehicles. But honestly, I feel like San Francisco is a better urban place because bus exhaust is not flowing in my face when I'm walking down the street. One thing I noticed this weekend in Charlotte was that the bus terminal is going to lead someone to cancer. The downtown bus center has buses idling under a canopy at all hours creating a smell that means particulate concentration can't be very good.

In any event, with the electric grid needing a serious upgrade, how much more would it really cost to bring overhead wires to the most traveled routes and tie them into the new grid? Some of these could be light rail, some could be trolley buses, and other could be streetcars. But all could be easily adapted to alternative energy if they were using electricity to start with. But also, how could this be a mutually beneficial relationship?

Some thoughts I came up with:

• Use power rates as sort of a business carbon fee. Businesses paying the tax would directly benefit because infrastructure is used to get to work and retail spaces. Bikes, transit, even roadways would benefit from such funding mechanism.
• Transit could get a lower power rate as part of the power company. This means operations could be less expensive meaning more service and if enough transit vehicles are running, perhaps cheaper energy because of power equalization during greater off peak power consumption.
• If we improve the grid and transit is a part of it, charging your plug in hybrid or scooter would pay into the transportation fund as well generating funding for the transport agency as well.
• If we have a business power fee, could it allow us to get away from the sales tax?
• This type of fee would reward more efficient building practices.

Any thoughts on this? Does anyone have any other crazy fundraising schemes?

No Typewriters?

With gas prices coming down many transit agencies might be feeling a bit better about their balance sheets. But it's a short term deal. The oil cartel is looking to boost prices again. I feel like we need to invest more in electric transit including trolleybuses on core routes. Unfortunately, a trolleybus revolution does not seem to be upon us. Wires baby wires?

Patriotic Beer Redux

I know I've posted this commercial before but it came through my reader again and I was about to skip it but decided maybe I'd have another listen. What I found, was that it had even more to do with the situation we're in today more than ever. Tough times call for tough men. Here's the transcript:

Ah. That's the way patriot. Let the OPECs keep their gasoline. We'll just tap into a far more efficient energy source. Man....power. If we all learn to pull our weight. Nobody, nobody will be able to siphon away, our high life.



HT Twin Cities Streets for People for the Reminder.

Individuals Make the Difference

In an article in the Wall Street Journal (Via City Fix), it seems as if Americans control their Carbon Destiny.

U.S. consumers have direct or indirect control over 65% of the country's greenhouse-gas emissions, according to new statistics tallied by consultant McKinsey & Co. The figure for consumers in the rest of the world is just 43%. Americans, largely because of how they drive and how they build and use their homes and offices, lead some of the most energy-intensive lives in the world.

It's not just how they drive and build, it's where. The placement is the greatest determinant. Driving cars a long distance to work and the store versus walking can make a difference.

Passenger cars account for 17% of U.S. emissions -- something consumers could affect by driving more-efficient cars or by driving less. Residential buildings and appliances contribute another 17% of emissions, underscoring the impact consumers could have if they lived in smaller buildings, or added more insulation, or bought a more energy-efficient model next time they replaced their washing machine.

Super Capacitors in Transit

New technology is gaining ground really fast. A promising development in energy storage is the nanoflower supercapacitor. The reason why its so important is that if perfected, it would be possible for light rail lines to gain more power through regenerative breaking and burst through intersections or short stretches of track without connecting to overhead wires.

A Good Question on Green

Richard asks the question everyone should ask: If you drive everywhere are you still green? (Even in a Prius) What do you all think?

Drilling for Typewriters

Thomas Friedman has been on a roll when discussion transportation, energy and other issues lately. Today he was on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw and made a comment that the Republicans saying Drill Drill Drill is like saying Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter during the internet and personal computer revolution. Sure people still need typewriters, but only until they get replaced with something better. Here's the video:



A lot of people I have talked to seem shocked by this whole focus on oil when things are coming forward that would allow us to help the environment and save us money, or at least keep the money we spend in the local market. This in a way can be related to what Joe Cotright said Portland experiences in their green dividend.

H/T Think Progress

A Logic Disconnect

We discussed the moves by the Dallas Ft. Worth region to move forward with a regional transit network but some skeptics still don't understand how things work as it pertains to automobiles. In a Fort Worth Star Telegram article, the following is mentioned.

Others argued that technological improvements to cars might improve the region’s air pollution, making commuter rail unnecessary. "It’s likely that by 2011 we’re going to see a lot of electric automobiles on the road," said Dave McElwee, president of the Tarrant Alliance for Responsible Government. "Ridership will go down."

I'm constantly amazed by the technophiles that are hoping some magic electric car will rise making transit useless. The problem with this is even if you built a car like that, the roads still need to be expanded to accommodate them. Also, with the increases in VMT expected from hybrid cars making people more mobile, energy consumption still continues to rise. So while there might be electric cars at some point, mobility still creates issues. The human condition causes a problem in that for work people need to be close to each other but the dispersed living arrangement causes a need for greater infrastructure to accommodate mobility.

I also don't see what people have wrong with transit. The narrative in this country has been driving for so long by suburbanites, it discounts the feelings of urban dwellers. In places with well run transit, movement is so easy, and city life is their choice. When I was in Budapest and Vienna, I couldn't imagine having a car in that city. The Metro came every 3 minutes and urban form made all trips convenient by walking. Even here in San Francisco, I can get where I need to go easily by walking or using transit. It's silly to think about getting in my car, yet there are still car driven policies, pushed by those might as well be living in the suburbs.

An Engineering Professor Should Know Better

The Hawaii Reporter will print anything. I mean ANYTHING. Case in point, the intellectual dishonesty of Panos Prevadoros, who is a civil engineer and transportation professor running for Mayor of Honolulu. I can't believe someone who has a PhD in this stuff would even make comments like this.

First, he parrots the anti-transit talking point of the week about energy efficiency. We covered this earlier but Mr. Setty covers it again. My first thought was some poor sap fell for a line, but then I've been seeing it over and over again. People are actually falling for it, pushing numbers out of context. He also makes the claim that trains aren't that efficient compared to electric cars. Well how about trains that can be improved as well? Lighter, more energy efficient. Technological advances aren't just reserved for cars people.

Second he takes a number about one train and expands it purposefully, hoping his readers won't question him on it. Again I expect better from a professor of transportation.

... each train can carry 300 people, and during the peak times, there is expected to be one train every 3 minutes, for a total of 6,000 people per hour on the peak direction... Managed freeway lanes, such as HOT lanes, are designed to carry 2000 vehicles per hour per lane at free flow speeds, and since they carry express busses and high occupancy vehicles, the average occupancy would be well over 3 people per vehicle, for a total of 6,000 people per hour per lane.

This is intellectually dishonest because trains are well...trains. They are three to four of those vehicles coupled together. That blows his numbers all out of wack doesn't it? So instead of 6,000 people, it's more like 24,000 with four car trains.

Finally he states that BRT is more convenient than the rail line and states that people would have to make two transfers. One from their house to the line, then another when they get off the line. I find it hard to believe that if the feeder bus to rail line doesn't go to where their express bus goes now, then their express bus doesn't go to where they want to go now. If the rail line comes every 3 minutes, hits major destinations, and is much faster than crawling traffic I don't really see what the problem is. Especially in a very dense place like Honolulu.

He then talks up how the FTA loves BRT. Of course they like BRT! The Bushies hate spending money on transit. He also points to a BRT study that further muddies the definition of BRT. Who knows what BRT means anymore. All I know is that you can run cars on that lane of concrete, which is what he wants to do anyways with his HOT Lane BRT idea.

This doesn't fly, and I'm really annoyed at the capacity lie. The opposition is getting scared, and starting to grasp at straws. And to top it off, Panos recommended light rail for the subway corridor in Los Angeles.

A less expensive option would be light rail at $100 million a mile - an option Prevedouros supports...James Moore, director of the transportation engineering program at USC, is pushing for a busway because they are cheaper to build. Plus, buses can hold more passengers than rail cars.

What?! What is wrong with these engineers? Where is Vukan Vuchic when you need him?

Weekend Homework: HSR Action

If you live in California, here's your chance to get involved. Let your assembly member and Arnold know how you feel. See CAHSR for details.

Caltrain Must Hike Fares Too

Caltrain is going to raise fares in order to cover diesel fuel cost spikes. Imagine if it were already electrified. Less cost and cleaner air. Why do cities still think DMU's are a good idea?

The Hostmen

I've been reading Edwin Black's Internal Combustion and it's interesting to read about Kings and their forests of wood fuel (Robin Hood is said to be about the hero who fought over wood) and the hostmen of industrial England who held so much power in coal, the government couldn't stymie them. What is interesting is that the railroad is what broke their monopoly by opening up more places rich with coal but without a river to run it down. Today we have a similar monopoly with oil rich countries and a big fight over that energy. Perhaps we are on the cusp of another shift because of oils location and environmental ills. Perhaps it is the railroad that will bring it back.

Public Transportation in Advertising

My dad sent me a Shell ad from The Economist a few weeks ago. He thought it was good that they mentioned the importance of urban planning and public transport. My guess is that this was from the Shell International Office in Den Haag. It is a dutch company. I wish they would say this a little louder here, perhaps in newspapers and TV advertisements.

The United Nations predicts that half the world’s population will live in urban areas by the end of 2008 and about 70% will be city dwellers by 2050. There are expected to be more than 27 ‘mega-cities’ - each with more than 10 million people - by 2050.

More crowded cities means more fumes, more noise and more smog. So what to do?

At Shell, we believe the solution is a combination of cleaner fuels, cleaner engines, better public transport and better urban planning. We are doing our best with fuel improvements.

You can find the full text here at the Shell site.

(Full disclosure: My dad worked for shell for over 30 years before retiring.)

VMT & Foreign Oil

So watching the Pickens commercial below gave me a thought. He was discussing dependence on foreign oil and showed some percentages of how much we import. So I went to the data. In terms of foreign oil I went to the Energy Information Administration and pulled an excel chart for historic crude oil imports and production. Since its monthly I averaged 1970,1990, and 2005. T Boone uses current 2008 to say 70% but the most recent transportation data is from 2005. So foreign crude imports went from 12% to 44% to 66% of the total U.S. supply.

Then I went to the BTS and found the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) charts and put the totals together. A word of caution from the last chart I put up. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but I thought this was interesting and more relative. If anything I hope it starts some discussion on how this oil dependence is related to our auto dependence.
Perhaps its also related to this: Spending on highways over transit from PIRG.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that our transportation policy has led us to this predicament. I believe we all knew this, but its always good to have charts right? Thoughts?

Transfer of Wealth IV

Here's Boone Pickens' commercial on getting off of foreign oil. I saw it today while I was watching the news. It covers the same topic of wealth transfer that we've discussed here previously. I don't know about the whole switching to natural gas for cars but I feel like the electrification would be good, especially as I've said before for freight, rail, and trolleybuses.