Even a 5 Year Old Knows to Skip the Drive

After getting rid of my car about 5 years ago, I often miss being able to do certain things like driving up the coast or heading out to a great trailhead. I can still do those things but now there's a bit of a mental burden to paying $10 per hour for that privilege. Of course that's what keeps me from more VMT, but I also forget what driving was sometimes like. For many it's a necessity, but also a burden. This commercial might be a good representation of the reason why younger folks are waiting until later to get a driver's license. Because while enjoyable on the open road, driving often can be a pain.

On Charlotte's Fight with North Carolina, Itself

A fight is breaking out between former Charlotte Mayor/current NC Governor Pat McCrory and current Mayor Anthony Foxx over funding related to the local Streetcar and LRT projects.  Charlotte, unlike many other states gives state level full funding grant agreements for capital transit projects. In 1998 Charlotte passed a half cent sales tax for transit expansion in the region with McCrory leading the charge.  In 2007 the pro transit folks fought off another ballot measure to take away the half cent and won by 70% of the vote.  This fight was partly started because of cost overruns that bothered libertarians, also chafing at the thought of having rail in the region.  Apparently the most despised mode of all. 

At this juncture, the city is looking to fund the streetcar project with local property taxes because there is no funding available from the half cent, which is tied up in the Northeast Corridor and operations of the expanded bus system.  The bus system funding has worked so well, that its seen over a 100% ridership increase.  Because of the lack of transit funding, the regional plan as seen below, is taking much longer than initially planned.

This seems to be the rub.  McCrory believes that only the half cent set aside for transit should be used for expansion, and that funding from the state ($299m) is dependent on local funding being so constrained, that the city has to go through the state.  Apparently trying to speed up the process of building out the network by locally funding is not allowed.  One line at a time, and no streetcars. And forget that the roads don't pay for themselves. What this tells us is that decision makers in the state think that if Charlotte has its half cent of play money, the big boys can use the funding for the other interests.

But what else is going on in the region that would equate to other interests?  How about the $3B in road projects that are happening in Charlotte currently.  And they want to start a state fight over a few hundred million?  What a disgraceful flareup.  The State doesn't want to give money because they think Charlotte has enough, and Charlotte with the help of NCDOT wants to waste billions on sprawl highways. Building sprawl highways that have no use until the land around them is developed into oblivion.  Charlotte pretends that it doesn't want to turn into over sprawling and traffic choked Atlanta, but it looks like being Georgia is the goal, and the state led by Pat McCrory, is more than happy to help them get there.

The Headline Doesn't Match the Story

Ok, can someone tell me if I'm going crazy here? First the misleading PI headline:

Study: Surface-transit would clog regional traffic

Then the FIRST paragraph:

The state's plans for a tolled deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct would bring slightly more traffic congestion to downtown Seattle than a surface-transit concept favored by Mayor Mike McGinn, according to an analysis in the tunnel project's Final Environmental Impact Statement

So the tunnel would bring more traffic to the surface streets right?  Then later on:

With no place for all 110,000 vehicles to go, speeds would decrease and fewer drivers would travel through Seattle's city center, resulting in less traffic, according to an analysis in the environmental assessment.

The idea is that surface transit would make through traffic harder, and people would be annoyed and say I'm not going to make that trip.  That is a great result!  But that headline suggests that it would clog traffic all together when that is not the case.  I'm guessing some headline writer at the PI thought it would be good, but it totally shows some serious windshield perspective.

Going Car Free in San Francisco

Funny story, I just had a little freak out about whether my car was parked on the right side of the street or not for street sweeping in the morning.  If you don't move it, you get a ticket.  But the freak out was unfounded because then I realized that I don't have a car anymore.  

I sold my beloved Volkswagen Jetta I nicknamed "The Green Goblin" on Saturday. There have been many good times in that car that I've had for 12 years.  It's been across the country a few times, was put in a classified ad as a part of a prank war in college that had people calling and asking if my brand new Jetta was for sale for just $2,000 and been splashed by cattle poo flying from a cattle car in Colorado.  Its also served as sleeping quarters outside the four corners and been across the great state of Nevada on Highway 50 at speeds I probably shouldn't mention.

I've lived in San Francisco with the Green Goblin for 5 years and it served me well. I was able to take people around the city that came for a visit and go on day trips around the region and city to places I couldn't easily get without it and generally on a whim.  There are many benefits to owning a car, generally the mobility they provide is excellent and because i'm a city planner I like to know my surroundings, including random streets and quirky places that you might not know about otherwise. 

 

But moving my car because of street sweeping was a pain and I racked up a lot of tickets. In fact i'm sure that I more than paid for better Muni service that every citizen in San Francisco actually deserves rather than what they get.  If everyone paid as much as I did every year we could build a real subway network in this town and everyone could go car free, but I digress. The only time of the week I used the car was going to visit my Gramma in the east bay on Wednesdays.  I've been walking and biking there from BART the last few weeks and its been some really good exercise as well as an exercise in patience when dealing with BART's rules about bikes during rush hours.

 

Ultimately though, the clutch went bad and it was time for me to practice something I talk about at work all the time, living a car free lifestyle.  I've never really advocated it before but seeing all those affordability index charts must have gotten to me. To see what its actually like to go car free, and be able to see the actual costs of driving when I use a zipcar will be refreshing but certainly a little scary.  But for now, its just my legs, my bike, my Clipper Card and my Zipcard...and perhaps a taxi after a night at Polk Gulch.  I really wish someone would survey me for the census now with the long form...

 

 

Replay 6.11.2008: A Very Moving Speech By Robert Caro

Note: Tonight for some reason I was watching Charlie Rose on PBS (I don't have cable and my netflix ran out) and he had Chris Matthews and David Brooks on talking about what the Democrats did wrong. Chris made the comment as I've mentioned here before that President Obama needs to do what Eisenhower did with the interstate and what happened with Lincoln signing the 1862 Railway Act. I agree with that, but I don't agree with what he said after. He said that people will accept liberalism if it means Robert Moses. Anyone who says that does not understand the pain that Moses caused in New York. They don't understand the destruction that happened in cities around the country due to the interstate highways ripping up city neighborhoods whole sale.

In any event, that made me think of Robert Caro's speech at CNU Austin in 2008. For anyone that doesn't know what Moses did, watch, and you will now know why Robert Moses should never be repeated.




Thanks to Lawrence and Jon. Here is the Caro speech from CNU in Austin. It might make you cry, but it explains how damaging Robert Moses was to the City of New York and this Country.

Music Monday - I'll Take My Board

You take your car to work, I'll take my board. And when you're out of fuel, I'm still afloat - Weezer

War on the Car

It moves forward. It feels like I'm reading Killer Angels again...

The War on The Car drags on. The Resistance continues to suffer heavy casualties. Our foot soldiers, mounted forces, and transit brigade have launched numerous offensives this past year, but made only minor advances.

More Urban Form

In an attempt to go a little deeper into the previous post I went looking for more pictures of Rotterdam and Houston and found even better comparisons and interesting views than the photos I posted before.

It should also be said that I don't mean to discount the devastation of war to people and property. There is a difference between choosing to build parking lots and having your life and possessions destroyed.

First Rotterdam:

This from scientific psychic:


And this from the special collections of the Wageningen Library:


Next Houston:

Clearance of housing to build US59 via TexasFreeway.com, an amazing resource if you want to see how freeways were built in Texas.


Also via TexasFreeway.com, a view of Houston from the same angle as the previous post's shot:



This is from Aerial viewpoint. A historic shot from 1945 compared with today. Notice the freeway intrusion. Also notice the downtown getting taller. Finally, where Union Station used to be is where highway 59 rockets through on the east side of downtown and Minute Maid park now exists with a token train filled with oranges.

Is It a Wonder How Housing Prices Are So High?

I appreciate environmental regulations and the like, but it seems like a lot of folks in California just take it too far:

Talk of any development along the rail line has raised concern in the environmental community, some of whom believe the system will act as a catalyst for growth, as developers try to build for those who want to live near a train station.

and this:

Under proposed air-quality guidelines, for the first time in the U.S., if extra cancer risk meets a specific threshold, the developer would be told to study the potential health effects of the freeway pollution on the people who would live in the homes. That would be in addition to what the developer is already required to do: study the effects of the housing on freeway traffic and the surrounding environment. If the health risk is too great, the developer might need to modify or scrap his development plan, or spend extra time persuading the city or county to approve it.

If we can't develop near transit stations or near freeways in existing urban areas, where the heck are people supposed to develop new homes that won't affect the environment? Am I missing something here?

Road Building Paradox

Has anyone ever heard of the Downs - Thompson paradox?

“Downs-Thomson paradox, also referred to as the Pigou-Knight-Downs paradox, states that the equilibrium speed of car traffic on the road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys by (rail-based or otherwise segregated) public transport. It follows that increasing road capacity can actually make overall congestion on the road worse."

Sounds like some sort of variation of induced demand.

The Usual Statements

Will there ever be a day when we don't see this sentence in a newspaper article?

Huntersville Mayor Jill Swain said the N.C. Department of Transportation, "from the top down, recognizes that north Mecklenburg's roads are overwhelmed, and Barry Moose's comment shows we need to move the traffic through our area faster."

More sprawl subsidy on the way!

Get Riled Up!

Want to get riled up? Check out the back and forth at the National Journal between highway lackeys and the good guys. "You're trying to take away our freedom to drive 100 miles to work everyday!" This one from the head of the truckers:

However, many of the proposed solutions encroach upon our freedom of mobility and our right to live where we want. Smart growth land-use strategies are simply ways to encourage living in high-density areas offering mass transit, which counters the preferred lifestyles of most Americans. Instead of changing the transportation systems to modify our behavior, we should improve our transportation systems to match people’s behaviors and preferences.Personal freedom is a defining characteristic of the American way of life...

This gem is from the head of the highway users alliance:

If so, I assume you would reject policies that would limit the choice of new homes that can be zoned and built, force people to pay to park in front of their home, add high tolls to their car trips, require paid parking at suburban shopping centers, divert their taxes, and involve the federal government in local land use planning, right? Afterall, these unfortunate souls do not need to be punished for living how they were forced to live, right?

We are in total agreement in fact -- Americans should be free to live where the want to live, work where they want to work, and shop where they want to shop. And as they choose freely without armtwisting from the federal government, we should provide the transportation system that is finanically, politically, and environmentally sustainable to support that free choice. We could start our plan with the one mode of transportation that could theoretically support itself with a reasonably set gas tax paid by its users.

I just fell of the couch laughing. Man those users sure do pay for the system! We can let people live however they want as long as its with cars! This is amazing yet not surprising. This is what we are fighting against.

Setting Up Fiscal Sustainability

I was interested to see former Texas State Rep Mike Krusee talking about the subsidization of roads and others at the CNU Transportation Networks conference talking about his conversion from evil, especially after we know he screwed Austin back in 2000 and 2004 essentially getting them into the mess they are in now in a somewhat roundabout way.

What was especially interesting was to hear him mention that he was the one that wanted to look at how much roads cost and thus authorized the study to index how much roads cost in Texas. What did they find? No road pays for itself. None. Curiously, that study or any mention of it exists no where on the TxDOT site. The only memory of it existing is on the blogs that picked it up after it showed up again in a newsletter. We covered this back in 2007 and notice that the pages that once kept this information front and center at TxDOT are gone.

It seems like information like this would be extremely powerful in pointing out everywhere around the country that essentially our way of funding expansion of roads now is broken. And even though he's not one of my favorite people for many reasons, Krusee made a basic point that I think is important even if we probably don't agree on the outcomes. We have enough money in the system. We just need to start allocating it correctly.

Over the past 50 years, Krusee argued, the federal government was using tax money that came by and large from cities to subsidize roads to areas without access otherwise. "City dwellers have subsidized the land purchases and the development costs out in the suburbs," said Krusee. What's more, the gas tax, which city dwellers pay when driving on city roads, but which goes to freeways largely outside of urban cores, is "a huge transfer of wealth from the cities to the suburbs to build these rings."

This admission is important, and it points the way towards sustainability for the whole urban economic system. Once we realize that we can't keep expanding roads(or sewer, electrical systems which have similar costs to the roads in terms of return according to Scott Bernstein) further and further out, and that the goals of the interstate system have been co-opted by suburban development forces for fiscally and environmentally unsustainable practices, the more of an effect we'll have on changing every citizens fortunes, not just those who build sprawl.

This also brings me to a point that Scott Bernstein made at the conference, that in these hard economic times, we need to really focus on how these investments will create value and wealth for people and cities in hard economic times over the long run. As my college professor Shane Davies always said, if you want to make change, you "hit people in the pocketbook".

Stories Like This

When I see headlines like this, It makes me a bit upset.

"Woman Raped Along Uptown Light Rail Line"

Not just because someone was violated against their will, but also because the insertion of along Uptown Light Rail Line vilifies the line itself for something it really had nothing to do with. If you read closer into the story, the woman was not riding the light rail line and was assaulted downtown walking on a sidewalk. Could have been any sidewalk and she could have been leaving any bar. But the headline screams "transit is dangerous". These kind of associations happen all the time and will continue to happen. I just wish they didn't.

Tuesday Night Notes

It's just not like when we grew up. I remember riding my bike to school.

"The biggest problem presented in the report is the fact that cities are being planned especially for cars and for adults,"

~~~
Redevelopers have tighter funding these days.
~~~
Learning to live without a car. Moving from the burbs to the bright lights.

I used to make a big grocery shopping trip just about every Saturday, driving several miles to a store and throwing half a dozen shopping bags into the trunk. Now I can walk to a supermarket three blocks away

~~~
Suburbanization and climate change. They are linked.
~~~
Apple will spend some cash to revitalize a Chicago Subway Station.
~~~
I couldn't agree with Ryan more on this point.

There is a terrible chicken-and-egg problem to transportation planning, in which planners express regret that there is so little transit demand and so much traffic before building new roads. They have to accommodate the demand they've got! But you can't have transit demand if you don't have transit, and if you don't recognize that, then you're doomed to keep building roads forever. No one in the mind of the planners has yet invented a substitute for the automobile.

~~~
The electric transit revolution is upon the British. Trolleybuses return.

Demand

I'm not sure whether this means we need a ton of infrastructure or we just have low current priorities.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s $1.5 billion discretionary grant pool won’t come anywhere close to meeting its requests, as states and other transport groups sent in applications for $56.9 billion to cover highway projects as well as transit, rail, seaport and other construction needs.

What You Make of It

There's a good post by Brad Plummer over at the New Republic on the difference in lifestyles in the United States and Europe and how it's one big political football. One of the things that isn't mentioned is cost and quality of lifestyle. I feel that if more cities had the option of urbanism, the ability to live in a real urban place as opposed to quasi urban, that many more people would as they say "instantly lower their carbon footprint".

Living here in San Francisco and visiting Chicago last weekend has shown me that honest urban places in the United States are hard to come by. And the reality is that in certain stages of a persons life, there is an opportunity and want to live this lifestyle that is often forgone for lack of availability. While my lifestyle in Austin during my last two years was fairly urban by Austin standards, I don't feel like the experience even closely matches up to what I've experienced here in San Francisco.

I also consider myself very lucky to live here, mostly because urban living can be expensive due to its popularity. But it's a trade off. It's trading road rage for crazy bus riders. It's trading a larger apartment for a smaller one and a pub around the corner you can head to if you're feeling cramped. It's trading a large yard for dolores park.

Rosenthal wonders whether similar measures could fly in the United States: "I believe most people are pretty adaptable and that some of the necessary shifts in lifestyle are about changing habits, not giving up comfort or convenience."

It's all about what you're up for but the urban lifestyle isn't for everyone. There are however enough people out there that want it despite what a lot of waning popular wisdom will tell you.

Tuesday Night Notes

Fun in Calgary:

The industry has warned targets are market interference and will limit home builders' ability to provide as many single-family homes as buyers want.

~~~
Recent zoning code increases allow value along the light rail line in Tempe to increase at a greater rate than similar areas in the region. It's interesting because similar areas in Phoenix are limited in their growth potential.
~~~
I'm really excited to go to Italy next month, especially Turin.
~~~
Orinda might be up for medium density around the BART station downtown. I think it would be cool if they made it look Tuscan.
~~~
Freeways are big priorities, especially those big beltway gifts to sprawl.

Non Highway Users Anonymous

They can will it to be a user fee all they want, but it isn't. As an example, during my time in Austin I drove quite a bit around town if I wasn't on the #1, 5, 7 buses. But for the most part I wasn't on the highways. A little Mopac here, a little 183 there, but maybe twice a month during school if that. TxDOT and the MPO get back federal flex funds which they can use for lots of things. But it's not usually paying directly for what you're using that gas on most, those local roads.

Now it does come back to transit etc, but you're not paying directly for what you're using. I do pay a user fee now when I go over the bay bridge to my Gramma's house. And for the most part that $4 charge keeps me taking BART, which is faster anyway to downtown Oakland. But these tea party cries of socialism fall on deaf ears when you know these same people LOVE the socialism of roads. They even love the community good of transit. So much so that when it doesn't work, they get angry that government isn't doing a job they didn't fund it enough to do. Oh the irony.

Running Scared

The green movement is gaining influence and looking for 10% of the revenue for carbon credits. But this is scary to the highway movement as their influence and scare tactics wear thin.

According to Greg Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, the changing partisan guard in Washington has made highway groups wary of the focus on transit funds. “People are much more nervous about being on the chopping block,” he said. “It seems like the anti-highway crowd has much more influence than they had in the past.”

Anti highway? How about pro livable communities.