Those Pie Charts Again

Rob Puentes at Brookings used the pies to talk to congress (Grist has a greater review here, and you can get the speech transcript here). A few commenters on Yglesias' site said well duh, people in the center city are richer. Really? Well let's debunk that right now with a report by CNT on the diversity of housing near transit. Areas around transit stations are more diverse than the region as a whole.

Eighty-six percent of transit zones are either more economically diverse, more racially diverse or more diverse on both points than the average census tract (when the comparison area is either the average of all central city tracts in the region if the given transit zone is in the central city, or the average of all suburban tracts in the region if the given transit zone is in a suburb). This is especially true in regions with extensive transit systems — Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco — but is not limited to these cities. Diverse transit zones are present in all transit regions, including Dallas, Cleveland and Syracuse. Furthermore, 59 percent of residents near transit are people of color.

This backs up my point that in order to increase income diversity around transit, we need to have more extensive transit systems. That way, it doesn't become such a niche market. A few other findings from the report:

Diversity is found in central city transit zones and suburban (non-central city) transit zones, suggesting that the low transportation costs and the increased accessibility that transit offers supports diversity in both urban and suburban contexts.

Neighborhoods near transit provide housing to a greater share of the region’s lower-income households than regions overall.

Transit zones support important segments of the population in terms of both housing tenure and household size.

Transit zones have a greater than average proportion of homeowners who spend more than 30 percent of income on housing: 35 percent versus 31 percent.

Transit zones provide important mobility opportunities — and the economic benefits that accrue from it — that allow people to live with fewer cars. In three-quarters of transit zones, households have one car or less. In some small transit systems, fully 100 percent of transit zones house a majority of households with one car or less. This low rate of auto ownership is true for higher-income households in transit zones as well as lower-income ones.

Transit zones provide important environmental benefits given their high rates of non-auto travel to work and low rates of land consumption per household.

I suggest reading it, but those are the basics.

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

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.

A Car in Every Garage 2.0

That's the plan an "eco-town" in the UK has put forward. In trying to sell the house, the developers are going to toss in a hybrid car and a bike with the purchase. If that means that home owners go from two diesel/gasoline to one hybrid I don't think its such a bad upgrade as long as the town is walkable and bikable enough to reduce VMT that way. The developers are going to upgrade rail links but that would be for not if there are three cars in every garage, which I'm afraid could be the end result.

Beijing Car Bans Swamp Subway Lines

I can't imagine what would happen to transit systems here if gas were to go to $10 a gallon. In Beijing today, the loop subway line was shut off from entries when it got dangerously full. A reported 1.8 million cars were ordered off the road to cut pollution for the olympics causing people to use the transit alternative.

Listen to a short story from Marketplace on the Olympic Air Cleaning.

Group in Sacramento Shuts Down Road Expansion

No more automatic expansion. The judge found that the road expansion was pre-ordained and alternatives and impacts weren't looked at closely enough.

Neighbors Advocating Sustainable Transportation (NAST) and the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) filed the suit because CalTrans’ analysis of the project’s air pollution and climate change impacts was inadequate, and the project did not consider options that did not involve widening the freeway.

Some key points:

1. Did not complete a Vehicle Miles Traveled count and associated air quality impacts from increased VMT

2. Did not look at a range of alternatives including a transit alternative to meet their goals.

3. Did not adequately address ghg emissions as a result of the freeway widening.

This is interesting because it might make Caltrans think twice before just pushing through with freeway expansion. It's been a push through since the 1950's that the only alternative was road widening. I'd be interested to see how this affects other projects around the state if at all.

EPA, Regressive Progressives, A Green Link

The EPA is saying that the EIS for the Columbia River Crossing doesn't consider growth from Sprawl or water and air pollution caused by increased driving. Don't get me wrong, I think its important to look at these things but the EPA has been super schizophrenic as of late. Perhaps this is the wing of the EPA not controlled by Bush lackeys? You know, the ones that reduced the value of life...really. From the Oregonian:

The critique is drawn from EPA's review of the Columbia River Crossing's 5,000-page environmental impact statement, and it extends to other areas as well. Among those are whether doubling the congested I-5 bridge from six to 12 lanes will promote suburban sprawl; whether the combination of air toxics, noise and other pollution will punish North Portland communities living close to the I-5; and whether massive pile-driving efforts will stir up toxic sediments, compromising federally protected migrating salmon.

In other environmental news from the bay area, BRT booster Charles Siegel writes a fairly scathing critique of Berkeley residents which has become a city of regressive progressives r.

These hard-core anti-environmentalists seem to believe that they are fighting to protect Berkeley’s character against growth. They don’t realize that Berkeley’s early character as a walkable streetcar suburb was disrupted by auto-oriented development. Transit corridors were filled with drive-in uses, and they ended up being more like strip malls than like walkable Main Streets. Even in downtown, there were surface parking lots, tire stores, a strip mall, a car wash, and other drive-in uses that made it less pleasant to walk.

Obviously I'm not a fan of BRT in these corridors that used to be Key System lines, especially when its not electrified but the grounds on which this proposal is being opposed is a bit silly. It makes Berkeley residents look bad. Eric covers the worst of it.

Meanwhile, one quite confused speaker claimed that giving buses a dedicated lane would cause them to “get stuck,” and that what we really needed was “flexibility.” She suggested that with “flexibility,” AC Transit could run buses every three minutes, while implying that three-minute headways would be impossible with a dedicated bus lane. Just incredible.

It's at this point when you kind of just have to throw up your hands and say uncle. These people are never going to get it. And its sad, because even though BRT is a small step up in service, it represents a giant shift in priorities (people over cars) and better service than what exists now.

And Green News from BART, all of their peripheral systems are going solar. Pretty cool.

With Days Like These...

I don't quite understand why we still think burning carbon based fuel is a good idea. Forget about Global Warming, this is what is dumb to me about the pushback against alternative energy. This is San Francisco the last few days. Orange is nice, but it means dangerous air.

What's Not to Like?

Losing Weight, Saving Money and Taking Transit. The COTA Challenge.

I was walking more, to and from the grocery store for example, and walking to the bank, the hardware store, library or Blockbuster rather than taking the car and I shed twenty pounds within five months. When I found that most of my pants were too large, I walked to the new thrift store and bought a new ones.
...
Frankly, the high cost of gas has improved my life.

McCain and Amtrak Not BFF

We've covered this before, but John McCain is no friend of passenger rail. This Boston Globe article goes into detail.

In the section of McCain's website called "reforming our transportation sector," there is no mention of rail. There is only his clean-car challenge to automakers, his $300 million prize to design battery cars, and enforcing only existing gas mileage standards.

When The Washington Post reported on how President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget did not include a subsidy for Amtrak, would kill both $20 million for the next generation of high-speed rail, and $250 million for railroad rehabilitation, it quoted McCain as saying on television, "I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget."

The luster of austerity is gone. Public transportation is becoming a real issue for the campaign trail. If so, McCain has all but handed Obama a golden spike to beat him over the head with.

The Bears are Moving In

Question About Plug in Hybrid Cars

I have a question about plug in hybrids. Are they predicated on having a snout house or a garage? I park my car all over the place near my house in San Francisco and there is no where I would be able to plug in on the street. I wonder what the urban design implications are for these cars. Are there going to be outlets sticking up all over the place? Cables?

Lieberman-Warner Bill DOA

Aww shucks, we'll have to wait until the next President is in office to pass a climate change bill. If you couldn't tell, I'm not very upset about it. There needs to be a lot more in there for alternative transportation, especially modes that will reduce VMT like bikes and transit (and walking). It still stuck people in their silos as well not blending the benefits of land use and transportation decisions.

Although it is kind of par for the course that it dies the same day as Oil skyrockets.

Bill Language Translation

As promised, an update on the Boxer amendment to the Lieberman Warner climate bill. The bill language in full can be found here. Here are the funding breakdowns for each program to be funded. Here is my translation of the language below for the transit section of the amendment:

Grants for Additional Public Transportation Service

65% of the funds will be put into the formula funding program for transit already set up under section 5307. 60% of these funds can go to capital and operations funds and will be appropriated according to the urbanized area population. 40% of these funds can be allocated based on growth in the state based on the census. Also, any capital project that receives federal funding will be eligible for the funding if it provides 20% of its own funding (See section e). Operating costs will only allow 50%

I worry that some of these funds might be eligible for transfer to freeways and roads. I can't tell for sure though if this is possible, but the rules set out below from the code make it possible.

1. In a Transportation Management Area (TMA), the MPO may elect to transfer portions of its FTA Section 5307 funds that cannot be used for operating assistance to FHWA for highway projects subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. §5307(b)(2).

Requirements:

(3) In a transportation management area designated under section 5305 (a) of this title,^[1] amounts that cannot be used to pay operating expenses under this section also are available for a highway project if—

(A) that use is approved, in writing, by the metropolitan planning organization under section 5303 of this title after appropriate notice and an opportunity for comment and appeal is provided to affected public transportation providers;

(B) the Secretary decides the amounts are not needed for investment required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); and

(C) the metropolitan planning organization in approving the use under subparagraph (A) determines that the local transit needs are being addressed.

Grants for New Public Transit Projects

This is a really cool part. 30% of the $171 Billion expected would go to fixed guideway construction (Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Streetcar, Commuter Rail, and True BRT). It's subject to the same criteria as the new starts program. Now we have a little bit to worry about here if John McCain and Mary Peters stick around because they are going to water down fixed guideway as much as they can. Earlier this year they tried to make hot lanes eligible for new starts funding as "fixed guideway". This is also pennies. $1.026 Billion per year for fixed guideway projects is the basic idea.

Grants for Efficiency at Public Transit Agencies

5% of the funds will be allocated for reducing VMT, Bike and Ped infrastructure, carpool and telecommuting programs that don't include new road capacity. Funding will be distributed based on the total GHG reductions of the project applying for funding. This could include any of the following:

(A) improvements to lighting, heating, cooling, or ventilation systems in stations and other facilities that reduce direct or indirect greenhouse‐gas emissions;
(B) adjustments to signal timing or other vehicle controlling systems that reduce direct or indirect greenhouse‐gas emissions;
(C) purchasing or retrofitting rolling stock to improve efficiency or reduce greenhouse‐gas emissions; or
(D) improvements to energy distribution systems.

Like Ryan says, we can do better. But its a small start that could and should be expanded.

Possibly Billions for US Transit in Climate Bill

The word on the street is that an amendment will be introduced by Barbara Boxer to the Lieberman Warner Climate bill that would raise $171 billion dollars for transit (see title VI subtitle B). While this sounds good, it is only pennies. Over 50 years, thats only $3.42 billion per year which compared with the last transportation bill was $244 billion over 6 years, most of it for roads.

Now there is another pot of money that could possibly be used for transit. There will $544 billion available as energy block grants. The money is available for states that reduce GHG emissions. Some of that money could go to transit as well. Now this is just an amendment and while its got some support, it still needs votes.

We'll let you know more as it comes online.

Krugman on Living in a High Cost Oil World

I hope Mr. Krugman gets more folks to start talking about the changes we need to make in order to live a low oil lifestyle. And as he states, its not about prying cars away from Americans, but instead facilitating walking, biking, and transit. You know, what the transit blogosphere is talking about anyways.

To see what I’m talking about, consider where I am at the moment: in a pleasant, middle-class neighborhood consisting mainly of four- or five-story apartment buildings, with easy access to public transit and plenty of local shopping.

It’s the kind of neighborhood in which people don’t have to drive a lot, but it’s also a kind of neighborhood that barely exists in America, even in big metropolitan areas. Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin — but Berlin is a city of trains, buses and bikes, while Atlanta is a city of cars, cars and cars.

Debunking O'Toole #3,520

Mr. Setty at PublicTransit.us is debunking Randal's latest try to put down light rail yet again. This time the claim is that a Prius is more energy efficient:

With most renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric, "gross energy" is essentially meaningless in this "Prius vs. Electric Transit" argument, except that efficient extraction of available energy keeps the price of the power obtained down. Taking O'Toole's reasoning to its logical extreme, if wind and solar only captures 10% of the available energy, or a hydroelectric project only captures 25% of the energy available, he'd still report absurdly high BTU's expended. Never mind that in these cases, nature still radiates this energy into Earth's environment--whether humans choose to tap into it or not.