Sunday Night Notes

Whew, it's been a little while. Still reading lots of news and tweeting nightly. Wanted to cover these few news articles in greater than 140 characters though:

Utah's possible new Senator is saying he's going to cut off the spigot for transit capital funding from the feds saying that he doesn't believe they should be spending money on state and regional priorities. I happen to disagree with this but its an interesting question of

A. what is a regional or state vs. a national priority
B. what would he stance be if it were regional freeway expansion instead of transit

Seems to me much of this debate seems to be framed by subsidization rather than investment. The language needs changing if the livable transportation movement is going to make any ground.
~~~
The Green Line extension to Boston which is a Big Dig offset is delayed again. I'm not sure how anyone could speed it up, but it seems like the state can't really be punished in terms of money more than it already has.
~~~
Transit Miami gets the scoop on the Heavy Rail plug being pulled in the Miami region. This will set Miami back a lot, though local officials say they will refocus on BRT. How much do you want to bet that BRT means limited stop buses only?
~~~
I think this article about job incentives moving employers from state to state which means no new jobs are gained but tax gains for the region are less is replicated around the country when cities fight so hard for sales tax dollars that they lop off the benefits of those jobs. The one that always comes to mind is Emeryville and Oakland.

Imagine KC

A very cool video from Kansas City. Explains it all well.


Imagine KC from Jonathan Arnold on Vimeo.

Not Dense Enough

Even in the downturn the Charlotte light rail line beat its projections. Currently ridership is down from its highs, but it makes me think that there needs to be a working over of the transportation models at the FTA. Under the current process that requires a medium rating for cost effectiveness, Charlotte would not have made the cut with its ridership projection as it was. It had a low medium rating in 2003, yet was recommended because of its land use planning. Which brings me to a second point.

An excuse for Kansas City not going back after light rail is the usual complaint. We're not dense enough. Via the Urbanophile from the KC Star:

The city is set up for cars. As a result, most of the metropolitan area is not densely populated...Generally, an average of 6,600 to 10,000 people per square mile is needed to score federal funds. But Kansas City isn’t close to that number along the 14-mile route that voters rejected in November.

So now, since they aren't dense enough currently(even in AC's weighted density) and use that as an excuse to not move forward, there will be no change and they'll continue to drift in autodom. But the problem here is not just the lack of imagination and foresight, but also that the current FTA gives no hope of change. People will continue as long as we let them to refer to the cost-effectiveness index as god's law. It's all about the now when in reality we should be planning for the future.

The point of building a rail line today, whether it's light rail, a subway line, or a streetcar is the shape the future development of a corridor but this is something that isn't measured in the current process, at least with any meaning. This is something Congressman Oberstar is looking to fix, but we need to help.

At this point, however, the Federal Transit Administration has declared the cost effectiveness index number and not transit oriented development as the critical factor in giving a thumbs up or down to a project. It's time for the CEI not just to be amended, but eliminated, says Rep. Jim Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says.

"As soon as there is a Federal Transit Administrator I will encourage that person to, by executive order, erase it from the books. And if they don't we'll do that in legislation."The cost effectiveness index became the deciding factor for transit projects in April, 2005. That's when the FTA received a letter from the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget proclaiming the CEI's primacy.

So Charlotte gives us some clues as to what we can look forward to in terms of changing neighborhood dynamics and creating a demand for future density in transit corridors. It also shows that the cost effectiveness index does not determine the success of a project, no matter how much weight seem to put on a single metric based in auto engineering. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the costs and weight it against the benefits. It just means the way we're doing it now is weighted towards killing meaningful projects. Places that need subways are forced by cost shock and the CEI to look at light rail and places that should have light rail are forced to BRT and so on down the heirarchy. I hope this changes, and that the "not dense enough" canard can't be used against a city looking to change its ways ever again.

Charlotte South Corridor:

Falling Off the Edge...

of the ocean isn't fun.

“The opponents of this light rail campaign are like the people of the 15th Century that were arguing that the Earth was still flat when people have already been around the world,” said Kansas City lawyer Pat McLarney.

Kansas City Opposition Flow Chart

Wow. This is crazy. In a good way. The anti-light rail flowchart. Perhaps every campaign should have one of these.

HT KCLR

Election Day Coverage on The Overhead Wire

So you all know ahead of time, we're going to have an election night liveblog here at The Overhead Wire. The reason? No it's not to talk about the presidential race, but rather the Transit Space Race elections going on all over the country. Here's a preview of what we'll cover:

St. Louis - An election is being held to give Metro a half cent more in order to keep up with operating expenses and expand Metrolink, the region's light rail system. It's called Proposition M.

Santa Fe - A Sales Tax to extend Rail Runner into the city from Albuquerque.

Oakland/Berkeley - AC Transit is looking to raise the parcel tax $48 annually to pay for operations. This measure is called VV. KK is also on the ballot and would allow AC Transit to build BRT on Berkeley streets.

Los Angeles - This would be a half cent sales tax for capital expansion. It's called Measure R.

Sonoma Marin - SMART will go back to the polls to ask for an 1/4th cent sales tax to build a commuter rail line. It is called Measure Q.

Honolulu - Island residents are being asked whether they approve of a steel on steel transit system. (Crazy huh?)

Kansas City - A half cent sales tax is on the ballot to build a starter light rail line.

Seattle - Prop 1. I'm not going to be covering this as much except for some crucial updates. I'm sure the boys at STB got it covered.

High Speed Rail - $9.9 billion dollar bond for a statewide high speed rail line. This one is Prop 1a.

If I am missing something let me know. I'll be live blogging into the night until we get the Hawaii results. It's still a bit of time away. But I'll be reminding everyone every once in a while to keep your minds off the presidential election.

Kansas City Will Vote on Light Rail

Looks like we have another ballot measure to watch on Election Night. If you're just catching up on this whole KC light rail rollercoaster, here's a cheat sheet.

Mayor Funk Releases KC Transit Plan

After looking at the map, I'm very underwhelmed. It might be because I'm not from the region and don't quite have a handle on the topography or geography but it seems to be overly serving of regional car commuters at the expense of the core. At first glance it reminds me a bit of San Jose.

Much of the express bus mileage seems to be on freeways which won't affect or change development paradigms in the region and the light rail seems cut short. I don't quite understand the streetcar either. Is it supposed to be a loop? Is it only a feeder? Where is the central city circulation? The commuter rail looks good though, connecting what looks like a few job centers from the road patterns. I'm sure KC Light Rail will have more. But for the moment, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me from an outsiders perspective. Anyone else have some insight on this one?

Clay Chastain Keeps Attaching Conditions

Ok, let's repeat a few phrases.

Streetcars are a subset of light rail.
Streetcars are a subset of light rail.
Streetcars are a subset of light rail.

Streetcars can be coupled.
Streetcars can be coupled.
Streetcars can be coupled.

Streetcars can run in their own lane.
Streetcars can run in their own lane.
Streetcars can run in their own lane.

So with that out of the way, it seems dumb that the only way you'll accept a transit plan for a city is if you're so rigid that you limited the plan to one technology. And by limiting the plan to one technology, he's ignoring that there is a way to get what he wants with streetcars if that is a more workable alternative. This is what made Clay Chastain's plan for Kansas City Light Rail unworkable in the first place. He mandated that the line include building an Aerial Tramway over a park and that it had the electric system of Bordeaux France without an overhead wire even though the proprietors of the technology have said they weren't bringing it over anytime soon. But putting it exactly the way he thought it should be on the ballot without doing any engineering was what killed it.

On further reflection however, Chastain has come up with a possible compromise.

“This is an idea that should electrify the entire city and end the cold war between me and the city,” he says. “If there is a settlement between the parties, and the city wants me to support their light-rail plan in November, I will do so.”

Under certain conditions.

“I will do so only if the transit technology for the main spine is conventional light rail and not streetcars,” Chastain says. “And if there is a direct connection to Union Station, and if the city agrees to put on the same November ballot an ordinance in which the voters can choose whether or not to do away with Section 704 of the City Charter allowing the City Council to repeal or amend voter-initiated ordinances.”

Sigh. No wonder no one wants to work with him, he keeps attaching conditions. At the same time, the Mayor is looking to lay the groundwork for a regional rail system. He seems to be starting to look at it the right way, with a starter line. The other cities that have gotten networks started have built a small starter line first; Houston, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis. Now they are all expanding, some albeit faster than others.

But I guess the whole point of this post was to say you can configure these transit technologies to do whatever they need to do. Just saying "I don't want light rail" or "I don't want streetcars" is silly. The things that matter are what the right of way is like and the capacity needed on the line. I can understand when folks say "I don't want it in mixed traffic." But don't write it in stone so that you can't have a small section on the line that might only have that option if the ROW in the corridor is too narrow.



Europeans laugh at us. They call them all trams.

Kansas City's Big LRT Expose

In an attempt to jump start the discussion about where light rail should run after the Mayor declared Clay Chastain's voter approved line dead, the Kansas City Star is running a number of small vignettes in the paper today. It's a pretty good job of covering many of the issues and has a cool map to boot. A good links page is located here. I will make a note that if they want to use streetcars for this plan they should have dedicated lanes. It's fine to use the modern streetcar vehicles, but this is a transit spine not a circulator.

And if you haven't been paying attention to KC since the vote passed last fall, go check out KCLightRail.com.

The Rapid Streetcar

In light of recent high costs related to light rail and advancements in construction, a new option for building rapid transit networks are available for cities worried about costs. The Rapid Streetcar concept is gaining popularity and cities around the country are looking into ways to build starter light rail lines. But what is the rapid streetcar?

Streetcars are cheaper because of their lower infrastructure requirements. Often there is no need to relocat utilities, right of way does not need to be purchased and the stops are smaller and the vehicles more pedestrian oriented. Streetcar stops are also closely spaced if the goal is to be a circulator or short line transport mode. However if a longer distance transit mode that mimics light rail is what you're looking for, but your city is on a budget, the rapid streetcar might be your choice.

Many cities have taken up the mantle of the rapid bus to be their cost effective alternative to light rail, but only do this based on cost, not because its what the citizenry wants. Recent Rapid Bus movements in Oakland, San Francisco, and Charlotte have shown that people really want light rail on a budget but haven't been able to engineer their systems to reduce costs and are therefore left with an inferior transit mode for their stated goals.

But by using streetcars in center lanes with single tracking and passing sidings at stations you can get the same performance as light rail on 10 minute headways. Streetcars aren't single vehicles either. Skoda streetcars have couplers on them as well that would make them multiple car consists. The lighter vehicles are about 66 feet long as opposed to 90 foot LRVs yet you can still get increased passenger capacity and lower infrastructure needs. You can see in the picture below from Skoda.

This fascinating development in value engineering is nothing new and has been rarely used in the United States if at all. A recent extension of the Portland Streetcar to Lake Oswego might be its first test. Literature on the subject has been presented at TRB by Lyndon Henry and has been extensively covered by Light Rail Now! Recent publications including Raise the Hammer in Canada as well as the folks in Kansas City have been looking to this option. This technology and engineering arrangement is a smart way for cities to get rapid transit and build the system they want and can afford, not the system they settle for.

Kansas City Leaders Hop on Board

After Kansas City everyman Clay Chastain put a measure on the ballot in Kansas City to build the cities first light rail line, many of the community leaders that once shunned him are now jumping on board according to an article in the Kansas City Star today. Kansas City is a relative newcomer to the Transit Space Race but its story is interesting.

After many years of trying and many of the local supposed pro-transit folks against him, Clay had a hard time getting support for the system. He'd tried many times before, but had failed and claimed that this year was his last try to get the rail that Kansas City deserves. This year WAS different and produced a stunning win. While it was just for one line and not a comprehensive plan, i believe this effort alone to start rail in a non-rail city should be a part of the TSR.

The plan has some issues that needed to be hammered out including messy ballot language with specifics about not using overhead wires in favor of a system that exists only in Bordeaux France but is now being constructed in Angers. It also calls for a gondola and other specific things that make it hard to implement. There are more quirky ballot language issues but its a start.

To follow articles and happenings with the light rail line in Kansas City, someone has started a blog. Check it out if you get a chance.