Forshadowing?

I sure hope so. I don't wish anyone any harm and glad the Mayor is ok, but this is something that I hope happens on a metaphorical level in the next transportation bill.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's $50,000, high-tech hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe SUV ... was put out of commission Tuesday when a Muni bus sideswiped it.

What I mean is that I hope that transit takes over priority from the auto centric bill we have today. Especially SUV's. Isn't Hybrid Tahoe an oxymoron?

Want to Live the Pajama Life?

Streetsblog SF is looking for an editor. SF Bike Blog has more.

Human Scale

via Reconnecting America

Houston Chronicle: Metro Is So Far-Sighted They Are Short-Sighted

What? Perhaps its because Houston has been such a car oriented city for so long, the editors at the Chronicle aren't sure how transit will work when there is a new energy reality. Before we get into more details, I'd like to debunk the myth that commuter rail lines primary transit function is to get people to airports.

Houstonians will still lack a reliable, affordable public transit option to get to the region's two major airports. Such links are a primary function of commuter rail in other cities.

It's nice to have a link to the airport, but they aren't the primary function. But let's talk about the reality of airports in an energy constrained future. Given that flights are having trouble currently with gas prices, I can't imagine what would happen when it gets even worse. Building lines to airports just to go to the airport seems a bit silly to me, at least when people are fighting over such small amounts of funds as it is and shorter flights could diminish extensively. If we were a place like Vienna with an existing extensive transit network, we can build lines directly from the Airport to the major subway transfer station downtown.

But for Houston, the North Line could be eventually built to have an express train on tracks that serve the neighborhoods to the North. But hopefully by that time there will also be High Speed Rail in Texas. Now we're just voting on it here in California, but if it were to happen in Texas, it would not stop at the airport but downtown at the commuter rail and light rail hub. And when you get off of that train, it is more important to have a network that gets you to all of the major job centers (orange below) and places of housing density in the core of the region rather than have an easy link to the airport. Christof always has wonderful maps...



Now they are looking into commuter trains and complaining that the inner-city network is shortsighted. Well what happens when those people get to the hub downtown on those commuter trains without a circulation network? I would guess less ridership because their trip ends there, they aren't going to hop on a bus to get to other parts of the city. It seems to me they are actually quite smart in fixing up the light rail network.

Long-distance commuter rail lines could relieve growing traffic congestion on area freeways, but there is no single agency empowered to plan and build them. Some major roadway projects, such as the recent Katy Freeway expansion, include no provision for future rail systems.

Not that commuter rail isn't needed on some corridors, but Houston has rather good express buses that take HOV lanes downtown from the far flung suburbs. My dad took one of these downtown to work every day which brought me more appreciation for transit. In addition to these existing facilities though, commuter rail could prove to quicker to get through the process of construction than light rail making the initial city circulation network genius. The issue of networks and overlapping service needs to be addressed more extensively, because we keep having these suburb, urban debates when we need to bring every different type for their strengths and build them all together. As discussed before, you wouldn't build a freeway without arterial and local streets, so why would we do that with transit modes?

Blog Credentials Available at Rail~Volution Conference

Hey Transit, TOD, and Livability Bloggers. We've arranged to have bloggers get press credentials at Rail~Volution this year to cover the event. It's in San Francisco so it should be a good time had by all and very informative. Take a look at this years info.

Here is what Rail~Volution is all about...

Rail~Volution is, first and foremost, a conference for passionate practitioners - people from all perspectives who believe strongly in the role of land use and transit as equal partners in the quest for greater livability and greater communities.

So if you want to blog on the conference you can apply here.

If you're not a blogger, but a transit or community activist, there are scholarships available for folks in the Bay Area and outside of the Bay Area. You'll have to apply soon but if you're interested in coming please fill one out.

Spread the word...

The Real Freedom Machines

I really shouldn't have to go through all the reasons why this article is just wrong. It's the same junk we've heard over and over again. But what it shows, is what the other side is really thinking. A lot of folks try to argue intelligently, but here is usually what city and transit planners are up against.

1. Transit Doesn't Pay for Itself - We've covered this before. Roads don't either, get over it.

2. Transit and Bikes are Stealing from Cars! - Mary Peters started this junk science and apparently people are repeating it. Then there is the user pays junk that TxDOT debunked recently. Didn't they get the memo?

Roads have gone unbuilt because the "user pays" principle of transportation has been violated. Highway trust funds (your highway user taxes) have been siphoned off. Whereas other forms of transportation receive subsidies, drivers pay subsidies.

Supposedly our fuel taxes go to build and maintain roads and bridges. But for many years at least a fifth of the money has been diverted into high-priced mass transit projects, bicycle paths and tourist attractions instead. That's a huge factor in the backlog of unbuilt and unkempt roads and highways.

3. Cars are More Energy Efficient - People are starting to get all righteous with the Department of Energy Databook which shows transit is much more efficient than a single driver car. Yet the databook assumes cars all carry 1.5 people per car and thus adjusts its numbers accordingly. Are you !$&#%^ kidding me? Istook takes this as gospel and doesn't mention anything about those pesky things like people that take transit also walk and bike more, and drive less over all. You know, this kind of thing. From the 1994 Portland Travel Survey...


So even if we did travel 1.5 people to a car, they still drive twice as far negating any energy efficiency. That 1.5 number is still ludicrous. Even more ludicrous, these comments.

Nor does transit save energy. U.S. Department of Transportation figures show that transit buses actually consume more energy (in BTUs) per passenger mile than autos do! Further, as charted by the U.S. Department of Energy, American buses average 4,650 BTUs per passenger mile, compared to only 3,702 for autos. Rail travel does slightly better, with 3,172 on average, but rail's energy consumption figures are higher in cities due to stop-and-go nature of commuter rail.

Again, that assumes 1.5 people per car. And rail always operates in cities, so I'm not sure what he is getting at here except to say, here's what the numbers say, here's what my brain thinks. One would argue that cars energy consumption is worse in cities because of stop and go as well. I'm really confused with this idiocy.

4. This is Just a Trick to Save the Planet. Hahaha. Those tricky planet savers.

But not everyone is thrilled with the prospect of having to sacrifice our freedom of mobility because "green" politicians chose to "save the planet" by hampering our country's ability to produce affordable energy.

Is it really a choice? And why does freedom of mobility mean all car all the time. I feel like I can move quite freely here without driving the car, I at least have the choice to do so. But the real meaning of this is "Why won't they let us drill until the carbon chokes us?"

3. Libruls are Forcing Me Into Transit. Here's the funniest comment of the day, comparing transit advocates to the Tokyo Train pushers.

Trying to force everyone onto mass transit will never work. But be prepared for those who will use today's challenges to push us in that direction – perhaps as brutally as the professional pushers who cram riders into the cars of the Tokyo subway system.

It's time for drivers to stand up against efforts to demonize the automobile. Forcing people to use a particular mode of travel is not the American way. Life is better when you have the freedom to drive, not just find a ride or wait at bus stops.

I don't remember the last time I tried to force my friends and relatives to ride mass transit over taking the car. In fact, I own a car and there are many times when it is useful to have. No one is forcing them to take transit, I just want options. I want to have the choice. And I know that is the wrong frame, the choice frame. But what else is there? How can we talk about these things using the right frame. If I were a Karl Rove disciple, I would just say driving cars funds terrorism. That would be the end of it right? Anyone got a good frame?

Slow Boat to China

Another day, another China HSR expansion post somewhere in the blogosphere. When are we going to learn? Why are we sitting around doing nothing? What are we waiting for? I got an email from a reader a few weeks ago about our sloooow timeline for projects in this country. So here are some of his thoughts: J.M. Carter and the Slow Boat to China (Slightly edited for continuity and links to projects included)

~~~~~~

I would like to comment on the sad state of affairs that exists in this country re: the time it takes to get things done. There was a time when we could rebuild a battered and bloodied aircraft carrier in a matter of days and send it back into battle. Now, with the light rail "industry" generally we seem to be falling farther and farther behind other nations when it comes to constructing anything to do with rail transit.

Couple of examples right now:

Phoenix, Valley Metro light rail. The line running north on 19th Av. is to be extended an additional 3 1/2 miles with 3 new stations. This is less than 20,000 feet of wire and rail and maybe a substation. How long to do it? From mid '08 to sometime in '12 or as much as 4 1/2 years!

Salt Lake City, UTA Trax light rail. Just announced the start of construction on the 5 mile line to West Valley City with 4 stations. This is less than 30,000 feet in length. How long? This is maybe a joke from John Inglish, the top guy, but would you believe he actually says by '15? That's 7 1/2 years, depending on how far into '15 they go with it.

I would seriously consider applying for a job as timekeeper on both of these projects. Almost any other country could do either in less than 2 years, using the standards now applicable in the trade. The problem in public transit today is not just the knuckleheads in the FTA but rather the lack of funding and slow construction timelines in cities that already have plans for expansion. China is building heavy rail subways all over the place while India is doing the same as a close second to them. Any doubt as to where the wave of the future is now?

This really is something both the "industry" and the nation should feel frightened about. In an area where the feds -with their total overview of things-( as well as having the moneybags as leverage) really should be demanding and setting some standards, nothing is being done about absurd costs and time spans. Again and again you hear the refrain "local conditions" and "prevailing supply and demand." Have you ever heard of any US project taking a look offshore to see how others do some of these things that we are so slow with? Hell no. We just laugh at "the French" and ignore any and all innovations others have made and used successfully.

Take the proposed extension of Charlotte's new light rail line. Won't be ready until 2014 or even later (the date keeps changing) but it is at least 5-6 years away. 300 miles to the northeast in Norfolk, one of the very few bright spots in the current light rail scene, they are building a new line that- while a bit shorter than Charlotte's- is very similar to it in many ways and will even use the same S70 LRVs. Scheduled to be completed in 2010 at a cost only about a quarter of the Charlotte's Line.

If the FTA had any brains at all they would be waving this one around and demanding that it become a kind of standard for other systems. Norfolk shows it can be done quickly and right and some of these other buffoons should pay attention and maybe pay a visit.

~~~~

PT: Seems to me that we should be allowed to put light rail and streetcar lines back into streets that had them before. Why we need all these crazy huge environmental impact statements to put streetcars back in the streets many of them created is beyond me.

Thanks again J.M.

Oberstar Talks Process

Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) is the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House so it makes these comments promising given he'll more than likely be there when the next transportation bill gets moving.

"What is wrong with us? Are we a third world country?"
...
But the Dulles rail proponents are hitting a similar wall with rail to Dulles Airport and beyond. Oberstar said negotiations over the project – when it appeared as if the federal government might pull its funding – made it clear that the Bush administration was not supportive of the project.

As with light rail in Minneapolis, the federal administration has not used the appropriate criteria to measure and rate the project. He said they deliberately threw out factors like energy consumption and cost to the commuters when evaluating Dulles rail and other projects.

If those benefits could have been left in the financial analysis of the project, the cost effectiveness of the Dulles rail project – which has been criticized for its "medium low" rating – could be higher, said Oberstar.

Additional factors that should have been part of the Dulles rail project analysis may also have lead the federal government to conclude that tunnel option was cost effective. Currently, the federal, state and local governments are pursuing an "above ground" option because the tunnel option was deemed too expensive and would stall the project significantly.

This is what we have been talking about for the last year and a half. The measurements for cost effectiveness are all messed up and doesn't track the true benefits of rail construction. The federal formulas were created to compare transit to roads, and we know its apples and oranges. I'm glad that Sheriff Oberstar is on our side.

Pot Meet Kettle

I wrote out a long post but I thought I should just let everyone read Mary Peters really gross blog post.

Here's my favorite quote:

Most people haven’t yet fully grasped the unprecedented innovation taking place in transportation today.

Of course its ironic because neither has she.