Killing the Opposition's Density Meme

Chicken and Egg again. I'm not saying that the move not to go into Scott County isn' t the right one in the Twin Cities Region. Being fairly far outside of the core, it's not likely to get a rail link to downtown any time soon.

But for Peter Bell, the head of the Metropolitan Council to claim that there will only be two more light rail lines in the region because of population density shows that people still don't get it, the people that are supposed to. They still don't understand that transportation is an investment made in part to decide later land use. I can think of three light rail corridors in the Twin Cities that are in planning. Does this mean that only two get rail because the other one has no chance to regenerate?

"There will only be one or two additional light rail lines in this region," council chair Peter Bell warned. "We just simply don't have the population density, and we won't get the federal matching dollars.

These are unfortunate comments from someone who should know better than to reinforce the auto-centric density meme. This is one of these things that everyone should be on message about. We really need to hammer our leaders on this issue because we'll never get anything done if people are repeating what the opposition wants the message to be, especially when false. Was Arlington County dense enough to get a Metro Subway? Was the Pearl District dense enough to get a streetcar?

This meme needs to stop, and you know who has been aiding and abetting? From Peter Bell's quote, it's our favorite Mary Peters and her FTA. They don't believe in land use or transit changing land use patterns. In fact, they encourage under investment in transit by telling cities they can't build light rail lines unless they have a cost-effectiveness measure that matches current conditions, not future. Again, transit investment is about shaping future growth patterns. We know this because we have seen what transportation investment has done to our growth over the last 60 years.

Will It Attract Hot Chicks?

That is the question on BRT in Minnesota.

Worried About Aesthetics?

Now this is a doozy. The University of Minnesota continued its obstructionism today by being the lone no vote on the alignment decision. After being given an extra week and much deference, they continued to play the opposition. However it seems that its possible that it could be something other than the well being of students or worries about damaging medical equipment.

Hausman described the U's continued opposition as the "ultimate in carelessness and possibly arrogance." She went on to say the U might face ramifications at the Capitol when seeking funding from lawmakers in the future. "The sense of many is the U is simply accustomed to getting their own way," she said.

She related a conversation with University President Robert Bruininks in which he expressed concerns about the "aesthetics" of the light rail line through campus.

"It's an insult to Minneapolis and St. Paul to assume only the university cares about aesthetics," Hausman said.

Wow. After all that and even now hiring a $500,000 a year lobbyist I hope they come up with a better reason than aesthetics to oppose it. I can kind of understand the sensitive equipment argument, but I think its grasping at straws since they haven't really given anything specific. The Portland Aerial Tram had to be cantilevered off of the cliff side because of the sensitive microsurgeries that take place at OHSU.

But then again, Houston's light rail runs straight through the largest medical center in the world. And I'm sure subways in Boston and New York as well as transit around the world runs by similarly sensitive equipment. In Oakland people and heavy buses drive about 40 feet away from the MRI machine located in a trailer. In any event, it seems like blatant obstructionism. But it also seems like its about to come to an end.

Two Peas in a University Pod

For the last few months while I've been watching the central corridor impasse between the University of Minnesota and everyone else , something was nagging me. And it finally clicked. U of M might as well be UT (Texas). Both are trying to reroute their respective lines around campus and near the football stadiums, both routes of which would not maximize ridership. Yet they press on with little care about their affect on the surrounding community.

Here is the U of M alternate route from the Pioneer Press.


Now here are the alternate Austin routes I drew up where the yellow is the better route, however the University continues to push the red route.



I believe what this shows is that Universities for one are scared of things they don't understand, and that they know nothing about transportation planning and so are trying to solve a problem that only exists 8 times a year. Football game and special event congestion. With Austin, they're running the line right past the performing arts center, the football stadium and the track and swim stadiums instead of by the main campus and the dense residential neighborhood to the west.

Another perceived problem is that light rail is dangerous to pedestrians. Unlike those extremely safe cars careening through and around campus driven by students. But it just goes to show that Universities shouldn't control regional decisions by throwing fits. If there were a real issue, regional planners would understand and back off, but planning so that cars can keep driving through campus and less trips on transit can be taken is unacceptable.

U of M Route Choice Crashes and Burns

Instead of going straight through campus, the University of Minnesota wanted the Central Corridor to go around. They even had Governor Pawlenty hold up State Funding for the project so they could study the route that would kill ridership. Well the study is back and like everyone said it would, it tanked:

The University of Minnesota's preferred route for the Central Corridor would fail to pass — big time — a key scoring index needed for federal approval, according to records obtained by the Pioneer Press today.

...

The Washington Avenue route, which would cost $909 million, is 23.80. The U's Dinkytown route, which would cost between $889 million and $894 million, would have a CEI of between 28.25 and 28.44, according to the U's study, which notes that 23.99 "is recommended by the FTA to be considered for federal funding.

The University is still going to try and lobby to change the CEI measures but good luck with that. How many other cities have tried to change it and failed. This is just another example of even smart people building for cars. And from now on, they will get much more pushback.

Central Corridor Alive

Governor, legislators make a deal.

Updated with better link. Thx Tedder.

History Lesson: Demise of Twin Cities Rapid Transit

Twin Cities Rapid Transit was one of the best streetcar companies in the country before its demise. It's secondly most famous for the streetcar burning photos that many cite when discussing conspiracy theories.


Well part of the story I had never heard before was told on one of my listserves by transit expert and former Deputy Secretary of Transportation for Pennsylvania Ed Tennyson. He states that at one point TCRT had saved up $10 million dollars to buy new streetcars and repair the tracks but got destroyed by Wall Street speculators. Well, I'll let his words tell the story. I'll add links for emphasis:

The Twin City street car to bus conversion was ironically caused by a pro-street car management, a man named Strouse, I think he was. During gasoline rationing he saved up ten million dollars ($ 160 million at today's prices) to buy more PCC cars, re-lay more track, moderninze the rail system.

A shrewd vulture on Wall Street named Green saw all that money in the bank and solicited the stockholder votes to throw out the sfreet car management so Green could disburse all that money to stockholders including himself. His first attempt failed as the stockholder had pride in the company but inflation hit them (and everyone else) so Green prevailed on his second take over attempt. Strouse was fired and the money was paid out to stockholders leaving nothing for renewals.

Wall Street neophytes saw those big dividends and sent the stock price soaring. Green soid his. Buy low and sell high. Local politicians took Green's place, one named Fred Osanna(In the picture above), a political lawyer. He got a promise from General Motors to loan him all the money he needed to rid the city of street cars and they had National City Lines send him their Barney Larrick to manage the job.

Since there would be no more profits, Osanna and Larrick sold all of the copper wires, car baen property and salvage from scrapping cars to their wives or other relatives at a rock bottom price. Their relatives waited a few weeks then sold all the junk on the market for far more than they paid Twin City Rapid Transit for it. Roy Chalk did the same thing in Washington but was careful not to go to jail. Osanna and Larrick both went to jail, for defrauding the other stockholders.

Transport Genocide and the Revenge Veto

I like competition but not when its at the expense of working people and pits cities in the United States against each other. This isn't a strategy, its a systematic genocide by the road warriors and privatization crowd at DOT. I know that we talk about the transit space race but its supposed to be a healthy competition rather than a death match. But it's what is happening around the country. The federal government, instead of figuring out how to build the transit projects that everyone wants, is pitting cities against each other for funding. Why doesn't this happen for roads? And why, if one entity with selfish interests in mind instead of the interests of the overall consensus in a region, is a project put in jeopardy?

But an official familiar with the federal transit funding process said, "This is a competitive process with projects around the country. The more everyone's singing off the same page, the more it moves it ahead of other projects"

The most recent example of this idiocy is the Central Corridor in the Twin Cities. Basically though, after the DFL party overrode a major transportation veto by Governor Pawlenty, he decided to veto the funding for the Central Corridor. No one has come out and said it, but its revenge. Nothing more and nothing less. He is certainly in the minority on this issue in the state and is being a good little Republican and hoping to get some street cred for opposing transit it seems like it could be in part for a chance at being John McCain's second hand man.

But this also opened up an opportunity for others to kill the project because they don't like the idea that it would slow auto oriented culture. Let's not put our heads in the sand, all of this is a fight against the status quo of all cars all the time. This line is going to give Washington Street incredible people capacity, but again its all about cars.

In 2001, the Board of Regents passed a resolution stating it wanted a tunnel under Washington Avenue. If not that, a route along the northern edge of campus, through Dinkytown. If not that, a ground-level route along Washington — but only if someone could figure out how to fix the resulting traffic nightmares and how to pay for those fixes.

Since the U didn't get its tunnel because of our favorite "Cost Effectiveness Measure" it started throwing a fit over the fact that the line was going to be on Washington Avenue. All along the way though, the University threw up road blocks:

The Met Council briefly looked at the Dinkytown route but discarded it out of concerns it would be too expensive. The tunnel was in. Then, the U decided to build a Gophers football stadium on the tunnel's route, forcing a rerouting of the already pricey tunnel and adding more than $100 million to its price tag. The tunnel was out; Washington Avenue at street level was in.

...

The full weight of the U's position wasn't widely understood April 7, when Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed $70 million in state funding for the Central Corridor, citing, among other things, concerns surrounding the route through the university.

Two days later, the U released preliminary findings of its consultant's report on the Dinkytown route. The findings suggested that route would be cheaper and faster than one along Washington Avenue. The preliminary findings do not yet project ridership levels or how that route would measure up to a complex federal funding formula.

The change will not kill ridership on the line, but will lower the cost effectiveness rating. Perhaps to the point where the line does not pass muster with the FTA. How many times does it have to be said that you can't go around a major center of activity. The measures for transit are bad, this all could have been avoided with the initial tunnel that the University wanted and everyone was willing to invest in. Instead, the line is in limbo all due to the fact that the process can't measure a line for its real benefits and the government does not see the importance of new rapid transit lines enough to fund more. Lets hope this changes soon.

The Twin Cities Entrance into the Space Race

Welcome Minneapolis-St. Paul to the Space Race. Let's see what they're up to.

LRT

Central Corridor - This line has received lots of press and was just approved by the Met Council.

Southwest Corridor - This is the next light rail line. It will travel to the Southwest through some high employment centers in that part of the region.

Bottineau Boulevard - This line was going to be BRT but might be changed back to LRT.

Robert Street Corridor - South of St. Paul, they're doing the alternatives analysis now.

Commuter Rail

North Star Corridor - This line is under construction.

Red Rock Corridor - This line will go to the Southeast of St. Paul and will be the high speed rail connection to Chicago. If its electrified this would be a great addition.

Rush Line Corridor - This line will go Northeast of St. Paul.

BRT

Cedar Avenue and I-35W


That's a lot of transit. They've also just finished a Minneapolis Streetcar study as well.

DFL Veto Override Starts Minnesota on the Space Race

Man these guys made a tough political call. Some Republicans have already paid the price for it, but everyone in Minnesota will be better off because of it. The Democrat-Farmer-Labor party or DFL decided that they needed to pay for infrastructure by raising the gas and car tab taxes. Of course this doesn't mean much for people who drive fuel efficient cars. But here is the Republican complaint...

He said higher gas taxes and registration fees for more expensive and larger vehicles could encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, "which will save families money."

But Republicans stressed that families who drive long distances in larger vehicles would be hit harder.

As an example, they said a family of four in Bemidji could see its total taxes increase as much as $373 per year, assuming that the family bought a 9-year-old car and a one-year-old SUV and drove more than 35,000 miles a year. The SUV in the example gets 17 miles per gallon, and the car gets 22.

Geez, whine a little more about paying for what you use why don't you. If you drive more, that means you're using the roads more, whats wrong with paying more? It was their choice to live in a place where they had to drive more.

The $6 Billion + dollar bill is also good for transit...

Under another provision, a quarter-cent sales tax increase would occur in the seven-county Twin Cities metro area without a referendum, with all proceeds going to transit projects. The sales tax needs action by the county boards.

The sales tax would raise an estimated $1.1 billion over 10 years. In Hennepin County, the state's most populous, it would generate more than half of that amount, or $606 million. Last year, Hennepin County residents began paying a 0.15 percentage point sales tax, approved without a referendum, to help fund a stadium for the Minnesota Twins.

It would allow 8 planned rail and bus corridors to be built by 2020, entering the Twin Cities officially as a serious contender into the Transit Space Race! Welcome to the club.

Advocates estimated the bill would provide an extra $117 million to $173 million a year for rail and bus service. If federal matching funds could be secured, that would be enough to deliver eight new transitways, for trains or buses, by 2020 -- including the southwest light-rail line eagerly awaited by the western suburbs, the advocates said Wednesday.

Large Misallocation of Resources

There is a new report out from an independent auditor that asserts Minnesota has been spending too much on expansion of roads and not enough on maintenance and repair. This report should be done all over the country because this is what it tells us: we've been wasting resources and subsidizing sprawl with bigger and bigger roads when we should be attending to the core capacity of our transportation systems. I'm not sure people will be able to stomach this for much longer. Soon there will be toll roads everywhere and people will be asking why we didn't build more alternatives....

...Frank might have an answer.

Increasing Job Densities an Appropriate TOD Strategy

It might seem like a duh moment, but Prof. Gary Barnes paper discusses in a paper he wrote for the Journal of Public Transportation that it's not just residential density that determines transit usage, but rather where people are going.

Using regression analysis, he showed that in Minneapolis, aside from developing residential densities, transit share can be increased by building up commercial centers. In the regression, he showed that for every 1000 people per square mile that the residential density grew, the increase in transit's share to downtown increased 2.4% versus .6% increase when people went to suburban jobs. The same thing happened for increases in low income users. For every 1% increase in low income population per square mile, increases were noted. The chart that shows the results is below.



He also relates the concentration of regional jobs in major centers directly to how much transit people take. An example from the article is below.


There are a few caveats including the need for quality transit and parking regulations in these centers that encourage transit ridership. But just having a center of commerce isn't good enough. Places that have a lot of jobs like Pleasanton need to be better organized and less suburban office park.

Recently however, many people have been focused really heavily on residential densities, which are important, but I haven't seen many programs that create a regional job placement and growth strategy. This could be part of the key for increasing transit's use for work trips.

I have a feeling as well that pushing for dense commercial centers with mixes of retail and office then connecting them with high capacity transit will go a long way towards increasing transit's ability to cut congestion in the peak hours. It might also be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, creating a cycle of more transit and more office development in the cores of a region.

I know that this is kind of a 'duh' post. But having numbers to quantify the effects of connecting residential areas to large employment centers is really important in moving forward with policies that promote transit ridership. Thanks Prof Barnes for this paper and for your conclusion:

Planners and policymakers hoping to manage urban traffic congestion through increased transit use are limited in the short term by the strong influence that existing land use exerts on mode choice. While this point has been widely acknowledged, most research and policy discussion on this topic has focused on increasing residential densities. However, the conclusion of this article is that the development and expansion of very large, high-density job centers is the best tool available for most cities to achieve substantial increases in transit use.

While there are many ways to improve transit use, achieving the substantial increases necessary to impact congestion levels will probably ultimately require greatly improved service frequency or higher costs of driving, such as parking charges. Higher parking charges will be politically infeasible in the absence of adequate transit service as an alternative; however, improved transit service is hard to justify in the absence of a sufficiently large market.

Creating a large market appears to reduce to two options: the well-known solution of increasing residential density and the less-considered option of focusing on the work end of the trip. While both of these tactics appear to be effective in principle as well as practice, it is, for a variety of reasons discussed in this article, very difficult to have impacts on residential density that are large enough to have regional significance.

The constraints that limit the use of residential density increases as a tool are not in force to nearly the same extent for commercial development. A gradual transition of a relatively small amount of office space from isolated or low-density settings into a few large dense centers could lead to sizable increases in regional transit use in a relatively short time.

The Twin Cities area illustrates the possibilities of this approach. There are two downtowns, but Minneapolis is much larger and is geographically in the center of the developed area. Downtown St. Paul is relatively small and close to the edge by comparison, yet still attracts a substantial transit share. This hints at the possibility that even suburban locations, if they are developed to a sufficient size and density, can become major transit attractors.

Increased densities at the work end of the trip, by making improved transit service frequency more viable, could also help to increase nonauto access to retail and other nonwork opportunities. While higher density residential development can also have an impact, the effect is much larger when the increased density occurs in or around high-density commercial areas, both because more trips will be made to these high-transit attractors and because these areas support relatively good transit service going out as well as coming in. Increased commercial densities, especially in the suburbs, may be the only tool available for inducing significant transit use from the vast suburban areas of most cities that are already developed at low densities, and which will probably stay that way forever.

CEI: Magic Numbers From a Magic Computer

This is directly related to a number of previous posts that I've had about the dumb cost-effectiveness measurement that the FTA uses. Apparently now we're calling an important investment based on a magic number now. How did they choose that magic number? Well it has to do with ridership and travel times and cost of the project. You're not allowed to use transit oriented growth, just what the MPO predicts for the district surrounding the station from an outdated 2000 census. Economic development isn't included which produces value for the region, the FTA will say that travel time includes this measure and they say that with serious faces. Don't expect to count VMT reductions because thats just not possible either. Cities starting out don't get to use a rail bias which we know exists. The Pioneer Press Reports:

In its simplest form, the CEI is a basic ratio: capital and operating costs divided by time saved. "Another way to say it might be 'cost per user benefit,' " said Arlene McCarthy, head planner for the Metropolitan Council, the lead agency heading up the Central Corridor effort.

...

The computer programs that calculate the CEI draw on transportation data from the census, honed down to areas the size of a few city blocks. The programs look at the entire region and attempt to project what commuters would do differently if the rail were built this way or that way.

There's even a sub-variable in that portion known as "rail bias," which states that some people never take buses but will give up their cars to take a train. It's real, planners say. No one knew the metro area's rail bias before the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis was built, and they say that's one of the reasons that Hiawatha's ridership today is 58 percent higher than projected before construction.

Cost per user benefit. Not benefits that the project brings to everyone, just the user. That one person. I wonder what would happen if they applied this index to highways.

In any event, here the article about that ridiculous index that has kept many a city from building a transit line. It might not let Minneapolis build the Central Corridor, because they want to build a tunnel to bypass the heavy foot traffic at the University and make a future connection to a major train hub. Apparently its one or the other, even though it would be cheaper to do it now rather than later. Did they consider that? The Hiawatha Line which is way over ridership did not pass the test, yet look at it now. Guess how it passed? Land Use considerations. But those don't matter as much anymore. It's all this index. Yes, I'm still bitter about Columbus Ohio. I highly suggest the read.

Home Values and Commuting Costs

There is an interesting article in the Pioneer Press about costs and tradeoffs of transportation and housing. I suggest the read.

Location, location, location. Johan von Thunen did not coin that adage on what determines real estate values. But von Thunen's explanations of the relationships between location, transport costs and product prices remain relevant 180 years after he wrote them.

They help explain, for example, why development reportedly is stalling in some distant Twin Cities suburbs while home values in some St. Paul and Minneapolis neighborhoods are holding steady. Not bad for an old German farmer.

...

Von Thunen also examined how a cheap transportation corridor affects property values. Suppose there is a canal or placid stream. One can load tons of rye onto a barge and move it to market much cheaper than with a wagon. Land prices are higher along the watercourse than elsewhere because produce transport costs are lower.

Ditto for the Twin Cities right now. Property prices have increased along the Hiawatha light rail line. More people want to live where getting to work is relatively cheap and convenient. In response to rising rental demand along the line, developers build apartments and condos. Neighborhood retail businesses spring up to serve the new residents.

The Central Corridor light-rail line is seeing similar activity, even though construction has not yet started. Developers are turning old commercial buildings into condos even though the buyers will have to depend on the No. 16 bus instead of snazzy light rail trains for years yet.

And yes, the same is true for communities along the planned Northstar commuter rail line. There is increased interest in buying property near planned stations.

Von Thunen predicted it all. The only difference is that commuters have replaced rye and the real estate is houses and apartments rather than sandy north German fields, woodlots and pastures.

More News from the TSR

A fight is brewing in the Minnesota Legislature over Capital Transit Funding. This is the kind of spirit i like to see and it seems as if there is bipartisan support for one of the options that have been thrown on the table. According to today's Minneapolis Star Tribune -

"Included are proposals to increase the state's 20-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax by 10 cents, boost registration fees on new vehicles and authorize counties to impose a half-cent sales tax increase for transportation purposes, plus $20-per-vehicle sales taxes and annual wheelage taxes, in some cases subject to voter approval."

While the governor still opposes this, i think its a fight worth playing out. It will show if legislators in the state are really serious about funding future transit expansion sooner including the southwest corridor, the downtown streetcar and several commuter rail and BRT lines.

Twin Cities Want In the TSR

The Twin Cities was well known for it's street railways but not always for the best reasons. So it comes as no surprise that the only other metro region to have a regional government besides Portland would want to put together a light rail system. The most recent light rail success story in the United States turns out to be Minneapolis' Hiawatha Line. So successful is the line, that is has already surpassed it's projections for the year 2020 by 6,000+ riders a day. That's astonishing and it gets better.

This one success spurred the legislature to create a dedicated funding source for operating revenue for Metro Transit. Previously they were allocating funding every year, moving with the whim of the political winds. Now that they have an operating funding source, they need a capital funding source to match with Federal New Starts money for expansion projects.

Today Hennepin County realized as did all the other counties that this was necessary to build a real transit network. While the governor opposes the sales tax, he's going to have to get onto the idea quickly. The region can't afford to be left behind in the TSR. It's doing well so far and has a bit of a head start over places like Phoenix, Seattle and Charlotte but it's going to take more than the Hiawatha line to attracts jobs and the creative class.

Even if the governor doesn't agree, the mayor has been looking at a streetcar network.