Holy Conversation Change Batman: Walkscore

The walkscore widget flew through the transit and planning blogosphere in about July of last year. There's even an evil twin called drive score which Transit Miami covered in January. Now that gas prices are high, its getting some attention in the larger progressive blogosphere. This might show a tipping point in the transit and planning discussion whereas it becomes more a part of people's consciousness. It's on Barack Obama's mind at least.

Atrios
Yglesias
Kos

Oh, and my score is 92. I'm not sure what else I need to get 100, but there is no bonus for transit. Since BART is a half mile walk and the J-Church streetcar is half a block away I think I might have a higher score.

Giving Transit Expansion to Those Who Plan For It

There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen a few days ago that I didn't get to write up until now. Well Public Transit in Ottawa covered it and Peter discusses the plan to not give neighborhoods new transit unless they agree to more density rules. Seems fair to me, given taxpayers are funding service, they should get the most for their money and a mode that reflects the corridor needs.

One day after the city's transit committee agreed to support the much-discussed Transit Option Four, they added a special note for any suburban constituents or councillors hoping for expansion of the light rail tracks outside the Greenbelt: you'll have to prove that it's a worthy investment by demonstrating greater demand and higher population density.

The only place in the United States I can think of that has this type of rule is the Bay Area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The MTC is the local MPO and they have set up a system that mandates certain densities for cities to get funding for new transit expansion. And cities take it seriously. A Contra Costa Times article yesterday discusses transit officials in Antioch that are worried they won't make their intensity benchmark if they leave the station in the place for which its planned.

The median location near Hillcrest Avenue would constrain transit-oriented development because of the existing PG&E property, thus making it difficult to reach a Metropolitan Transportation Commission mandate for residential units within a half mile radius of a station, city planning officials said.

I wish more MPOs were as progressive as the MTC. Most of them are just highway money distributors. Here is their policy summed up:

Each transit extension project funded in Resolution 3434 must plan for a minimum number of housing units along the corridor. These corridor-level thresholds vary by mode of transit, with more capital-intensive modes requiring higher numbers of housing units.

Now that residential units are down, there needs to be a jobs policy, because as we noted in a post on jobs, its great to have residential density, but unless it connects to where you want to go, it doesn't really help much.

Betting on the Wrong Horse

Switchback is a great Boston transit blog. A recent post discusses how the MBTA bet on the wrong mode with gas prices on the rise. Some of the line is run on electricity with dual mode buses, but much of it is diesel buses.

The city bet on the wrong horse, or rather, bet on the wrong bus. Within the past ten years the T has sacrificed the A line tracks and half of the E, while pushing for a “bus rapid transit” system where residents demanded light rail. A light rail network that would ultimately cost less in infrastructure than the BRT network. All of this has been prompted by a fierce anti-rail ideology at work in both the MBTA and mayor’s office.

The anti-rail, pro-bus, pro-car agenda ignores basic logic and economics. Trains hold more people, run at faster speeds through tunnels, and offer comfortable, single-seat rides to anywhere in the urban core of Boston. They do this in vehicles which can operate for forty years as opposed to the ten to twelve of their rubber-wheeled counterparts. And they’re cheaper to run.

Personally I think building a subway for buses is insane especially when you have to destroy two perfectly good light rail tunnels to do it. You can't go as fast with drivers in the tunnels and you still get that awful bouncy jerkey bus ride and low capacity vehicles. Boston will increase its budget deficit operating these schemes. Perhaps the rise in oil will change some minds. It's not too late.

GDP and Transit

I just wrote a note on Diamajin's post on infrastructure underspending over at STB.

The article he quoted discusses spending on GDP:

...in 1960, the U.S. spent 12 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure and now spends 2.4 percent. Japan spends 10 percent, China 9 percent and India 4.6 percent...

I keep wanting to put the GDP thing into perspective. So lets say we spend 10% of GDP on Transportation. Let's say 20% of that goes to transit. Where would that leave us? $262 Billion based on $13.13 Trillion GDP(2006). Now APTA says that we spent $42 Billion in 2005 on capital and operations. That is a big difference! 523% increase.

Which when held against the $3.4 billion per year that will be promised in the climate bill for transit spending makes it look sad and small. I'm glad we're starting to turn the ship around when it comes to the transportation conversation in this country. But right now it feels like we're trying to reverse earth's orbital rotation.

Chicks Dig Low Carbon Footprints

So Wired has a story on how females are more willing to start conversation if you own a hybrid. I wonder if it goes one step further and you get even more attention if you promote transit. I'm not holding my breath.

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.

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.

Bill Language Up for Boxer Amendment

The bill language in full can be found here. Specifically on the transit front, here is the language with links to the corresponding laws. Now I know this is a bit hard to get through but I'll try and translate and commentate in the next post up. So if you don't want to read lawyer speak, go up one post.

(f) GRANTS TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL AND IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds deposited into the Transportation Sector Emission Reduction Fund each year pursuant to subsection (d), 65 percent shall be distributed to designated recipients as defined in section 5307 of Title 49, United States Code, to maintain or improve public transportation through activities eligible under that section.
(2) DISTRIBUTION.—Of the funds made available under paragraph (1)—
(A) 60 percent shall be distributed according to the formula in subsections (a) through (c) of section 5336 of Title 49, United States Code; and
(B) 40 percent shall be distributed according to the formula in section 5340 of Title 49, United States
Code.
(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Any grant provided under this section shall be subject to the terms and conditions applicable to a grant made under section 5307 of Title 49, United States Code.
(4) COST SHARE.—The Federal government’s share of costs shall be as specified in section 5307(e) of Title 49, United States Code.

(g) GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds deposited into the Transportation Sector Emission Reduction Fund each year pursuant to subsection (d), 30 percent shall be distributed to State and local governmental authorities for design, engineering, and construction of new fixed guideway transit projects or extensions to existing fixed guideway transit systems.
(2) APPLICATIONS.—Applications for grants under this subsection shall be reviewed according to the process and criteria established in section 5309(d) of Title 49, United States Code, for major capital investments and section 5309(e) of Title 49, United states Code for other projects.
(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Grant funds awarded under this subsection shall be subject to the terms and conditions applicable to a grant made under section 5309 of Title 49, United States Code.

(h) GRANTS FOR EFFICIENCY AT PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES, TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, AND
TRAVEL DEMAND REDUCTION PROJECTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.— Of the funds deposited into the Transportation Sector Emission Reduction Fund each year pursuant to subsection (d), 5 percent shall be awarded to State and local governmental authorities as defined in section 5307 of Title 49, United States Code, to assist in reducing the direct and indirect greenhouse‐gas emissions of their systems, through—
(A) programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled;
(B) bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including trail networks integrated with transportation plans or bicycle mode‐share targets; and
(C) programs to establish or expand telecommuting or carpool projects that do not include new roadway capacity.
(2) ELIGIBLE USES OF FUNDS.—A recipient of funds under paragraph (1) shall use the funds for—
(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.
(3) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—In determining the recipients of grants under this subsection,
applications shall be evaluated based on the total direct and indirect greenhouse‐gas emissions
reductions that are projected to result from the project and projected reductions as a percentage of the entity’s total direct and indirect emissions.
(4) GOVERNMENT SHARE OF COSTS.—The Federal government’s share of the cost of an activity funded using amounts made available under this subsection may not exceed 80 percent of the cost of the activity.
(i) CONDITION FOR RECEIPT OF FUNDS.—To be eligible to receive funds under this section, projects or activities must be part of an integrated State‐wide transportation plan that shall‐‐
(1) include all modes of surface transportation;
(2) integrate transportation data collection, monitoring, planning, and modeling;
(3) report on estimated greenhouse‐gas emissions;
(4) be designed to reduce greenhouse‐gas emissions from the transportation sector; and
(5) be certified by the Administrator as consistent with the purposes of this Act.

LA Streetcar Workshop

Tomorrow is the LA Streetcar Workshop put on by Reconnecting America and the Seaside Institute. If you're in LA go and check it out. My colleagues Gloria Ohland and Natasha Daggs have been working really hard to put together a good program so if you get a chance say hi.

On a side note about Streetcars in LA, I was talking to my grandmother tonight and we started talking about LA. She lived there in the 20's from when she was 7 to about 17. Her grandmother lived on Pico and she said she and her siblings used to take safety pins and cross them to put on the tracks of the passing streetcar line. When they were run over, they would come out looking like scissors. Funny stuff kids do.

Gas Tax Losers

Wanna see if your region gets the short end of the stick? Check out Gas Tax Losers.

A few examples: for every gas tax dollar to the feds

Austin gets 76 cents
SF gets $1.44
LA gets 87 cents
Columbus OH 66 cents

It seems like if you have a transit system, you get real money back.