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.

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.

Why Is the Orange Line BRT Called a Success?

I just don't understand how anyone in LA can think the Orange Line is a success. Yeah ridership is up to 26,000 but when they build the extension North of the Warner Center, is there going to be space on any of these buses?? And the idea of adding express buses to save 5 minutes is ridiculous considering they could have built rail, stopped at all the stops and saved 18 minutes.(48 minutes Orange Line. 30 minues Gold Line LRT. Both the same distance) Not only was this short sighted, he still thinks that it is "working". I know it was a complicated affair but they really kicked themselves in the teeth by building something that is already at capacity and doesn't run on electricity. Growth on this corridor will be crushing, and its going to cost more and more to operate as gas prices go up and they have to add more vehicles to address the demand, each one with a single driver.

Did You Know?

That neither SEPTA nor New Jersey Transit has a PDF of their complete system map anywhere on their websites. That's a good way to get new riders to transit, by making people find out which route they are on with single route maps like these. Brilliant, guys. Come on. Don't make people work so hard, it shouldn't be like that!

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 In the Water in Milwaukee?

Apparently something that draws conservative radio jockeys to that city like moths to a flame. Have you ever wondered about why a fairly dense city with good historic fabric has failed to do any fixed guideway transit planning and is slowly suffocating its bus system because the economy will be so good everyone will be driving cars?

Well Urban Milwaukee has the story and the lowdown on the local politics of transit. It might be similar to the situation in your city. Also if you're interested, check out James Rowen's Political Environment which covers a lot of transit, growth and development issues in the region as well. Great writing going on up there, just wish they could win a few political battles.

I Wish They Were All Like This

Man what a great find. Becks over at Living in the O has found the best bus stop mod ever. Check out the photos.

The Indian Electric

It's worth mentioning again Alan Drake's (and others) call for electrification of the freight railroads in the United States. Here's another area though where we are being beaten by other countries. This time its India.

Mumbai: In one of the largest deals of its kind, India will buy 660 electric railway engines worth an estimated €3.5 billion (about Rs23,835 crore).

...
The engines would be deployed on the dedicated rail freight corrridors India is building, besides hauling cargo on the common rail network. India’s 2,700km-long dedicated freight corridor project was conceived in 2005 as a way to ease traffic on some of the country’s busiest freight routes running through 12 states. The corridor will connect New Delhi in the north to Mumbai in the west and Kolkata in the east. These routes account for 60% of the freight transported by the railways, which had initially estimated the project to cost around Rs28,000 crore.

What would the benefits of electrification and a shift of freight to electric rail be? Well Alan says a 6.3% reduction in fuel usage in the United States. With more electric transit and biking incentives it could possibly be even better.

Replay: The Truth About Roads 6/1/07

An oldie but a good one. I had forgotten about this post but here it is again...

While folks like the Reason Foundation will ask for more roads, it seems to me that they are much more expensive than the transit solutions we are proposing and get to a worse end. Well here is the answer straight from the road kings at the Texas DOT...

The decision to build a road is a permanent commitment to the traveling public. Not only will a road be built, but it must also be routinely maintained and reconstructed when necessary, meaning no road is ever truly “paid for.” Until recently, when TxDOT built or expanded a road, no methodology existed to determine the extent to which this work would be paid off through revenues.

The Asset Value Index, was developed to compare the full 40-year life-cycle costs to the revenues attributable to a given road corridor or section. The shorthand version calculates how much gasoline is consumed on a roadway and how much gas tax revenue that generates.

The Asset Value Index is the ratio of the total expected revenues divided by the total expected costs. If the ratio is 0.60, the road will produce revenues to meet 60 percent of its costs; it would be “paid for” only if the ratio were 1.00, when the revenues met 100 percent of costs. Another way of describing this is to do a “tax gap” analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs.

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

Did you read that like I read that? $2.22 per gallon of subsidization for the road. And this isn't from some liberal think tank or a transit fanatic saying it, it's the organization that builds and collects taxes for them. And this is just the subsidy for the road, not the oil itself! So when simplistic folks from the Reason foundation propose building roads to relieve all congestion, you ask them who is going to be paying for that, or you shut them down with some good research on how much it will really cost versus your transit alternative. It seems to me that even more so now, rail looks even better than ever when it comes to cost effectiveness.

Thanks to Andrew for the link.

Fantasy Map Fever!

Why do I love fantasy transit network maps? Because unlike bus and automobile, it inspires people to think big and imagine. I think we could use some imagination these days. I've always believed it was good for you.

Charlotte

This map was created in 2005 and sent by reader J. I thought it was a really cool way to show an eventual network that benefits the whole city.

Sound Transit Maps via Orphan Road.

The Most Recent stuff from Transbay Blog.

Cincinnati maps you can buy on a shirt!

Brian G. adds Atlanta.

Anyone have any others?