An Engineering Professor Should Know Better

The Hawaii Reporter will print anything. I mean ANYTHING. Case in point, the intellectual dishonesty of Panos Prevadoros, who is a civil engineer and transportation professor running for Mayor of Honolulu. I can't believe someone who has a PhD in this stuff would even make comments like this.

First, he parrots the anti-transit talking point of the week about energy efficiency. We covered this earlier but Mr. Setty covers it again. My first thought was some poor sap fell for a line, but then I've been seeing it over and over again. People are actually falling for it, pushing numbers out of context. He also makes the claim that trains aren't that efficient compared to electric cars. Well how about trains that can be improved as well? Lighter, more energy efficient. Technological advances aren't just reserved for cars people.

Second he takes a number about one train and expands it purposefully, hoping his readers won't question him on it. Again I expect better from a professor of transportation.

... each train can carry 300 people, and during the peak times, there is expected to be one train every 3 minutes, for a total of 6,000 people per hour on the peak direction... Managed freeway lanes, such as HOT lanes, are designed to carry 2000 vehicles per hour per lane at free flow speeds, and since they carry express busses and high occupancy vehicles, the average occupancy would be well over 3 people per vehicle, for a total of 6,000 people per hour per lane.

This is intellectually dishonest because trains are well...trains. They are three to four of those vehicles coupled together. That blows his numbers all out of wack doesn't it? So instead of 6,000 people, it's more like 24,000 with four car trains.

Finally he states that BRT is more convenient than the rail line and states that people would have to make two transfers. One from their house to the line, then another when they get off the line. I find it hard to believe that if the feeder bus to rail line doesn't go to where their express bus goes now, then their express bus doesn't go to where they want to go now. If the rail line comes every 3 minutes, hits major destinations, and is much faster than crawling traffic I don't really see what the problem is. Especially in a very dense place like Honolulu.

He then talks up how the FTA loves BRT. Of course they like BRT! The Bushies hate spending money on transit. He also points to a BRT study that further muddies the definition of BRT. Who knows what BRT means anymore. All I know is that you can run cars on that lane of concrete, which is what he wants to do anyways with his HOT Lane BRT idea.

This doesn't fly, and I'm really annoyed at the capacity lie. The opposition is getting scared, and starting to grasp at straws. And to top it off, Panos recommended light rail for the subway corridor in Los Angeles.

A less expensive option would be light rail at $100 million a mile - an option Prevedouros supports...James Moore, director of the transportation engineering program at USC, is pushing for a busway because they are cheaper to build. Plus, buses can hold more passengers than rail cars.

What?! What is wrong with these engineers? Where is Vukan Vuchic when you need him?

One Tank or Bust

Jeff at Urban Infill did the Cota Challenge. Now these types of things are becomming commonplace. Danni Brancaccio has started a blog and even been interviewed by Fox News about her One Tank or Bust summer. I think its great that people are starting to get into the transit oriented lifestyle. There is one thing though I think transit planners and others should remember though. You shouldn't have to be a hero to take transit. It should be convenient and user friendly.

Istook Is Right

Arcady and the Cap'n pointed out a comment Istook made in that crazy article yesterday.

Forcing people to use a particular mode of travel is not the American way.

Arcady said: "Damn right! Stop forcing me to drive!"

Agreed.

Option of Urbanism: Metro Brings Fundamental Change

This is something we already knew, but it blows back in the face of all those folks who say cities in the United States don't have the density to support transit. In fact, if the land is available to support future density, transit should be an infrastructure given.

Since construction began in the 1970's the Metro system has fundamentally changed how the metropolitan area works... Twenty years ago, there were two regional-serving walkable urban places in the region-Georgetown and Old Town, Alexandria Virginia-both relying on tourism, based upon the historic fabric of these 18th century towns. By the mid-2000s, there were 17 regional serving walkable-urban places in the DC area, and five more are emerging. Of these 17, 16 are built around Metro stations and one without Metro service (Reston Town Center) will get a station by 2012.

This is something that is much overlooked by opponents and people that don't get why transit is important. Sure the Metro takes about 800,000 rides a day, but how many trips by car do those 17 centers bypass? The 800,000 rides is a measure of the transit, but what the cost-effectiveness measure and the FTA misses is the ability of these districts to reduce auto-trips. I wish that DC would do a travel survey that showed the difference between mixed use and good transit versus auto dependence like Portland did in 1994. The investment is paying off.

Inventor of Hotmail Wants to Sim City, Use BRT

I hope he leaves some lanes open for subways and overhead wires.

But his latest project is one that comes from the heart: He is trying to develop an Indian version of Silicon Valley, a sustainable city spread over 11,000 acres in northern India that he envisions will be home to 1 million residents employed largely by world-class universities and A-list companies that act as the country's idea generators. He calls it Nano City. One problem: Until recently, Bhatia knew nothing about developing cities.

Knowing nothing doesn't really matter so much when you have experts that can help. You guys know I'm biased, BRT wouldn't cut it in my city.

MIT Students Hack Boston Charlie Cards

The Facebook generation makes hacking transit look easy. From the Subway Blogger:

Apparently, some students at MIT made it a class project to hack the Boston subway system (aka the T). As a matter of fact, the title of the project is: “The Anatomy of a Subway Hack: Breaking Crypto RFIDs & Magstripes of Ticketing Systems.”

Now, the students are computer security majors, so you can see the fit. They planned to give their 80+ slide presentation at Defcon, a very large security conference. However, the MTBA sued to have the presentation stopped. A judge ordered a temporary restraining order keeping the presentation quiet.

It's my understanding that Defcon doesn't have a lot of leaks. I'm not really sure what Boston is worried about. If these kids can do it, certainly anyone can if they have the appropriate skills.

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?

The Benefits of Electric Transit

After a few posts where people have been wondering about the benefits of electrification, I thought it might be useful to post on here the reasons why electrification is not just an energy argument, but rather an efficiency and operations benefit.

1. Point Source Pollution

It has been revealed in the last few years that higher rates of respiratory ailments including asthma occur near freeways, especially places like the Port of Oakland where diesel trucks and ships move in and out near the West Oakland neighborhood. In terms of transit, these emissions occur along a complete corridor. With electric propulsion, it occurs at one source, the power plant. This point source pollution is the issue and in the next 30 years of any project, we have to assume that alternative energy sources will come on line (if they haven't already, San Francisco for example gets electricity from hydro, Calgary is 100% wind) or better scrubbing technology will be available on coal and natural gas plants.

2. Operations Efficiency/Accelerations

Electric drive transit also has faster acceleration and stopping. According to TCRP report 59, 50% of energy for buses specifically is used for acceleration. Hybrid electric buses are able to capture 25% total through regenerative breaking. This type of system is available for rail systems as well, recently being introduced in Sacramento.

Electric motors also create more torque for faster acceleration. For example, the DART Kinky Sharyo LRV accelerates at 3 miles per hour per second(mphps). The Colorado railcar DMU accelerates at 1.44 mphps (1.6 according to Caltrain specs). Buses typically get around 1.5 mphps.

Caltrain has put together a matrix of all the specs for cars they are looking at for the future. DMU is 1.6 mphps, EMU is 2.0-2.5 mphps, the savings by using EMUs over a 15 stop run estimated for Caltrain is 10 minutes every run. That is a big time difference that would allow for more runs every hour. If the run takes about an hour. That means they can have 1o minute headways with 6 vehicles. You would have to add another vehicle with another driver to get the same with diesel.

If you've ever been on a PCC, they have high torque and accelerated at one time at 4 mphps often tossing patrons to the ground. It was later revised to 3.5 mphps. This is at the expense of top speed, but since they stop more often its not as necessary.

Another benefit is the lighter cars used because of electric motors being lighter which reduces wear and tear on the track as well. The electric motors also have less moving parts meaning they last much longer. The official amortization period for rail vehicles is 24 while buses are 12. However there are still PCC cars still in operation and some rapid transit vehicles like BART are reaching their 40 year mark (they should really be replaced soon though).

3. Energy Conservation

Another issue is energy conservation. In addition to regenerative breaking, there is the power draw during stops and at the end of runs. Commenter NJH mentions that when passing Diridon Station, trains are always idling, wasting energy. Electric vehicles do not need to do this, especially at stops.

Electrification is not that expensive either. Even with copper costing more and more, NJH makes the calculation.

Regarding the price of copper, you have: 3.4$/lb*pi*(0.5cm)^2*mile*9g/((cm)^3)

Definition: 8526.9645 US$

So we're looking at $8.5k/mile for the conductor. Double it, add in connections and throw a bit out for waste. The copper is not going to be a big part of the cost (given that estimates are usually around $1M/mile).

I've heard about $1.5 million per mile is somewhat normal, which is small change when you think about the benefits as mentioned above.

The Option of Urbanism: Subsidizing the Rich

Here is another view of it from the Option of Urbanism. We've been taking quotes for the last week from the book.

According to Myron Orfield's Metropolitics, the affluent outer-ring suburbs in the favored quarter "dominate regional economic growth and garner a disproportionate share of the region's new roads and other development infrastructure." Orfield also pointed out that much of the funding for this infrastructure is raised from the region as a whole. For example, all car-driving residents in the region pay gas taxes to partially support the building of highways, and taxpayers of the region as a whole pay the rest of the money through their income, property, and sales taxes.

So this happens for roads, but people yell and scream bloody murder when they are taxed for transit and "it doesn't help me directly". The worst part about this as well is that cities are slowly signing on to their own declines.

The unlikely consequence of this pattern of infrastructure development is that the whole region pays for infrastructure that tends to be placed in the favored quarter; the poor pay for the infrastructure of the rich. According to Orfield, the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, for example, pay $6 million a year to help move their middle class households and businesses to the edge of the region.

Part of the problem is the regional competition for jobs. Minneapolis has a tax base sharing program that might alleviate this a little, but most regions are not so lucky. And there is still exporting going on to places like Bloomington and Eden Prairie.

M1ek has discussed this before and James Rowen covered a similar issue for Milwaukee in talking about how much they give to the regional planning commission, and how little they get out of it. Perhaps this is something that needs to be put in mayor's and city council members faces. DC, for all its flaws has the right idea of trying to take care of its citizens instead of the folks who take advantage of their services during the day, but drive back out at night.

It's That Time: Olympics!

Oh man I've been waiting for a while for this. Friends of mine are competing so I'm going to be reporting on what they are doing. I should also note that the head track coach at the Olympics, Bubba Thornton, was one of my coaches in college. It was cool to see him on TV.

Exciting news tonight is that Lopez Lamong got to carry the American Flag. He, as I was, is a 1500 meter runner. I've met him before and he's a great guy. As one of the Lost Boys of Sudan, he was able to escape that country and come to America for a better life. Here's a video of Lopez talking about hardship. He does have a bit of a reputation for elbows, but we won't hold that against him.