St. Exxon and the Church of the Unleaded

Apparently this church exists in Arlington Virginia.

H/T GGW

On Systems Efficiency

The discussion of sustainability in buildings and urban places in this country is much too basic. As we keep building more sprawl, the gains in energy efficiency in buildings as well as transportation energy expenditures get worse because of increases in VMT and increases in energy use due to total buildings. This is another issue that is totally missing from discussions higher up (The Livable Community Blogosphere has been talking about this for ever). Here is what Obama mentioned in the stimulus package talk this morning:

First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.

Yes it will put people to work and is needed, but long term we need to think bigger. My point is one made by Beyond DC very eloquently when talking about the LEED architecture program which designates green buildings:

LEED architecture without good urban design is like cutting down the rainforest using hybrid-powered bulldozers - it just sort of misses the point.

But there is a whole other level to what we talk about. I think the more holistic approach to sustainability pushed by firms like Mithun is a way to go and when coupled the themes of urbanism and sustainable transport. This would lead to wholesale change in terms of energy efficiency which is a major part of sustainability. Here's a bit from Mithun's sustainable urban design plan for the Lloyd District in Portland.

The Sustainable Design Plan, in contrast, rests on a functional concept of “Pre-development Metrics” developed by the team. These measures embody a theoretical baseline representing the ecological profile of the site before there was a human presence on it. This framework was then used to create a plan that would be even more ambitious than the “beyond-platinum” goals specified in the RFP.

In effect, the remarkable notion at the heart of the plan is that intense urban redevelopment can be used to reverse existing environmental impacts, and return many of the ecological qualities of the site to those of a 54-acre, mature, mixed-conifer forest. Wildlife habitat, water and usage quality, and energy consumption are three areas where the plan establishes specific performance goals.

In terms of habitat, the pre-development metric was 90 percent tree cover, supporting a diverse range of species. In comparison, the plan attempts to reestablish 25-30 percent tree cover—an “abstraction” of a mixed-conifer forest, involving native “forest patches,” green streets, rooftop gardens, and habitat corridors. Meanwhile, provisions are also proposed for off-site habitat restoration.

Update 10:00 pm PT: continued quote left out earlier...

In terms of water, the plan estimates the study area receives 64 million gallons of rainwater a year, and it proposes treating much of this runoff on-site. It also proposes reducing potable water consumption by 62 percent, and providing on-site sources for 100 percent of nonpotable water demand through rainwater harvesting and wastewater reuse. Energy metrics involve a number of concerns. According to the plan, the neighborhood receives 161 million kilowatt hours per year of solar energy. The plan aims to exceed the level of utilization of this energy that would be typical of a mature forest.

Among the plan’s other goals are to reduce on-site carbon dioxide emissions to predevelopment levels and create an overall carbon-neutral strategy. Since the construction industry consumes 40 percent of the global economy’s raw materials, the latter would involve giving preference to materials that employ renewable resources, that are from within 300 to 500 miles of the site, have low embodied energy, and that receive a positive Life Cycle Assessment.

Now I know this is a bit too heady for basic stimulus issues and needs to be developed further, but this is the type of thing that will lead to true sustainability. If we put our brightest minds to work to figure out how to implement strategies like those mentioned by Mithun above, we'll be a whole lot better off. We need to stop looking at things in silos and start looking more at systems in transportation, land use, habitat, and water systems.

Perhaps I Have Had Too Much Hope

This language is not change we can believe in. I can't keep giving the benefit of the doubt with language like this alone from Obama:

ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

No wonder we're so far behind the rest of the world. If your smart leaders don't understand and articulate the real problems, then how are we supposed to fix them? Commenters on liberal blogs such as Daily Kos this morning echoed my thoughts:

Roads and bridges, roads and bridges, roads and bridges...as if that's all we need and everything will be alright. Yes, I know Obama has mentioned rail and I hear it more frequently now, but how about saying "rail, transit, roads and bridges" for once?

And on America Blog:

Rehabbing the infrastructure and the highway system is an excellent idea. I would like to see nation-wide pubic transportation on that list as well but . . . somehow, sensible bus and train and even plane connections are beyond us.

In fact there was a sentiment throughout the whole comment thread of this post that there has been little mention of transit. I didn't even see any mention of bike or pedestrian improvements which is a part of this as well. Yes I understand this is for immediate job creation, but there is a lot more that can be done if transit agencies would get their act together and ask for it, prove they need those funds. They are always complaining about being underfunded, I know there is a case to be made. It seems like politicians are afraid but like others have said, its a time to be bold. These are not times for the timid.

Jan Gehl's Firm Critiques Viaduct Options

That's kind of a big deal. Jan Gehl can be credited with turning both Copenhagen and Melbourne into livable places based on his thinking about streets for people. He has also been highly influencial in New York recently. I was a little disappointed in some of the ideas that came out of the surface viaduct vision. It seemed like all this open space for nothing. People wouldn't really use it because it wasn't scaled correctly. And Matt and others called it as well.

So what's the solution to this "too wide" problem? Dan Bertolet suggests a new line of buildings on the east side of the plaza, which I think is a good idea.

What would be great is a new line of buildings, perhaps a true boulevard that creates streetscapes for diners, and restaurants and general activity that isn't only tourists. All of this instead of crazy huge open plazas. That and allowing buildings could create value for the space and creating transit and bikeways will encourage alternative transport. Don't need another huge open space.

Just Like Light Rail, Only Cheaper?

Not so much. $60 Million a mile. This is based on ripping up track and laying down a new road and running buses on it. But here's some quotes from Hartford, which has been planning this project forever and where some people are having second thoughts.

Legislators have begun to wonder, not irrationally, if a rail connection might be the better alternative.
...
When well-executed, bus rapid transit isn't much different from light rail. It is a transit vehicle — an articulated bus — running on a fixed path, a roadway instead of rails.
...
The advantage of rail is that it feels more permanent. But good busways also feel like they'll be there for a long time.

Ughh. You mean isn't much different since light rail is transit too? I agree with Richard.

I think it's fine to explore BRT, but at the same time, let's not argue that it can do the job as well as fixed-rail transit.

Let's get real and stop trying to think that these buses act like trains. There is a reason we don't call buses trains. Just because you have an articulation doesn't mean you can couple. Anyway, we shouldn't have to keep repeating how rail is better than bus on the necessary rail corridors. It's annoying this even has to be discussed anymore.

A Change of Direction for Texas?

I was disheartened by the lack of urgency from Lawmakers in Austin though I guess it is to be expected in Texas. The Dallas-Fort Worth area has been working on this commuter rail plan for a number of years and it seems as if there is a local leadership consensus on the matter. But lawmakers seem like they are already calling it dead.

State representatives from the western side of the Metroplex lined up Wednesday in support of Rail North Texas — a proposal to create new taxes, with voter approval, and build a regionwide web of commuter trains.

But the lawmakers warned elected leaders from Tarrant, Johnson and Denton counties that their chance of success in the legislative session that begins in January is a long shot at best. Attempts to win approval for commuter rail failed in 2005 and 2007.

But this morning there was some other interesting news. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is looking to run up against Rick Perry for Governor in 2010. If she won, this would be a shift in transportation policy from the Trans Texas Corridor of clear cutting to perhaps a more balanced approach that could be friendly to rail. I'm not sure where KBH stands on livable community stuff like biking and walking (though she was a mindless supporter of drill baby drill), but her support for rail would bode well for the Texas High Speed Rail project (she's written bills before with Joe Biden) and local light rail lines. She's worked hard to get funding for DART and even helped Houston some when Tom Delay and John Culbertson snubbed their nose at Houston's future.

We'll see what happens, but past work on behalf of transit on the hill has been fairly good, and amazing if you compare her to the current Mr. 39% (Rick Perry, not GWB).

Filing the Paperwork

Perhaps its release season for the FTA. Getting close to Christmas so lets approve some stuff. Yesterday it was the Central Subway environmental work and today its the Dulles extension. Looks like Ma Peters just couldn't shoot it down fast enough. I do agree with Richard though. I don't know if they are going to be able to sustain the ridership through the tube with the Orange line. It seems like it creates some serious capacity problems. Greater Greater Washington has some better ideas.

$1.8 Billion

That's how much the development along the Charlotte light rail line adds up to. No small, change, that's over 250% return on the initial investment of just under $500 million. That's just on the development and doesn't include these savings:

Morgan said new mixed-use transit-oriented development has sprung up along the line. There’s numerous anecdotes about lifestyle changes, he said, including downtown workers living in condos or apartments near rail stations who have sold their cars and avoided insurance, gas and other costs while getting transit subsidies from their employers.

Shaking in Policy Boots

The opposition is getting worried and you can tell when their rhetoric starts to sound like this:

At the same time, many environmental groups, labor unions, consultants, and construction companies are urging the federal government to redirect federal transportation policy toward 19th century transportation options by shifting federal resources from highways and autos to transit and trains, as well as hiking and biking, in the belief that these latter modes--while slower and more costly--are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. With an opportunity to receive greater subsidies, the transit and train lobbies have moved aggressively to influence Congress and the media, and many in Congress are already promising to push for these changes.

In other words, watch out for BIG RAIL and SUPERTRAINS! Turns out, Obama doesn't listen to these dudes. We're looking at transit stimulus rather than Iran War Games at Heritage. The rest of the Heritage article is the usual shpiel about ridership share and all the other BS you come to expect from the sprawlistas.

This brings up another issue that Yglesias talked about today as well. With the auto industry, these guys (Cox and Utt) have been pushing hard in parrallel with the auto industry for standards that deny many people a lifestyle they would like to have and independence from an expensive habit.

The auto industry has provided a decent living to a large number of Americans for many decades. But it’s also been a very pernicious force on our public policy. If car companies expect progressives to deliver them a financial rescue, then it only seems fair to me that progressives will want the companies to stop blocking key elements of the progressive political agenda. That means dropping lawsuits like the one aimed at forcing California to lower its fuel efficiency standards, it means stopping involvement in whatever anti-green climate change front groups these firms are involved with, it means seeing members of congress from Michigan and other rust belt areas offering assurances to colleagues that they won’t stand in the way of serious climate legislation, etc.
...
These firms will be okay. Giving federal subsidies that are then used to lobby for pro-pollution public policy is not okay.

If only we could stop junk planning theory as well.

Go Walking!

From TCSP