No Chump Change

If only we could link land use and transit better here in the United States. In Hong Kong and other places, development is part of the transit plan. Vancouver is about to hire some real estate folks to take care of its property development strategy.

TransLink intends to appoint a committee of local real estate experts to advise it on how best to make money developing land along future rapid transit corridors.

It's the latest wrinkle in TransLink's strategy to amass a major real estate portfolio in partnership with local developers that officials hope would generate at least $30 million a year and possibly much more.

Sand Traps

In and around San Francisco, there are places where LRVs stop and you'll see lots of sand. For a while I wondered where it came from until I talked to some folks who told me that every LRV has a sandbox under the seats behind the wheels to gain traction going up hills and on rainy days. Today in the Rocky Mountain News. One of the LRT mechanics discussed the sandbox:

It's for traction, but it's pure, high-grade sand, not salt or chemicals, according to a reader who's a mechanic on light-rail cars. "When the propulsion system detects either sliding while braking or spinning while powering, sand is dropped to increase traction between the wheels and the rails," the reader wrote.

You can see the sand on the ground here in the photo below. It's the best one I could find. (Note to self, take better pictures of the little details)

Trips to See the Real Thing

Using taxpayer dollars during a crunch to travel to Europe aside, it's always a good idea to bring people who have never seen transit in action to places where it works. Many have not been to places that have a diversity of transit and seen how it actually works. Many times what is in your mind is not the same as what can actually happen. I've seen this happen a number of times where people change their minds because of these trips. Trips to Portland and Europe have turned people around, much like this:

Bountiful Mayor Joe Johnson said he was so smitten that he not only dropped his opposition to a streetcar line from Salt Lake City but now prefers it to TRAX.

I'm sure there is still a lot of education, but seeing is a step in the right direction.

Oh Come On! Viaduct Tunnel Back on Table

Apparently they just couldn't keep the tunnel option out of their minds. What a huge waste of money. We did it (surface only) here in San Francisco, though some would say it resulted in another tunnel that will be a waste of money in the Central Subway, but I'm thinking that would be much cheaper than what Seattle is planning. I guess no one learned anything from the last 50 years and decided that giving cars a through way is the answer to all ills.

Video Mashup

What if we took out congestion pricing and discussed transit in the IBM commercial below. Our friend and film maker Arthur Wilinski has done just that in an Overhead Wire exclusive!

Found It!!! IBM Congestion Pricing Commercial

I posted on this last Sunday when I saw the commercial. Glad IBM got around to posting it on youtube.

A Clean Urban Ring?

Planners are still stuck in the brown air past, planning the Boston Urban Ring project with regular diesel buses in part because of complains about visual pollution. Bill complains, as he should, that they get BRT tunnels shoved down their throats but aren't willing to fight for cleaner air and trolleybuses? That's bullshit. Transit agencies need to get with the program and the future and stop being wimps about pushing back on aesthetic issues that people will get over once in place. As I have said before. I'll take visual pollution over air pollution ANY day. Future lungs will thank us, you can always look away.

Tampa's Endowment Experiment

The Tampa Streetcar has an endowment for it's operations that picks up part of the tab. It was created when the line started and has been dwindling ever since. But much of that is because stocks have tanked.

In 2007, the endowment accounted for about 40 percent of the streetcar's $2 million annual operating budget. That still left the endowment at about $3.3 million.

But in the past year, the fund plummeted to $1.4 million, partly due to its contribution to operating expenses, but mostly because the endowment was invested in securities that took a beating on Wall Street.

If this idea was brough forth in the early 90's this line would be operating a surplus from its endowment but given what has happened it's getting crushed by market conditions and perhaps overly aggresive investment. As property values have increased along the line, I'm surprised a more proactive approach at capturing them and putting them into the operations as well. At some point the city will have to take over, but no one should call this line a failure when they do. With 1,200 riders a day on limited operating times and over $1 billion in development along the line, it has shown what can be done with a lot of vacant line and a streetcar.

Setting New Timelines

Yonah discusses issues related to the Columbus plans for a light rail line using the stimulus funding. I would note that it was partially because of the FTA's cost effectiveness index that this corridor project got killed. They gave Columbus a large CEI for both light rail and BRT projects. It just shows how they have always been looking at the wrong metrics and hold transit to a different standard than roads.

That brings us though to the issue of what that CEI has wrought in terms of projects moving forward around the country as well as thier timline.

One of the problems with the current thinking on transit and the "ready to go-ness" of them is that people think that the current speed at which transit projects get done is how it has always been. This is wrong and simply a function of how broken the funding system has become. Obviously it shouldn't have taken Charlotte 10 years to build their first rail line but it was trying to get through the federal funding program that took so long. This gives lawmakers a poor idea of how actually long it will take.

We need to push back hard on assumptions that the lines can not be started within a three month or even a year period after the stimulus money is let. That assumes also we don't get rolled by state DOTs (aka highway departments) which is another outrage entirely. There should be some sort of experementation with design build in these transit projects, especially since many of them will be street running, even with thier own ROW. It's not as if engineers will not be in need of funding for thier businesses either. This recession is hitting everyone, not just construction workers.

But we can see how fast things can go when they are planned from Portland and Seattle. Portland announced the alignment in 1997 and the line was open in 2001. In Seattle, it took 5 years from thought to operations. This is half the time it took Charlotte to open and possibly shows that if you have an alignment and the funding, it can be designed and moved forward in short order. In the next few years we'll have a few more examples with Salt Lake moving so fast on thier lines, hopefully a few more because of the stimulus.

OTA Flashback: 1974 Sprawl Report

Thought this report was a bit interesting. It's buried deep in the weeds here but I was flipping through and found it on page 43. From the US Government Printing Office:

Several conclusions and findings are made in this report. The high density planned community consumed 40% less energy than the low density sprawl pattern. In annual terms this means 400 million BTU per dwelling unit in the low density sprawl pattern compared to about 210 million BTU per dwelling unit in the high density planned pattern. The high density planned community cost per residential unit was $21,000 compared to $49,000 per unit in low density sprawl pattern. This is for all community costs prorated.

Water and air pollution are substantially less and water consumption less in the higher density pattern. With 52% less travel time required in the snore(similar?) densely planned community, less accidents and other psychic benefits are described. Gas and electricity use ‘is a function of housing type and structural characteristics: no variation among planned and sprawl communities with the same housing mix is shown." But, ‘significant variation in consumption of gasoline occurs as a result of the differences among community types.. . ." The report concludes that significant energy savings can be attained through greater use of mass transit.

We never learn do we.