Saturday, April 11, 2009

Eliminate Public Transportation

John Hodgman (aka PC) is brilliant.

"Eliminate Public Transportation. The industry is ready to commit to this relationship, but not until fickle Americans stop catting around with Amtrak and light rail"

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
You're Welcome - Auto Industry
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisPolitical Humor


H/T Hub and Spokes

Pre Easter Linkfest

Here's a few links from the wide world of transit:

In Denver, the Daily Camera posed a question about the possible Fastrax expansion tax hike to fill the funding gap for all the lines. There were a few interesting nuggets in some ranting. Most of all though, they aren't really seeing the one possible solution to this mess, shifting money from roads to transit. Here's one from an anti growth guy who doesn't quite get that growth happens whether you like it or not, but he makes an interesting point about paying for your impact.
The fundamental reason we need more transit and more roads is growth. And the fundamental reason that taxes keep going up and service levels keep going down is the failure of the majority of the Legislature to impose impact fees on new development to pay for growth-related infrastructure. Why don't they impose such fees? It's simple - these fees cut into the profits of developers and land speculators, and they are big contributors. In this pro-development political environment, transit doesn't solve problems; it just encourages more development but in different places.
The commenters also leave much to be desired. This is one reason why we need to stand up to the likes of O'Toole, because his crap gets distributed through article comments like this.
~~~
Could inadequate transit cost Tampa?
~~~
California State cuts to transit are killing local agencies. It makes them look for more funding and look like the bad guys in all of this. Adequate blame should be announced in some way or another.
~~~
No more stepping into the street for a streetcar in Toronto.
~~~
Trains jammed for Arizona Diamondback games. Also, it seems to me that because sports fans are going to be perpetually confused about transit TVMs, why not just allow tickets to be POP.
Metro estimated that 5,000 to 6,000 fans used the trains for their trip to and from Chase Field on Monday. The process repeated itself, but in smaller numbers, Tuesday and Wednesday.
~~~
A two station solution for the transbay terminal CAHSR issue?
~~~
More cuts, Boston.
~~~
Hippocrite, thy name is Tim Pawlenty. Remember when he vetoed funding for expanding Twin Cities transit? Now it's all cool when Joe Biden sez.

Upgrades, No New Transit for Chicago Olympics

So says the bid book for the 2016 Olympics bid:
Chicago’s consolidated and compact venue plan places 21 sports, the Olympic Village and the IBC/MPC along Lake Shore Drive, a magnificent thoroughfare on the shores of Lake Michigan. An additional 4 sports will take place within the Olympic Ring. Venues have been proposed near existing public-transit lines and high capacity roadways, maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and eliminating the need for any new lines or roads. Thorough pedestrian and vehicle flow modeling will ensure the safe, efficient movement of all constituent groups.
In addition, the plan is to have a two tiered dedicated road lane system for moving people around and increase headways of existing transit.
Olympic Lanes will connect venues and provide freeflowing, safe transport for Olympic Family vehicles and spectator shuttles on a network of more than 590 km of dedicated roadways.
...
To meet the heightened demand for rail transport, Chicago will increase the frequency of train cars during the Games period.
Now that's not to that using funds to upgrade existing systems in need of serious funding is bad. That is an extreme need Chicago and other legacy systems have needed for a while. The book states that over $1.5 billion would be budgeted for track, signal and terminal facility upgrades of CTA Heavy rail lines, $2.8 billion for Metra Commuter rail upgrades. This is half of what is planned for O'Hare at $8.2 billion dollars. (Update: Payton says that these are already budgeted in regular formula funding, meaning there would be no new expenditures for the Olympics) I would like to see this coincide with a plan and start of high speed rail lines into Chicago from other regions. It would be amazing if a plan was set in place to upgrade infrastructure like this so that it could be in place for the Olympics. Talk about stimulus.

But the plan lacks imagination for my taste. Especially considering what could happen if they spent $10 billion dollars on dedicated rapid streetcar lanes. That would be 333 miles of new fixed rail infrastructure that would serve the city long after the Olympics. Think about the reduced energy usage, the reduced operations costs per passenger and the increase in value that would be generated by such an ambitious expansion plan. Alas nothing like this is planned and no new transit infrastructure would be built.

So if Chicago is really getting nothing new out of this in terms of transit but the idea of pedestrian ways is something I'm willing to think about. Is there specific bike infrastructure for the city in these ped ways? Will there be consideration to keeping these ped ways after the Olympics are over? The big question is though, is an Olympic bid worth it?

I'm still fuming at Gavin for screwing this up for San Francisco. It would be amazing to have the games here and it surely would have pushed for serious upgrades to infrastructure and a speeding up of long term projects that need to be sped up. That said, its expensive and you have to weight the pros and cons. But being able to live in the city and go see the track events would have been amazing for this former aspiring olympian. I'll get to the Olympics eventually. Hopefully here in San Francisco.

H/T Payton C via FB Status

Friday, April 10, 2009

BRT >> HOV >> HOT >> Lane

If you pave a road, anything with a rubber tire can go on it. Meaning at some point, someone will want to co-opt that street for a personal vehicle. Is it a process. Don't get tricked. How long till BRT becomes HOV becomes HOT becomes a regular lane? The pressure is on.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Don't Lecture If You Can't Change Yourself

In an article on the new Indian auto sensation, Projjal Dutta calls for the United States to and other countries around the world to invest more in transit to change the future land use patterns that we know will result from all the automobiling that is in front of the Tata Nano. But he calls out the government for just doing the same as it always has in the stimulus package at 80/20.
As with many other issues, the world will expect America's "talk"--say, urging China and India not to become auto-centric--to be accompanied by "walk," at home. That, unfortunately, despite early glimmers of hope, is not happening. The stimulus bill has allocated about 8 billion dollars to transit, compared with 30 billion to highways. This is roughly in keeping with the traditional 80/20 split of federal transportation funds that have been enshrined since the Eisenhower days.
I agree. We can't just lecture other countries about what they should do when we continue to fund the same levels we always have. How are we supposed to solve the problems in the world if we can't lead by example.
The president's stimulus package has put dollar commitments behind promises about promoting green-jobs and increasing renewable energy generation capacity of the U.S. Yet, despite the concern and awareness within the administration, American lifestyles are inextricably linked to very high automobile usage. Until that bull is taken by the horns, climate change cannot be properly confronted.
This is why I keep harping on the folks at SF city hall in the Emerald Aristocracy. Fake green and gizmo green is not leading by example, its just delaying the inevitable. Check out the Forbes article, it's a good read.

Government Work

I always find it a tad funny when photos show up of other countries in official government publications (web or paper). Take for example the web site of the United States Senate Banking Committee. Senator's Shelby and Dodd look quite content on each side of a line of foreign LRVs. Now I still can't tell where they are from, but I know it's not within the United States. Anyone know where this is? The best guess from some knowledgable folks so far is Helsinki. Perhaps we're going socialist afterall.


Via wikipedia

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Calling Shennanigans on The Emerald Aristocracy

Looks like the Muni budget crisis isn't just a function of the economy, but a reshuffling of the deck in order to keep other budgets running without as many cuts. In fact, according to Beyond Chron, $80 million dollars is work orders from other agencies within the city.
Muni’s $129 million deficit means the MTA Board is exploring painful choices that would cripple service, but $80 million of the problem is “work orders” from other City Departments. Newsom directed every agency to trim its budget, and some unloaded it on Muni by charging for services done for free.
Some of these include millions for 311, which apparently charges $1.96 every time you call and ask them to look up next muni for you. That is almost 50 cents more than a muni fare meaning that when those people who called step on the bus, they are actually adding $2 to the trip. Another issue that annoys me is that I have never seen a police officer on the bus, yet SFPD is looking for $12 million out of the budget.

What are we going to find tomorrow from the emerald aristocracy and thier gizmo green? You know, the ones that think electric cars are the answer in a city that couldn't park them anyways.

H/T Transbay & NJC

Russian Subway Dogs

I bet you didn't know that stray dogs in Russia had gotten so smart that they have become accustomed to riding the subway to and from "work". I think this is a bit of a spoof and hilarious. What do you think?

We Now Have an Administrator

According to the Washington Post, Obama has tapped Peter Rogoff for FTA Administrator. Already beats a trucker.
Peter M. Rogoff, a leading expert on transportation funding issues, will be nominated to serve as administrator of DOT's Federal Transit Administration. He's a 22-year veteran of the Senate Appropriations Committee and has served as Democratic staff director to the transportation subcommittee for the last 14 years. Rogoff was the lead Senate staffer on the .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) law and the youth drunk driving “zero tolerance” law, widely credited with saving tens of thousands of lives. He also advised lawmakers on the initiation and financing of Amtrak's high-speed Acela service and on the financing of new light rail and bus rapid transit systems.
He's a financing man that's apparently been around since Istea.
The expert on infrastructure budgeting and finance issues has served on the Senate Appropriations Committee for 22 years, the last 14 as staff director of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee. He is a veteran of the last three surface transportation bills dating back to 1991.
He was a guest of the "road gang" which I find a funny name for a transpo frat. I didn't find much else in a quick google search, so we'll have to ask some questions over the next few days.

Houston's Light Rail Discrepancy?

Leave it to the anti-rail nuts to find the details. But I do find this interesting. If there was a letter to the FTA that showed doubled cost, what was it for?
On March 4, the Metro Board voted on a contract with the Parsons Group to design, build and operate four new Light Rail lines. The cost for the North Line would be $387 million, and the cost for the Southeast Line would be $441 million.
...
According to letters dated on March 23 from Metro to the Federal Transit Administration, Metro indicated that the current net project cost estimate would be $896 million for the North Line and $911 million for the Southeast Line.
Now it would be interesting to know why lines would cost ~$170 million per mile for surface light rail. Honestly, that is ridiculous. Obviously the nutcases that have always been against light rail are going to have a field day, but I have one guess as to why it will cost so much. The deal that Metro cut with the City of Houston to build the lines includes complete reconstruction of the street from curb to curb. So not only would this be the construction of the rail lines, but construction of the street, sewer systems and sidewalks that border the line.
METRO is also giving something to the city: $300 million of utility upgrades. For example, if a sewer line needs to be larger or needs to be replaced due to age, METRO will install a new one.
In fact the recent North Corridor planning document had this to say:
The typical life of a water transmission main is 40-50 years. For the North Corridor, research indicates that the lines, including the Churchill Street Line and extending all the way to the intersection of Crosstimbers Street/ Fulton Street, have reached the end of their life span.

The life of a sewer line is typically 30 to 40 years, unless the lines are rehabilitated. From the City’s GIMS database, it appears that there are several sewer lines that are older than 40 years. It is not clear if these lines have been rehabilitated. These include distinct segments along most
of the length of the Corridor. The construction dates for some segments are unknown.

Current City regulations require storm water detention for all new development. Hence, any new developments that are proposed will be required to design for storm water detention.
...
The Transit Street itself is characterized with a combination of industrial, residential and commercial uses, which would normally have the capacities needed for redevelopment.

However,the condition of water mains and sewer lines appears to be quite old along this Corridor and replacement of these services should be contemplated as transit is being constructed.
I'm not completely for sure that this is the deal but it's my best guess as to why the lines could possibly cost so much. The need to replace that infrastructure would be there anyways, but why not try and get the FTA to foot some of the bill if possible? That is what comes to the minds of a lot of transit agencies who are trying to build new lines, if we can get more money, why not try.

I personally think that its a really messed up accounting exercise that allows light rail and even BRT projects around the country to get attacked for thier high price tags because of necessary replacements credited to thier accounts. I want more information before I go off the handle on insane light rail costs, but if it's that much for just the light rail, Houston got bad engineering estimates and needs to start over again. That much per mile should not be tolerated for surface light rail. Even if the utilities are included, I'm inclined to say the prices are too high. I have a feeling though, that we're missing something...