» But how long will it take for it to start building new lines?
After several years spent conducting an alternatives analysis for a new transit project but failing to establish a revenue source, Dane County, Wisconsin agreed to establish a Regional Transit Authority last week that would hold the powers of taxation and eminent domain. The new RTA is chartered with the goal of improving transit and potentially building a commuter rail line between Madison’s center city and the northeastern and southwestern suburbs. Its leaders, however, will first put a regional 1/2¢ sales tax up for a vote next fall — an optional move that is designed to build community support for the local transportation project.
Madison, a university town and the state capital, has a relatively compact downtown core situated on a half mile-wide isthmus between Lake Mendota to the north and Lake Monona to the south. Local transit ridership, at 60,000 a day during the school year and 30,000 daily during the summer on Metro buses, is already more significant than, say, Tampa’s. That’s because of the city’s tight, corridor-like layout, which would allow this medium-size city (it only has about 230,000 people) to generate a large number of transit riders if a fixed-guideway line sliced through the the city’s core, running from the northeast suburbs to the west. A project of this scope would serve a large percentage of the metropolitan area’s population in one fell swoop, and the creation of the central section through downtown would allow for future extensions to other populated areas north, south, and east.
A light rail or commuter rail project for the city was studied in both 1992 and 1998; both reports demonstrated that the metropolitan area would be a feasible testing grounds for such a line. But the city and state were never able to move ahead with the proposal.
With renewed interest, the county conducted an early look at transit alternatives in 2007, submitting an analysis to the Federal Transit Administration in 2008 with the intention of moving forward with preliminary engineering. Transport 2020, the study group, selected a 16-mile locally preferred alternative, which would have included a commuter rail line as indicated in the map above between East Towne and Sun Prairie, via downtown and the University of Wisconsin. The University is out of parking space and is campaigning strongly for the new line.
The route would follow an existing railroad right-of-way, which would allow the system to avoid significant land acquisition costs and also provide the city more choices in vehicle selection, since the trains would not have to run in any street, as some proposed alternatives would have suggested. The railroad right-of-way is slightly less convenient for the inner-city core, which could have been provided with a more central streetcar service, but all areas on the isthmus would be within about a 1/2 mile from a station. In addition, the railroad right-of-way ensures faster commutes since trains will not have to compete with automobile traffic.
The project’s construction costs would range between $233 and 285 million in 2008 dollars, including the acquisition of eleven DMU rail vehicles, the completion of 17 stations, and the paving of park-and-ride lots in the outlying suburbs. Trains would come 70 times a day on weekdays. The line would be mostly double-tracked, with the exception of a half-mile section through the University of Wisconsin that, due to right-of-way limitations, would be reduced to incapacitating one-track service. This limitation might be acceptable for a city the size of Madison, but with a strong university and government population, ridership could grow quickly — especially because of the city’s almost ideal layout for transit, which will put a large number of people within waking distance of convenient transport.
For the longer term, the county is also planning regional bus service, an electric streetcar service through downtown on South Park Street, and extensions of the commuter rail line to the airport and to the City of Fitchburg.
But the failure of the region to establish a governing mechanism or funding system, both required for federal grants, forced the county to retract its FTA request, pending future action. Thus the interest in creating the new Regional Transit Authority.
The Wisconsin legislature was required to provide the area with the right to move forward with a local transit district, which it did last year, leading to last week’s vote on the creation of the RTA. The organization will have control over an area slightly larger than the boundaries of the Madison Metropolitan Planning Organization. From the start, the RTA will have no funds and will have to rely on planning aid from Metro transit, which it will likely take over if citizens of the transit area articulate their interest in better public transportation in the vote on the half-cent sales tax next year. That election would clear the way for RTA to expand into advanced rail planning immediately. RTA was not required to submit the proposal to referendum but will do so with an assumption of victory, in the interest of building community excitement and support for the project.
With the sales tax, the RTA will be able to afford 25% of the project; the commuter rail line would be built after the federal government agrees to a 50% commitment and the state assents to sponsoring 25% of costs. With a project of this size and for a city with already high demand for transit, the FTA seems likely to push for the go-ahead.
Image above: Potential Madison Commuter Rail Project, Alternative 5, from Transport 2020
November 9, 2009
» But what other alternatives for transit provision are available?
After several months of discussion, the State of Maryland has released data on ridership and costs for alternative alignments in the Corridor Cities transit right-of-way, which stretches from Shady Grove Metro Red Line station to Germantown, northwest of Washington, DC. The study provides dramatic evidence of the importance of serving walkable neighborhoods directly, rather than peripherally, showing that despite increased costs, a realigned transitway — using either light rail or bus rapid transit — would serve far more riders. Yet the value of corridor realignment puts into question how well the service will reach other, unstudied, areas.
The original plan for the transitway, illustrated in yellow in the map above, would have skirted the edges of high development areas in Montgomery County west of Shady Grove Metro. Though the line would have reached the core of the walkable King Farm Village Center at its East and West Gaither stations, it would have been relatively distanced from the projects planned for Crown Farm and the Johns Hopkins Life Sciences Center, as well as the new urbanist development already in place at Kentlands. After criticism from locals, the state studied alignment alternatives, including links into the three unaffected areas as shown in blue above.
Results from the report demonstrate the significant advantage of providing transit service within walking distance of users. By routing the line north into Crown Farm, south into the Life Sciences Center, and west into the Kentlands, Maryland predicts construction cost increases of 14% but ridership increases of a full 40%, to $999 million in expenditures and to 34,000 to 42,000 daily users for light rail. This change in alignment, in other words, puts a whole new spin on the line, making it far more likely that it would receive a high cost-effectiveness score from the FTA and therefore receive New Start funds.
The former alignment would have forced the state to pick cheaper bus rapid transit for the corridor — an action Montgomery County officials have already partially approved — despite the local transit advocates who are clamoring for light rail. With most of its money headed towards the circumferential Purple Line around Washington and the inner-city Baltimore Red Line, the state of Maryland cannot afford to go forward with this process without some sort of guarantee from the federal government. The reworked alignment shown above, which is now likely to be the final choice of the area’s transportation planners, throws light rail back into the equation since its cost-effectiveness is now expected to meet the government’s requirements.
Maryland’s efforts to hew the line’s route more closely to the locations of greatest population and employment density demonstrates how good transit planning should work and indicates that the state is using an effective projections model. Minneapolis, on the other hand, has an alignment towards the southwest suburbs currently under consideration and is insistent that a route through a lightly populated area west of the city core would attract more users than a very slightly slower route through the densest, more attractive areas of the city. It clearly does not have a model that uses the same realistic assumptions about the fact that public transportation use increases in denser area. The result is that Minneapolis is likely to get stuck with a less-performing, less useful rail line, while Maryland will have a project that takes much better advantage of the limitations inherent in any fixed-guideway system.
But even a good predictions model cannot be fully effective unless transit planners have considered a whole spectrum of possible routes. If the new alignment better serves Kentlands than the previous plan, the projected station would fail to reach the center of the development’s retail area and it would force a majority of the area’s inhabitants to walk a long distance to get to transit, ultimately reducing ridership. A slight deviation of the line, shown on the map above in green, might increase the project’s cost effectiveness even further by putting hundreds of households within closer distance of the transitway. It would further enforce the idea that this project is ab0ut connecting the area’s densest population centers.
This is not to suggest that any further route changes for the Corridor Cities line are absolutely necessary, but rather to demonstrate that any transit planning is ultimately handicapped by the fact that all possible alignments cannot be considered in any study. This means that some worthy routes are thrown out of the equation because of a random decision made by a transit planner not to include them. The best way to fight back — to make sure the best alignment is picked — is through citizen activity, the manner by which this effective route change came about in the first place. When communities come together with strong arguments to make changes in government decision-making, they can achieve a lot.
November 6, 2009
» Sales tax would have to be approved by voters next year.
Yesterday, Hillsborough County Commissioners advanced their efforts to build a light rail transit system for Florida’s Tampa Bay area, agreeing to consider whether to place a one cent sales tax on the ballot. If Commissioners vote as expected on December 2nd, county voters will choose in November 2010 whether to increase taxes on themselves. The revenue source, if approved, would pay for a new light rail line, though it would also support road and bus improvements.
Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio is the area’s primary light rail proponent — she claims to be unwilling to accept anything other than that transport mode — though the system as currently envisioned would connect several places outside of the city to downtown. First on the list, ready by 2018, would be a line from the University of South Florida to downtown, either to Union Station or to the future high-speed rail stop; that link would be followed shortly thereafter by a connection to West Shore. By 2035, with a funding base, links east to Brandon, north to New Tampa, south to South Tampa, and west to Town ‘N Country could be in place. All in all, the system could eventually offer 40 miles of track.
What makes Tampa Bay’s light rail project unusual is that it has been developed after an intense effort to advance regional cooperation. The local Metropolitan Planning Organization incorporated the rail project into its long-term plans and has completely reversed course in favor of transit funding; current spending is tilted 83% to highways, while the long-term plan, with almost $12 billion in expenditures earmarked by 2035, provides for a 50-50 split between transit and roads. Hillsborough County, meanwhile, assembled a transportation task force in 2006 to develop a revenue source for the system and to prioritize certain routes.
Working in parallel, the state legislature formed the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) in 2007 to coordinate transportation expenditures in seven counties — a process that has resulted in general regional consensus that light rail is an appropriate investment. TBARTA’s vision for a future regional rail system is even broader than that suggested by the MPO, with lines spewing out to Saratoga Sarasota, St. Petersburg, Largo, Clearwater, and Wesley Chapel. It’s unclear how a system of that size will ever be funded; after all, though a new sales tax will provide some revenue, it won’t be enough to pay for all this construction and the huge operations bill that the county will receive once light rail is on the ground.
HART, the local transit authority, has been the primary actor in conducting the alternatives analysis for the first stage of the system, a necessary step if Tampa is to receive federal New Starts grant money for the line. That process will be complete in the spring of next year, in time for voters to consider what exactly they’ll be paying for with their new taxes. HART currently operates the county’s bus system, which serves a small 37,000 riders a day, as well as the TECO streetcar line, an 800-daily-passenger restored tourist trolley that runs 2.3 miles through Tampa’s downtown and Ybor City districts.
With so much cooperation and practical political unanimity in favor of the light rail project, you’d expect voters to approve the sales tax increase, just as have similar populations in Seattle, Los Angeles, and Charlotte in recent electoral cycles. A vision of a broad-reaching plan, with lines extending everywhere, may be the best way to push the project, since it will convince more of the population that the rail system will be relevant to their lives when it’s built. However, presenting the image above, for instance, could be disingenuous; experience in Miami and Denver suggests that sales tax revenues don’t go as far as proponents initially claim. This seems especially true for this project, since Tampa will be spending much of the money on roads and bus improvements as well as the light rail project. Alternatively, presenting a map of just the first stage — from South Florida University to West Shore, via downtown — would be a disaster, since that corridor would be of interest to only about 20% of the area’s population. Voters are rarely interested in paying for a project that will help someone else.
Tampa faces serious obstacles to implementation even if the tax is passed. The transportation task force suggests that the state of Florida would chip in 25% of costs, and that the federal government would add another 50% through the New Starts process, with just 25% coming from local sales tax revenues. But how serious is the Sunshine State about its local transit systems? It has been inept in allocating funds to Orlando’s SunRail, despite that project’s receipt of a New Starts commitment earlier this year. Can it really be trusted for that 25% share?
Meanwhile, Washington may not find this proposal particularly compelling. HART’s small number of existing riders indicates that even a nice rail system would attract few users, meaning that, compared to many other projects around the country, the cost-effectiveness of a Tampa line would be weak. Tampa’s low densities are primarily to blame, but the city has done little to increase infill construction along the proposed transit corridors. From where will the riders come?
But the degree to which regional cooperation has advanced in the Tampa Bay area is remarkable and suggests that a light rail line is more than a fantasy. Local politicians truly want to get this project built, even if they still have a long way yet to go.
Image above: Planned Tampa Bay Light Rail Network, from Hillsborough County Transportation Task Force
November 5, 2009
» The city’s existing transit system doesn’t adequately address transportation needs in some of the country’s most densely populated neighborhoods.
Compared to more successful rapid transit systems, Miami’s Metrorail has never come to define the lifestyle of a significant portion of the metropolitan area’s population. Rather, the 22-mile elevated line, which runs from the western extent of Miami-Dade County to its southern border, has served as something as a sideshow, serving less than one third of the number of people who take the bus. The line has a future — it provides the excellent, reliable service every recent rapid transit system offers — but any investments in the medium-term will have to come in some other mode, because Miami cannot justify either the cost or the low ridership projections of a new heavy rail project.
A surprising conclusion, considering that just three years ago the Miami-Dade transit agency had plans for significant new metro lines running nine miles north to 215th Street and thirteen miles west east to Florida International University. Poor management of tax revenues meant to pay for the line expansions, little interest from the federal government in paying for a part of the costs, and the recession have doomed the proposals, and they have been scuttled, at least for now. All that’s left: a 2.4-mile fingertip of a line running from the existing Earlington Heights Station to a new stop near the airport.
Miami, in other words, is in no shape to pay for another Metrorail line. But that might be good news.
The city has seen serious growth in the last decade, building up an impressive skyline from Brickell north through downtown into Edgewater, buoyed by the strong urban real estate market. Though apartment sales were left for dead after the crash, in recent months, they appear to be coming back. Midtown Miami has evolved into an arts district. Downtown is being rejuvenated through huge government investments in new parks and cultural centers. Across the bay in Miami Beach — a separate municipality — the resorts along the Atlantic have only densified.
Yet the majority of these places have no direct access to fixed-guideway transit, either in the form of Metrorail or Metromover (which runs people-mover services downtown), despite their heavy population growth and very urban characteristics. In response, leaders on both sides of the bay have called out for new investment.
The City of Miami has since 2006 been discussing plans for a center-city streetcar, illustrated in yellow on the map above. It would circulate in a series on one-way loops through downtown, up to Midtown, and west into the Health District/Civic Center Area.
But why a streetcar, when the Metromover could easily be extended north and west, without having to duplicate corridors downtown? Metromover is a popular service, providing free transit to 30,000 riders a day who benefit from trains every three minutes. But the biggest obstacles to the network’s expansion are aesthetic: Metromover is elevated above the street, disrupting the views of pedestrians and creating an awkward interface between transit stations and the sidewalk. Similarly, it is expensive to build a system that requires a fully reserved right-of-way, such as Metromover.
So a cheap-running streetcar line has presented itself as the best option for Miami politicians.
Those advocating for new transit to Miami Beach have harped on a similarly conceived new light rail line, to run in street right-of-ways in Miami and Miami Beach but in its own corridor along the bridge between the two, as the ideal future system. That project, which is illustrated in pink above, would require a series of complex one-way loops downtown, where commuters would have to choosing between Metromover lines, a Metrorail line, and two streetcars, all running in their own corridors.
These separate proposals, though currently out of commission because of a lack of political willpower and money, are generally good ideas: they connect people from downtown to the metropolitan area’s most significant centers of activity. Yet the disordered, confused manner in which the lines have been planned would be a disservice to the residents of Miami and likely result in low ridership.
There is an alternative, and it’s based on legibility, simplification, and quality of service.
What if the plans for the Miami streetcar and the Miami Beach light rail line were incorporated into one project? The two lines could run together downtown for about 1.5 miles on parallel streets until reaching Government Center station, where an interchange with Metrorail would be possible — as would a connection to Tri-Rail commuter services if a planned extension into downtown is developed. This shared track would ensure that customers know to find all light rail service offered downtown in the same place. There will be no confusion about which tracks lead where; rather, riders will simply have to wait for the right train.
Instead of planning a disorderly series of midtown streetcar routes, Miami could offer its residents a simple three-mile north-south line running parallel to the bay to the Design District, following 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard for most of the time, with a switch to Miami Avenue at the northernmost segment of the line. Though the branch to the Health District articulated in the city’s streetcar plan has some merits, it ultimately seems wasteful, considering that Metrorail already provides service to the area; the same could be said of the proposed line running through Overtown. This is especially true because the city’s primary density is on the waterfront, and transit should be located there.
A light rail line to Miami Beach is entirely reasonable, but the large loop previously proposed would be confusing, especially since clockwise and counter-clockwise services would operate differently. A simpler approach would bring trains seven miles across the MacArthur Causeway, east-west along 5th street, and then north-south along Washington and Collins Avenues, continuing as far north as the famed Fontainebleau Hotel at 44th Street.
Future extensions south into Brickell or west into Little Havana from the downtown line at Government Center would be relatively simple to plan, since the main downtown tracks for light rail would already be reserved.
The overall approach for this first phase: a 11.5-mile project whose scope would dramatically alter the provision of transit to Miami’s urban core. But implementation would only be successful if the city abandons the streetcar approach that puts trains in mixed traffic and adopts a more expensive strategy that would require handing over vehicular lanes to transit vehicles, closing some side streets to through traffic, and incorporating automated traffic-light-changing mechanisms — all necessary steps if transit is to be quick enough to attract a sustainable number of passengers. Fortunately, this can be accomplished pretty easily and with few negatives using the scheme noted above, which would place one-way lines on parallel streets. Most of the streets considered for operation are wide enough to lose one vehicular lane without any serious effect on traffic.
A focus on the waterfront may seem unreasonable for a transit investment of this scope. Shouldn’t inland neighborhoods benefit? Will there be enough ridership along the thin strip of land bordering the bay and ocean? In Gold Coast, Australia, those questions are being tested. There, an eight-mile light rail system is being constructed, with operations planned for 2014. With similar densities as Miami, and with an alignment just blocks from the coast for most of the route, the city expects 40,000 daily riders.
If Miami could replicate the investment, with light rail lines running to Miami Beach and to Midtown, it would probably benefit as many people. One major advantage of the massive build-up of residential units along the metropolitan area’s dual coastlines is that it has basically ensured success for any fixed-guideway system positioned there.
Yet there appears to be no political constituency for a project of this nature in Miami. Yesterday’s election of Tomás Regalado as the city’s mayor is likely to introduce a new era of fiscal austerity and an end to the big plans that defined the administration of previous mayor Manny Diaz. Miami-Dade Transit is hardly capable of financing its present services, and it will be unable to plan any new extensions for the next ten years at least.
But these facts don’t mean the need for better public transportation along the city’s waterfront will disappear. One can only hope that if and when such new transit is offered, its routes are legible, simple to understand, and of high quality.
November 4, 2009
» Third in a series of three articles on today’s elections. The first considered governor’s races; the second reviewed ballot measures.
In six big cities across the country — Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Miami, New York, and Seattle — transportation is playing a role in the mayoral race being decided today. With the economic crisis front and center, however, transit isn’t anyone’s biggest priority.
Mayor of Atlanta, GA
Update: Mary Norwood, with 46%, and Kasim Reed, with 36%, have moved on to a runoff on December 1st.
Atlanta’s dramatic growth over the past twenty years — it has increased in population from 394,000 in 1990 to an estimated 538,000 today — has brought with it a panoply of benefits, including increased density and better services. Much of the population increase has been due to an increase in the number of white people, who now make up 38% of the population, compared to 31% just nine years ago. Those changes are producing a vastly different political environment, one in which a white candidate may take office for the first time since 1973.
Mayor Shirley Franklin, who has served since 2001, was a relatively competent manager of the city’s finances and livability, pushing proposals like the Beltline and Peachtree Corridor streetcar. But during her time, the city has suffered from a spike in crime, coming in opposition to the experience of other major U.S. cities, which have seen steady declines. That issue is tops in today’s mayoral race, though transportation proposals are also getting their day in the sun.
Current polls put white candidate Mary Norwood, currently a city counselor, on top. She has been strident in her statements against crime, and she has convincingly pulled off a characterization of herself as an “outsider” — good for a city sick of eight years of the same person. But she is facing strong competition from State Senator Kasim Reed and City Council President Lisa Borders, as well as three other candidates. If no one person wins a majority of votes, there will be a runoff on December 1st.
In a series of candidate forums, the three front-runners have made their positions known on transit issues, and Ms. Norwood doesn’t seem as appealing as her poll numbers suggest. Unlike the other two candidates, Norwood lives in a huge house in an unwalkable part of the city, whereas Ms. Borders has a residence downtown. Mr. Reed is a frequent user of the city’s MARTA rapid transit network, while Ms. Norwood appears to use it simply to get to the airport.
On their websites, both Ms. Borders and Mr. Reed highlight their respective records on transportation, which Ms. Norwood fails to do. As a state senator, Mr. Reed has been pushing for a new revenue source for transit, something the state has to approve before the city can implement it. Ms. Borders, meanwhile, has suggested that she would continue the Franklin legacy of encouraging investment in the Beltline, though at the candidate forum, she admitted that “it’s not going to be soon” — a response that shows either a taste for the realistic or a lack of ambition, depending on one’s perspective.
Unfortunately, none of the candidates has made a strong claim to being the supporter of transit; while Ms. Norwood’s lackluster responses on the subject knock her down a few points, her opponents aren’t much better. No one’s proposing the sort of long-range plan Atlanta needs. Nor is it clear that any of the candidates understand how and why transit should be implemented. Disappointing for such a promising city.
Mayor of Charlotte, NC
Update: Anthony Foxx, with 51% of the vote, has won the mayor’s race in Charlotte; the first for Democrats in 22 years; Democrats also take huge majority on City Council
Mayor Pat McCrory, who made a name for himself as a Republican in favor of transit, has spent the last fourteen years in Charlotte’s City Hall, but he declined to run for reelection this year after loosing last year’s governor’s race to Democrat Beverly Perdue. Attempting to take his place are contenders Anthony Foxx, a Democrat, and John Lassiter, a Republican; both are currently city council members.
Though Charlotte once had some of the country’s biggest transit ambitions, with five separate rail lines planned, it was humbled by the financial crisis and the sudden decrease in sales tax revenue that hit virtually every municipality. The city is planning a streetcar to run through the downtown area and some of inner-city neighborhoods, and it has already put some tracks in place. Yet with no money on tap, the project is on hold — and that’s where the mayoral race became interesting.
Whereas Mr. Foxx voted in favor of allocating funds for studying the streetcar’s alignment and conducting some preliminary engineering, Mr. Lassiter voted against those studies, arguing that it was a waste of money to plan for a project that would not get built. Mr. Foxx continues to uphold his vote, arguing that the research was necessary to evaluate what the city could or could not build.
All that said, Mr. Lassiter remains a supporter of light rail expansion, though it is unclear whether he would suggest implementing a new revenue source to pay for its construction. Mr. Foxx seems more clear in his unambiguous interest in such investments.
Mayor of Houston, TX
Update: Annise Parker, with 30.5%, and Gene Locke, with 25.9%, have moved on to the runoff December 12th.
Of all of the races today, Houston’s may be the one where voters have no real possibility of going wrong when it comes to transportation issues. All three of the front-runners, including City Controller Annise Parker, Former City Attorney Gene Locke, and City Planner/Architect Peter Brown, are seriously in favor of transit investment. This marks quite a shift for a city that for almost a decade was unable to receive any federal funding for new rail lines because of the intervention of Congressman Tom Delay (R).
Yet times have changed. The city’s citizenry sees current Mayor Bill White as having had a successful career at City Hall, and that’s especially true for his work on light rail, which has been moved forward dramatically in the last few months, with approval from the Federal Transit Administration for the construction of two new lines. Houston’s single rail line has the highest ridership per route mile of any such system in the country.
This consensus, which generally includes an acknowledgment that transportation only functions effectively when growth is appropriately planned around stations, suggests a promising next four years for this fast-growing city.
Mayor of Miami, FL
Update: Tomás Regalado, with 72% of the vote, cruises to easy win over Joe Sanchez.
With Mayor Manny Diaz being forced out of office after eight years because of term limits, Miami voters will choose between Joe Sanchez, a supporter of Mr. Diaz’s work, and Tomás Regalado, who has been a regular opponent of the current mayor’s philosophy on development.
Both candidates are members of the City Commission, and they’ve had very different voting records. Whereas Mr. Sanchez has come out wholeheartedly in favor of Mr. Diaz’s big development schemes, including a new tunnel to the port, a new baseball stadium, and a big condo building boom, Mr. Regalado has been a proponent of improving conditions in the city’s neighborhoods. That position, which has favored the majority of Miami residents who do not live in the areas affected by recent development trends, has given Mr. Regalado a serious lead in the polls. That probably means no major investments in transit over the next four years.
That’s because while Mr. Sanchez sees public transit as a core element of developing the future city, Mr. Regalado is more interested in fiscal austerity — despite the fact that Mr. Diaz, even with all his promotion of big new projects, shored up the city’s finances dramatically during his time in office. That stance means that Mr. Regalado will probably do little to improve the conditions of the city’s Metrorail network, which is already cashless.
Nor will Mr. Regalado stand firm in promoting more pedestrian-oriented spaces. In the vote on Miami 21, a strong decision about making the city a more walkable, livable place, he placed himself in the opposition. Mr. Sanchez was in favor. Mr. Regalado’s insistence that the city go “back to basics” ultimately means he won’t do much to help it improve.
Mayor of New York City, NY
Update: Defying all odds, Bill Thompson gets 46% of the vote, despite being outspent 14 to 1 and having been left for dead by basically the entire Democratic establishment. Michael Bloomberg, however, moves in for his third term as mayor.
New York may be the only city in the country where the Republican-endorsed candidate has a significantly more pro-transit platform than the Democrat. In many ways, that’s terrible, because Independent-former-but-maybe-still-Republican billionaire Michael Bloomberg has basically bought himself the next four years, spending $35,000 an hour to do so throughout the campaign. All this after forcing the city council to alter its term limit rules to allow him to run for a third term. Democratic opponent Bill Thompson has had no chance.
Perhaps that’s why, despite his reasonable record as City Controller, Mr. Thompson has staked himself as the anti-Bloomberg on livability issues such as bike lanes, bus rapid transit, and pedestrian plazas. While Mr. Bloomberg has given his chief of Transportation Janette Sadik-Kahn basically full reign in implementing an excellent streets reform project, Mr. Thompson has held rallies decrying BRT on some of the city’s most-trafficked corridors. Maybe he sees that as the only way to get votes. If so, it says something terrible about New York’s citizenry. If not, Mr. Thompson’s priorities are woefully misguided.
Mr. Bloomberg, meanwhile, for all his investment in nice streetscapes, has reduced the city’s commitment to sponsoring the state-run MTA, which runs the Subway system. His claims that he’ll invest in a new streetcar along the Brooklyn and Queens waterfront seem exaggerated, especially when he can’t seem to get off his obsession with the less-than-useful extension of the 7 Subway into West Midtown.
It’s not a particularly good day for transportation advocates in America’s biggest transit city. Here’s to a better choice in four years…
Mayor of Seattle, WA
Update: In early results, Mike McGinn has a 910-vote lead over his opponent; with a large number of votes yet to be counted, the lead could switch hands. However, pro-transit Dow Constantine wins big over conservative Susan Hutchinson in the King County Executive race, with 57% of the vote.
In this runoff race, it’s quite clear who thinks what. In the first round, incumbent Mayor Greg Nickels found himself cornered from the left (environmentalist Mike McGinn) and from the right (businessman Joe Mallahan) and he dropped to last in a three-way race. If some transit proponents were disappointed — Mr. Nickels had staked his legacy on transportation investments — Mr. McGinn is attempting to pick up the mantle today, though with a spin.
Mr. McGinn’s primary campaign was mostly premised on his opposition to the construction of a full-bore tunnel under downtown Seattle to replace the moribund Alaskan Way Viaduct, which sits on the waterfront. Unlike Mr. Nickels, who promoted the project, the candidate suggested simply replacing the Viaduct with a surface level road and using the remaining funds for better transit. Mr. Mallahan found himself rigorously opposed to that position; he’s made himself into the candidate of the drivers, so to speak.
Nonetheless, the Viaduct has become a bit of a non-issue in the meantime because of the fact that state financing has come through and the city has approved work, making its completion a virtual certainly. But there are still major transportation issues to be resolved in the Puget Sound. Will light rail run on I-90 or SR520? Will there be a streetcar network? Will there be a West Seattle line?
Mr. McGinn, a staunch defender of transit, is the right man for this job. Mr. Mallahan’s car-driving mentality won’t privilege the kind of long-term investments Seattle needs.
November 3, 2009
» Second in a series of three articles on today’s elections. The first reviewed governor’s races; the third considered mayoral contests.
Though there are several referendums being considered today in which transportation plays a major role, two in the Midwest stand out as particularly interesting. Voters in Cincinnati and Northern Indiana will be deciding whether they want rail systems in the future.
Ballot Measure — Rail in Cincinnati
Update: Voters roundly rejected the ballot measure, providing a boost to streetcar advocates. Transit proponent Mark Mallory wins a second term in the mayor’s seat.
If the NAACP and the right-wing can agree on any one thing, it seems to be a collective dislike for the idea of streetcars in Cincinnati.
Issue 9 would amend the city’s charter to require a new referendum each and every time there is any spending — local, state, or federal — on “right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g. a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits.” While streetcars are mentioned directly in the measure as an example of transportation projects that would have to be submitted to voters, the truth is that all rail projects, such as the proposed light rail, commuter rail, and high-speed rail lines illustrated below, would have to be put to public consideration.
Issue 9 will not prevent rail from being constructed. It will simply engender serious delays on any plans that the city wants to advance. From the NAACP’s perspective, support for Issue 9 means opposition to the city’s planned streetcar line, which they argue will reduce standard bus service to the city’s poor black population. From the perspective of the Cincinnati Tea Partiers, rail service is a waste in any shape or form.
The biggest problem with the proposal in the short-term is that it will prevent the city from receiving federal stimulus funds for the streetcar line in the next year, at least before Cincinnati is able to present a project to the discretion of the electorate. A future referendum on transit funding is likely to end in failure, considering the terrible results of the 2002 Metro Moves vote. In the longer-term, Issue 9 would make it nearly impossible to plan major projects for the city because each new idea would have to first be submitted to the voters — meaning that projects that help only small parts of the community will inevitably be shot down, and ideas that would require large (but necessary) expenditures would be defeated in races focusing on waste.
All this is to say: when it comes to transportation planning, perhaps direct democracy isn’t the best approach.
Image above: Re-envision Cincinnati, from CincyStreetcar Blog
Ballot Measure — Northern Indiana Regional Rail District
Update: The measure is overwhelmingly rejected in both counties where it’s considered. No chance for these rail extensions in the near future.
The Indiana suburbs of Chicago have been considering an investment in new commuter rail lines for several years now, but only this year have the projects and an affiliated tax come up for a vote. The creation of the Northern Indiana Regional Rail District would enforce an extra 0.25% income tax on citizens of the affected jurisdictions and eventually pay for more bus service and an extension of the South Shore Line, which heads directly into Chicago.
Initially the plan was to build two new stub-ends for the South Shore Line, one south to Lowell in Lake County and another southeast to Valparaiso in Porter County, in addition to expanding bus service to LaPorte and St. Joseph Counties. These projects are being advanced by the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority. All four jurisdictions were supposed to submit the proposal to voters as per state law; tax increases and affiliated transit improvements would be distributed county-by-county, so if one county didn’t approve the measure, the others would not be affected.
Yet Lake and LaPorte Counties have chosen not to move forward with the referendum because of the costs associated with holding the special election, which will be expensive and likely attract few voters. Even if voters in St. Joseph and Porter County do approve the referendum, then, it is unclear how the rail expansion would play out, since it would require new construction through Lake County. Bus service, though, could be easily improved with new revenue.
Image above: Proposed Northern Indiana Commuter Rail Route Extensions, from Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority
November 3, 2009
» First in a series of three articles on today’s elections. The second considered ballot measures; the third reviewed mayoral races.
Two governor’s races will be the highlights of the day, which some are claiming to be a “referendum on President Obama.” Whether or not that’s the case, the citizens of New Jersey and Virginia will be deciding a lot about how they want their states to be run in their respective elections. Top on the agenda: transportation.
Governor of New Jersey
Jon Corzine (D-incumbent) vs. Chris Christie (R) vs. Chris Daggett (I)
Update: Chris Christie wins the race with 49% of the vote, compared to Corzine’s 44%.
If there was one moment that defined Governor Corzine’s first term, it was his fateful car crash in 2007. A state trooper, at the Governor’s orders, was driving him at over 90 mph on the Garden State Parkway. The SUV hit the guardrail and Corzine, not wearing a seat belt, was severely injured. The Governor’s recklessness in his vehicle is indicative: during his four years in office, Mr. Corzine has been reckless with state transit funds.
The Transportation Trust Fund, which pays for New Jersey Transit operations expansion, is languishing, and Mr. Corzine’s response in 2006 was to borrow $6 billion to pay for its continued survival. That’s an irresponsible use of state money when raising taxes now will save money in the future, especially when the Trust Fund will be out of money by 2011.
Of course, Mr. Corzine has also encouraged a massive increase in state transportation capital expenditures, providing funding for new North Jersey lines, expanding the offerings in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and, perhaps most importantly, securing funds for the Mass Transit Tunnel/Trans-Hudson Express/Access to the Region’s Core project. These initiatives have made a more transit-friendly future for the state realizable.
Mr. Corzine has in recent weeks argued that he’d be willing to consider a gas tax increase — something his competitor Chris Christie has ruled out. Mr. Christie’s support for light rail expansion comes in the context of his dislike of the DMU River Line between Camden and Trenton, which cost $1.1 billion but only serves about 8,000 daily users. His primary campaign theme also appears to be cutting taxes; anyone with that point of view is not going to be able to support true transit improvements. Mr. Corzine should win this race.
Chris Daggett is also running in this campaign with a strong transportation platform, but he’s a distant third in polling.
Governor of Virginia
Creigh Deeds (D) vs. Bob McDonnell (R)
Update: Bob McDonnell wins an easy victory over Creigh Deeds. Perhaps the most damaging result of the night for transit advocates.
Bob McDonnell stirred controversy during the campaign when his college thesis berating women and gay people was released to the public — but Creigh Deeds has run a lackluster campaign that he’s now likely to lose.
That’s too bad, because Mr. Deeds has presented a solid, well-considered project for the state’s transportation problems, with a focus on mass transit. His own transportation plan provides strong evidence that he’d support high-speed rail for the state, that he’d ensure the completion of the Dulles Metro to Loudoun County, that he’d sponsor direct state grants to localities investing in bus rapid transit and light rail, and that, most importantly, he would connect transportation with “smart land use decisions.” He’s also been clear in his willingness to consider new taxes to support transportation financing, an essential campaign platform. Can’t get much better than that.
Mr. McDonnell, on the other hand, has suggested lowering taxes in this congestion-prone state. As the Washington Post put it:
“Mr. McDonnell… proposes to pay for road improvements mainly by cannibalizing essential state services such as education, health and public safety — a political non-starter. And rather than leveling with Virginians about the cost of his approach, as Mr. Deeds has done, Mr. McDonnell lacks the political spine to say what programs he would attempt to gut, or even reshape, in order to deal with transportation needs… Mr. McDonnell, champion of a revenue-starved status quo, remains in denial. He professes to feel the pain of Virginians struggling with financial hard times. In fact his transportation policy, a blueprint for stagnation and continuing deterioration, would subvert the state’s prospects for economic recovery and long-term growth.”
Though Mr. McDonnell has mentioned Dulles Rail and high-speed rail in his platform, his priority is clearly on paying for more roads in Northern Virginia. That’s the exact opposite of the approach the state needs.
November 3, 2009
» Competition on European lines, and the related separation of infrastructure from operations, could spell financial trouble for public companies like SNCF and Deutsche Bahn.
If the competition between Europe’s two largest national rail operators SNCF and Deutsche Bahn (DB) was to be expected, it didn’t seem like it would come down this hard.
Last week in an interview with the Financial Times Deutschland, Ulrich Homburg, head of passenger transport at DB, declared that he was readying a “bloody battle” with his French peers. With international rail services opening up to competition on the French market beginning next month, you would expect Germany’s huge rail operator to be confident in moving onto SNCF’s terrain. But Mr. Homburg is adamant that the fight won’t produce good results for the rail companies or, ultimately, customers. “In a war,” he argued, “there are no winners… It will leave deep traces on the balance sheets.”
If Mr. Ulrich’s reaction seems exaggerated, it may be more a reflection of his fear that SNCF’s TGV services, which have a great reputation both on the domestic and world markets, will attract more customers than his own ICE trains. SNCF has submitted plans to operate high-speed trains between Frankfurt and Berlin and Frankfurt and Hamburg between 2011 and 2016 using either its own workforce or that of its subsidiary Keolis, using a fleet of 35 new international-ready TGVs the company is planning to order soon. This move surprised DB, which has thus far declined interest in new international services operating in and out of France. But DB is working actively to plan new services to compete with SNCF-owned Eurostar on routes from Germany to the United Kingdom. Eurostar is in turn planning direct trains between London and Amsterdam.
The French national rail market remains closed to competition until 2012. The cooperation the two companies currently hold in managing routes between Paris and Germany, in which ICE trains run to Frankfurt and TGVs to Stuttgart, may be coming to an end. The fate of Railteam, the European rail alliance, is unclear. The broader profitability of the national companies is in question.
The immediate effect of the new competition on international routes from France and national routes in Germany (also planned in Italy by partially SNCF-owned NTV) is likely to be decreased fares on corridors where more than one operator provides rail services. Unlike the system in Japan, where six rail companies have monopolies on intercity rail services in the respective regions they serve, or that in the UK, where train operating companies hold franchises on specific routes, mainland European high-speed rail competition will mean more than one company competing on the same lines, similar to the way deregulated air service works.
Like with airlines, customers will acquire the ability to choose the cheapest fare from a series of options, especially on high-demand routes, something they currently lack because of national rail monopolies. Standard amenities will likely increase. In the short-term, these changes may seem good for the consumer.
But in the longer term, as argued by DB’s Mr. Homburg, competition could spell disaster for the European network, which is currently renowned for its high standards.
The biggest problem results from the European Union-mandated separation of infrastructure and operations. In the past, national rail companies like DB and SNCF managed their budgets so that profits from their unsubsidized high-speed lines went into subsidizing their own infrastructure work on corridors throughout the system, for high-speed and local trains; a relatively balanced budget throughout the system was mandated by the fact that the tracks and the trains were owned by the same people. If the affiliated government decided to expand investment in new rail services, it would have to make up the costs through the provision of some other source of revenue.
But by moving infrastructure ownership to new public authorities (such as RFF in France) while keeping rail services in the hand of the national operator, two budgets were created, both of which had to be balanced, but, essentially, not necessarily with each other. Fortunately, of course, European rail authorities have no current plans to privatize infrastructure. Experience in the United Kingdom and Taiwan indicates that that’s a bad idea. Still, if the infrastructure owner is asked by the government to invest in new high-speed lines, it has to find the means to do so; meanwhile, the train operator has an incentive to reduce costs, especially if it’s faced with direct competition resulting in lower fares. The demands of the infrastructure owner, in other words, are not necessarily aligned with those of the train operator. This could lead to a budgetary conflict of interest.
Even without competition, SNCF is already suffering from the consequences of losing control over the French rail infrastructure. Though SNCF profited massively in FY 2007 and 2008 because of significant returns from its TGV operations, the recession has put it in trouble. In the long-term, though, the bigger problem is RFF, which is dramatically increasing track use fees to pay for debt service on its huge expenditures on new high-speed rail corridors and on the maintenance of local lines, which cannot pay for themselves. RFF is planning to increase charges on SNCF’s high-speed track use by 145% in ten years, from less than one billion euros overall in 2005 to 2.2 billion euros in 2013, completely eliminating the billion-euro annual profit from TGV services. The effects of new competition will magnify the problem.
At the local level, the changes won’t be as serious, because commuter trains remain subsidized by the national and regional governments, and will be even if the operator chosen is private. Germany’s regional rail market, already opened to competition from companies such as Keolis, works more on the British standard, with monopolistic franchises sent out to operators on a corridor-by-corridor basis. Subsidies for these unprofitable lines will continue to be distributed. European labor laws make it difficult to envision many people losing their jobs when operators change hands — making it likely that for most routes, because of the annoyance of firing and rehiring engineers, the national rail operators will remain in charge.
But by opening the potentially very profitable high-speed markets to competition, the national rail operators, though still mostly owned by their respective governments, become pseudo-private in the manner in which they operate and are perceived. The result: the government cares more about keeping infrastructure expenditures in the black than ensuring the continued viability of high-speed rail operators. This is the inverse of what should be happening, because it could ultimately mean the bankrupting of national rail companies and vastly inferior service for users.
In whose interest? It will mean fewer labor rights for workers who have spent years working for better salaries and benefits but who now are required to compete with the less-protected employees of other companies. It will mean more service on the most popular routes from a host of companies but fewer operations on high-speed lines that attract a lower patronage. If fares decrease initially, higher track user fees will undoubtedly mean increased passenger costs in the longer term.
Having national rail companies remain in control of operations and infrastructure ensures a more stable equilibrium between costs and returns and provides a model that allows high-speed trains to subsidize other operations, but without going overboard. It allows an honest assessment of how far rail profits can go, and prevents the damaging effects of competition, such as its tendency to lower fares to unsustainable levels.
The government’s expectation that operating companies can pay for infrastructure costs, including new investments, is unrealistic. SNCF is demanding that France rethink this philosophy, as it’s currently stuck, wanting to finance the purchase of 300 new TGVs for mainline operations but unable to do so because of an insecurity that it will be able to profit in future years. DB is similarly insistent that the German government reassess the manner in which it has allowed competition to advance on the home turf — especially since intercity rail in that country is open whereas it won’t be in France for three more years.
The danger of increasing competition of the European market with the present separation of operations and infrastructure can’t be more clear: it could mean the destruction of the viability of the national rail companies, which have provided some of the most reliable, convenient, and comfortable service in the world. The benefits to customers are ambiguous at best. A rethinking of this process should be in order.
November 2, 2009
» Eurostar has 85% market share on direct trips to and from London; trips requiring transfer, however, have less than 5% share.
Slightly less than fifteen years ago, Eurostar began offering services under the English Channel between the United Kingdom and continental Europe. The line has been met with unequivocal success. Railway Gazette reports today that Eurostar has grabbed an 85% share of the air-rail market on trips between London and Paris, Bruxelles, and Lille. The speed-up of the service over the years, from 2h56 between the French and UK capitals in 1994 to 2h15 today, has played a large role in the corridor’s high ridership. Eurostar’s popularity, like that of domestic high-speed services in France, Spain, and Japan, demonstrates the great value of investing in fast train systems.
Yet the Gazette article also notes that on routes where customers are required to transfer — such as between London and Koln, a link that can only be made via a connection to a Thalys train at Bruxelles — Eurostar market share is reduced to a pitiful 4%. What gives? Are people so disinclined to transfer trains that they’ll switch to an air trip if they can’t take a direct train? Is through service the only way to ensure high ridership?
There are obvious reasons for customers preference for direct trips. Once you’re settled in on the train, you have a cafe at your disposition, power outlets, sometimes wireless internet. You have far more space than on the airplane and the ability to walk around at will. In other words, a train trip, as long as it’s reasonably quick, can be incredibly productive for business people and far less stressful a travel experience for everyone else. The Gazette piece points out that on other European rail services, trains have a 50% air-rail market share on trips of up to even four hours — when there are direct connections.
But on trips requiring transfers between trains, the advantages of rail travel diminish significantly, because much of the productivity possible on the train comes as a result of the comfort it provides, not as a consequence of its speed. Once customers have to lug their bags from one train to another and walk through often-crowded stations, train travel looses many of its advantages. In the air, direct flights are easier to come by, and even with a transfer, your bags are handled for you, out of sight.
In some ways, of course, Eurostar is an exception that exasperates the problem. Because the United Kingdom is outside of the European free exchange zone, travelers must pass through customs and stations must be outfitted with immigration facilities if they are to provide direct service into London. Taking a train between France and Germany, on the other hand, requires no such bureaucracy.
Nonetheless, the disadvantages of transfers apply to other routes as well. If we are to assume that direct service is necessary to convince people to take the train, through-routing of trains should be prioritized over more frequent service. For customers using a potential future Midwest high-speed rail network to get between Milwaukee and Detroit, for example, four trains a day directly from Milwaukee to Detroit might attract double the patronage of eight trains a day between Milwaukee and Chicago and eight trains a day from Chicago to Detroit — even though the latter option would probably save a lot of people time. Eliminating transfers is incredibly important.
Jarrett makes a strong argument at Human Transit that terminal stations provide a better customer experience than through-stations, but the evidence presented above may demonstrate that the appeal of direct routes should dictate that virtually every high-speed station be through-running. France’s plans for new interconnections around Paris seems appealing from the perspective of increasing the number of direct trains, and a track connection between Eurostar services and the United Kingdom’s planned High-Speed 2 seems all but obligatory if British planners want to encourage rail travel to mainland Europe from anywhere other than London.
October 30, 2009
» Initial line would extend from Monterey to Marina, with eventual extension to Castroville; commuter rail to San Francisco also due by 2012.
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), California, approved plans yesterday to open a new light rail line by 2015 between Monterey and Marina. A future phase would reach north to Castroville and east to Salinas; both would interface with planned Caltrain and Amtrak service along the corridor.
The route, which extends along the coastline, would also serve the towns of Seaside and Sand City, but the combined population of the affected municipalities totals fewer than 100,000 — meaning that this new line may serve the smallest community of any rail project planned for the United States. With only about 3,500 projected daily riders, the $200 million project won’t reach many people, but the project may well be worth its cost as it will make an already attractive section of the California coastline even more appealing.
If implemented, Monterey Bay would get diesel multiple unit trains every 15 to 30 minutes during the day serving 11 stations between downtown Monterey and Marina. The first phase of the project, which was approved by the transit agency’s board at a meeting yesterday, would cost $130 million, 60% of which TAMC hopes to be covered by the federal government’s Small Start grant program. Trains will run on the already existing Monterey Branch right-of-way, which the county purchased in 2003 for less than $10 million.
Though the cities affected are tiny on the national scale, they are relatively dense, with almost all inhabitants of the area within a mile of the proposed line. In addition, the line’s connection to Cal State’s campus just south of Marina will allow thousands of carless students easier access into downtown Monterey.
The line’s approval comes despite resistance from the Monterey City Council, which wants a more detailed environmental review of the project’s effects. With trains only running four times an hour and little construction required, though, TAMC made the right decision in moving ahead anyway. A BRT system was also being considered, though that option was dropped because of the psychological appeal of rail and the equivalent costs.
The more important advantage of implementing a train system, though, is the potential use of the corridor for future intercity rail service. The county’s transit agency is already planning an extension of Caltrain service from Gilroy to nearby Salinas, which is significantly larger at 150,000 people. The $101 million project, using existing Union Pacific tracks, would allow commuters direct access into San Francisco in three hours or San Jose in 1h45 four times a day; operations are planned for 2012 and are expected to attract around 2,000 daily users. Its funds are mostly accounted for, unlike those of the light rail project. If the light rail line is extended to Castroville as planned, inhabitants of Monterey would have a one-transfer connection to San Francisco.
But the opening of the Montery Branch to new train services would also introduce Monterey, Seaside, and Marina to intercity trains, which could use the same track. If the state of California assembles adequate subsidies, Amtrak could offer trains directly from Monterey to Sacramento or Los Angeles. Either would encourage the development of a statewide rail network; this would be true especially if the line were eventually electrified and California high-speed trains connected via Gilroy.
The light rail service proposed, then, is as much an effort to improve the state’s overall passenger network as anything else, and it opens up long-term possibilities for service expansion in Monterey Bay that won’t be possible unless incremental improvements such as this come to realization.
Image above: Proposed Monterey County Transit, from TAMC
October 29, 2009
» But how long will it take for it to start building new lines?
