Spurred by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Federal Railroad Administration issued a Preliminary Rail Plan in October of 2009. The plan was an attempt at laying the groundwork for future policies regarding our nation's rail transportation network. The plan's lofty goals included improving safety, fostering livable communities, increasing the economic competitiveness of the United States and promoting more sustainable modes of transportation. What the plan didn’t offer were specifics as to how to achieve these goals. With the ARRA allocating $48 billion towards transportation funding, and $8 billion designated specifically for high-speed rail4, why does it appear that little action has been taken thus far?
The Preliminary Rail Plan identified transportation corridors to target for improvement, and multiple states put their names in the running for a portion of the stimulus money. To date, funding has been distributed to thirty-one states, with the largest grants going to California ($2.3 billion) and Florida ($1.25 billion). A major drawback right now seems to be that states must raise additional funds, through tax increases or budget cuts, as the federal funding alone isn’t enough to subsidize their projects. And given the current state of the economy, that drawback alone could be enough to kill transportation plans in some areas.
Another concern is the apparent lack of prioritization in identifying projects worthy of funding. The Florida project for example, would serve the Orlando-Tampa corridor, one not considered particularly viable for high speed rail due to the relatively short distance between the cities, the high number of intermediate stops along the route, and the lack of effective transit connections at either end.
Notwithstanding basic concerns about planning and financing, opinions differ substantially on how to best bring our nation's rail system up to twenty-first century standards. Is it more economical to upgrade existing rail lines, or should we build brand new high-speed lines dedicated solely to passenger travel? Our current rail network was largely in place by the end of the 19th Century. The system we now have was built in favor of freight rail and it’s slower speeds, and even with extensive retrofits, experts estimate that high-speed passenger trains on retrofitted tracks would run on average between 80 and 120 miles per hour, with speeds topping out in some locations around 160 miles per hour. In Europe and Asia, high-speed rail lines have their own dedicated tracks and with improved construction techniques, the trains are easily capable of running over 200 miles per hour.
Additionally, infrastructure is typically shared between freight and passenger rail lines. Freight railroads have historically been privately owned, and since their deregulation in 1980 have proven to be profitable businesses. Passenger railroads on the other hand, provide a public service and are publicly subsidized by taxpayers. Currently, most passenger service utilizes rail infrastructure owned and operated by the freight railroads. So should those private companies benefit from infrastructure improvements paid for by tax dollars, or should they share in the cost? Or does our current shared infrastructure reinforce the idea that passenger service should be provided on dedicated lines, removed from freight service? One possible model is Chicago’s CREATE program, a partnership of public agencies and private railroads with the stated mission of solving the problems of both passenger (primarily commuter) and freight congestion in the nation’s rail hub, through investment of targeted improvements including grade separations, line section and signal improvements, etc.
The fact remains that even a sum of money to the tune of $48 billion falls short of upgrading our entire existing rail infrastructure and woefully short of providing gleaming brand-new high speed lines throughout the country. Thus, the government has allowed individual states to strategize how to best use available funding. California aims to spend $2.25 of their appropriated $2.3 billion on a new dedicated high speed line connecting northern and southern portions of the state. Meanwhile, Midwestern states such as Missouri and Illinois prefer to upgrade their existing lines with hopes of incrementally improving service. Only time will tell which tactic does the better job of fostering sustainable, livable communities and making rail travel more economically viable for the majority of Americans.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Sunday Streets, San Francisco-style
Initially founded in Bogota, Columbia over thirty years ago, citywide events that temporarily close streets to automobiles and allow bikers, joggers, and skaters free reign have spread across the globe. These events encourage healthy, active lifestyles while promoting social and culture activities that build a sense of community. The first "Ciclovia", literally translated as "bike path" was held in 1976 after Enrique Penalosa, the former mayor of Bogota, declared that "A quality city is not one that has great roads but one where a child can safely go anywhere on a bicycle." In Bogota, the Ciclovia now covers 70% of the city and entices over 1.5 million of its citizens to walk, bike, and play in the streets every week. Cities around the world have been so inspired by its resounding success, that they have created similar programs.
Tokyo, Winnipeg, Melbourne, and just about everywhere in between have seen some form of Ciclovia. In the United States events like these have been held since the early 1980's; Portland has it's Sunday Parkways, Atlanta started Streets Alive, and Walk + Roll Cleveland spurred a national organization to help other cities institute similar plans. So far, most of these programs have been successful enough to ensure their continuation.
The lure of the Ciclovia is hard to resist. Where obesity continues to rise to epidemic proportions, for urban neighborhoods that lack open space for children to play, and as we maintain our dependence upon automobiles; the Ciclovia offers a small slice of respite. It offers community-sponsored recreation, encourages healthy behaviors, and provides a chance to reconnect with our neighbors face to face. In Bogota, the events are even having an impact on the environment. Auto emissions are reduced by over 40% on Ciclovia days.
San Francisco is one such city with a successful Ciclovia program, dubbed "Sunday Streets". The program recently kicked off its third year and is ever expanding with 9 such events planned for 2010. One aspect of the San Francisco program that has made it so successful is its alternation of locations throughout the city, including inner city districts such as the Bayview, which are not often visited by outsiders. The original Ciclovias in Bogota were careful to select routes that link existing neighborhoods together. This strategy, as opposed to closing down sections of major thoroughfares or bridges, is what really connects people and supports surrounding businesses. During San Francisco's first Sunday Streets of 2010 near the Embarcadero, retailers reported a surge in business from locals who typically avoid the area due to traffic.
Sunday Streets also boasts extensive community events. Not only are free bicycle rentals provided, but you can find free dance and yoga classes, free bicycle maintenance, a free roller rink complete with ongoing performances of Michael Jackson's Thriller, martial arts demonstrations and classes, kids’ activities, and even games for your pet.
San Francisco seems to be getting little push back from the community for these events. In general, businesses appreciate the additional foot traffic and citizens haven’t reported major traffic inconveniences. While the streets are momentarily closed to automobiles, Sunday Streets ensures that its events don't conflict with professional sporting events or concerts and the streets do allow cross traffic to pass through at specific checkpoints. With over 20,000 people attending events last year, San Francisco expects to see their numbers continue to rise this year.
Does your locale or region sponsor similar programs? How successful have they been? What have been the main “barriers to entry” in getting these programs established and/or maintained? We’d love to get your input.
Tokyo, Winnipeg, Melbourne, and just about everywhere in between have seen some form of Ciclovia. In the United States events like these have been held since the early 1980's; Portland has it's Sunday Parkways, Atlanta started Streets Alive, and Walk + Roll Cleveland spurred a national organization to help other cities institute similar plans. So far, most of these programs have been successful enough to ensure their continuation.
The lure of the Ciclovia is hard to resist. Where obesity continues to rise to epidemic proportions, for urban neighborhoods that lack open space for children to play, and as we maintain our dependence upon automobiles; the Ciclovia offers a small slice of respite. It offers community-sponsored recreation, encourages healthy behaviors, and provides a chance to reconnect with our neighbors face to face. In Bogota, the events are even having an impact on the environment. Auto emissions are reduced by over 40% on Ciclovia days.
San Francisco is one such city with a successful Ciclovia program, dubbed "Sunday Streets". The program recently kicked off its third year and is ever expanding with 9 such events planned for 2010. One aspect of the San Francisco program that has made it so successful is its alternation of locations throughout the city, including inner city districts such as the Bayview, which are not often visited by outsiders. The original Ciclovias in Bogota were careful to select routes that link existing neighborhoods together. This strategy, as opposed to closing down sections of major thoroughfares or bridges, is what really connects people and supports surrounding businesses. During San Francisco's first Sunday Streets of 2010 near the Embarcadero, retailers reported a surge in business from locals who typically avoid the area due to traffic.
Sunday Streets also boasts extensive community events. Not only are free bicycle rentals provided, but you can find free dance and yoga classes, free bicycle maintenance, a free roller rink complete with ongoing performances of Michael Jackson's Thriller, martial arts demonstrations and classes, kids’ activities, and even games for your pet.
San Francisco seems to be getting little push back from the community for these events. In general, businesses appreciate the additional foot traffic and citizens haven’t reported major traffic inconveniences. While the streets are momentarily closed to automobiles, Sunday Streets ensures that its events don't conflict with professional sporting events or concerts and the streets do allow cross traffic to pass through at specific checkpoints. With over 20,000 people attending events last year, San Francisco expects to see their numbers continue to rise this year.
Does your locale or region sponsor similar programs? How successful have they been? What have been the main “barriers to entry” in getting these programs established and/or maintained? We’d love to get your input.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
LA’s Ambitious 30-in-10 Plan
For at least the past two decades, no public official has been more up front with his agenda for transit-starved Los Angeles than that city’s Mayor Antonio Villaraigrosa. Largely through his unrelenting vision of how his city could benefit from tens of billions of dollars in mass transit investment, combined with his considerable political clout at the national level, Villaraigrosa has been a front-and-center advocate for heavy and light rail “dream projects” including the Subway to the Sea, Regional Connector, Crenshaw Corridor and service to Los Angeles International Airport, as well as busway extensions. Once in place, this network expansion would largely fill out the bare-bones high-capacity transit system currently making do in this megalopolis.
And in today’s environment, bringing dollars to the table may be just the ticket to make this dream into a reality. By borrowing federal stimulus money against proceeds from a 30-year local sales tax dedicated to transit and now in place, Villaraigrosa has convinced California lawmakers, federal officials and even mayors of other major cities that not only can Los Angeles deliver 30 years’ worth of major transit investments within 10 years, but also could jump-start an economic recovery by putting thousands to work designing and building the system.
We’ve discussed in a recent blog posting our view that stimulus spending might as well go into concrete-and-steel projects that will leave a legacy of lasting value. We acknowledge that our economy is in a dire predicament, the solution to which has befuddled even top government officials. While not perfect, Villaraigrosa’s out-of-the-box thinking is in our view exactly what is needed to get worthwhile projects built, put people to work, and rebuild a sense of national and civic self-esteem that has all but evaporated in the current financial crisis. Imagine a Los Angeles woven together by a series of high-capacity rail and bus guideways separated from the hellish traffic, dotted with high-density, mixed use centers of activity that complement the surrounding communities while maintaining lower densities where appropriate.
As far as projects, we’d like to offer one not on the table so far: an upgrade of key Metrolink commuter rail lines to more frequent mid-day and reverse-commute service, and better integration of that service with MTA at key stations. New diesel-multiple unit rail vehicles could be purchased and operated over Metrolink tracks in shorter consists and with smaller crew sizes than current push-pull equipment, to more cost-effectively accommodate mid-day service. This regime of service would be targeted to corridor segments with the greatest off-peak ridership potential. Metrolink already operates over a staggering 500+ route miles of rail corridors in the LA region, and the introduction of such service over current routes would almost guarantee increased development potential in nodes currently served by Metrolink.
We strongly support the LA mayor’s proposed solution and encourage other metropolitan areas to follow suit. Obviously not all regions with substantial transit needs have a dedicated funding source to borrow against, and in these cases even more out-of-the-box thinking is needed to create a national model for transit investment. And of course, we welcome your ideas and suggestions.
And in today’s environment, bringing dollars to the table may be just the ticket to make this dream into a reality. By borrowing federal stimulus money against proceeds from a 30-year local sales tax dedicated to transit and now in place, Villaraigrosa has convinced California lawmakers, federal officials and even mayors of other major cities that not only can Los Angeles deliver 30 years’ worth of major transit investments within 10 years, but also could jump-start an economic recovery by putting thousands to work designing and building the system.
We’ve discussed in a recent blog posting our view that stimulus spending might as well go into concrete-and-steel projects that will leave a legacy of lasting value. We acknowledge that our economy is in a dire predicament, the solution to which has befuddled even top government officials. While not perfect, Villaraigrosa’s out-of-the-box thinking is in our view exactly what is needed to get worthwhile projects built, put people to work, and rebuild a sense of national and civic self-esteem that has all but evaporated in the current financial crisis. Imagine a Los Angeles woven together by a series of high-capacity rail and bus guideways separated from the hellish traffic, dotted with high-density, mixed use centers of activity that complement the surrounding communities while maintaining lower densities where appropriate.
As far as projects, we’d like to offer one not on the table so far: an upgrade of key Metrolink commuter rail lines to more frequent mid-day and reverse-commute service, and better integration of that service with MTA at key stations. New diesel-multiple unit rail vehicles could be purchased and operated over Metrolink tracks in shorter consists and with smaller crew sizes than current push-pull equipment, to more cost-effectively accommodate mid-day service. This regime of service would be targeted to corridor segments with the greatest off-peak ridership potential. Metrolink already operates over a staggering 500+ route miles of rail corridors in the LA region, and the introduction of such service over current routes would almost guarantee increased development potential in nodes currently served by Metrolink.
We strongly support the LA mayor’s proposed solution and encourage other metropolitan areas to follow suit. Obviously not all regions with substantial transit needs have a dedicated funding source to borrow against, and in these cases even more out-of-the-box thinking is needed to create a national model for transit investment. And of course, we welcome your ideas and suggestions.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Yield on Stop for Bicycles
To promote a balanced and environmentally sound transportation system, one of our societal goals should be to accommodate more sustainable modes of transport, right? The proposed Yield on Stop law for bicyclists does just that. Already in effect in Idaho and proposed for vehicle codes in several other states, this bicycle-related provision allows cyclists to continue through stop-controlled intersections (at a slow speed) if the coast is clear. It recognizes the inherent differences in mechanics and perception of the bicyclist versus the automobile, and would undoubtedly promote cycling as a more attractive mode.
This video does a good job of illustrating the dynamics of the proposed law. Naysayers will point to perceived safety issues, the potential for increased liability for local governments, or the possibility of abuse by aggressive cyclists. But what about the system currently in place, where cyclists are subservient to an incompatible motor vehicle code? What does the current code do for promoting sustainable modes of transport, such as the ultra-efficient bicycle? An article in Oregon Cycling Magazine offers some excellent insights on the Idaho law and how it’s working, as does this article, which takes the position of the bicycle commuter. Making biking easier for the regular commuter could do a great deal for both congestion and the environment.
I’ll offer some personal insight. Cycling in Marin County, California a few years ago, I rolled through a four-way stop sign at an unoccupied intersection. Sure enough, a tailing police officer pulled me over and issued me a ticket, same as if I was driving a 6,000-lb. SUV. Later that same day at a coffee shop, I engaged in casual conversation with a resident and brought up the fresh ticket. She said something to the effect that “that’s unfortunate, but you had it coming.”
This attitude is not uncommon but is also quite understandable. It indicates the need not only for institutional change (i.e. the vehicle code itself), but for focused outreach geared to address these attitudes. Because our public thoroughfares have, over the majority of the past century been largely taken over by motor vehicles, scarce resources are left over for pedestrians and cyclists. These latter user groups are then pitted against each other to fight over the “scraps”, causing friction and mistrust. Granted, just like drivers there are over-aggressive cyclists who will abuse their status, and by making the laws reflect the reality of cycling, these few can be more easily singled out and prosecuted.
What do you think?
This video does a good job of illustrating the dynamics of the proposed law. Naysayers will point to perceived safety issues, the potential for increased liability for local governments, or the possibility of abuse by aggressive cyclists. But what about the system currently in place, where cyclists are subservient to an incompatible motor vehicle code? What does the current code do for promoting sustainable modes of transport, such as the ultra-efficient bicycle? An article in Oregon Cycling Magazine offers some excellent insights on the Idaho law and how it’s working, as does this article, which takes the position of the bicycle commuter. Making biking easier for the regular commuter could do a great deal for both congestion and the environment.
I’ll offer some personal insight. Cycling in Marin County, California a few years ago, I rolled through a four-way stop sign at an unoccupied intersection. Sure enough, a tailing police officer pulled me over and issued me a ticket, same as if I was driving a 6,000-lb. SUV. Later that same day at a coffee shop, I engaged in casual conversation with a resident and brought up the fresh ticket. She said something to the effect that “that’s unfortunate, but you had it coming.”
This attitude is not uncommon but is also quite understandable. It indicates the need not only for institutional change (i.e. the vehicle code itself), but for focused outreach geared to address these attitudes. Because our public thoroughfares have, over the majority of the past century been largely taken over by motor vehicles, scarce resources are left over for pedestrians and cyclists. These latter user groups are then pitted against each other to fight over the “scraps”, causing friction and mistrust. Granted, just like drivers there are over-aggressive cyclists who will abuse their status, and by making the laws reflect the reality of cycling, these few can be more easily singled out and prosecuted.
What do you think?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Public Works Infrastructure and Recessionary Finance
The Depression-era WPA building program left many iconic and enduring projects in place , even while putting people to work during the job-starved 1930s. Landmarks and structures such as public buildings, post offices, major bridges, dams, zoos and many others went up in a relatively brief period, and are still utilized and enjoyed by tens of millions today.
President Barack Obama’s multi-billion dollar federal stimulus package has not yet proposed a similar visionary program, instead focusing on “shovel-ready” projects, which typically translate into short-term fixes such as road repaving projects. This is even though taxpayers would be getting as much as 30% more for their money due to the favorable bidding environment (compared to pre-recessionary times).
Of course the type of planning needed requires a long-term vision which, in the arena of national politics and partisan bickering, is not necessarily the expedient route. Some cities such as San Diego have recognized this and are focusing on longer horizon projects entailing major transit/highway expansion or rehabilitation, with life spans of 50-year or longer. Schenectady, New York Mayor Brian Stratton, echoing the position of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has been pushing a re-creation of the FDR-era WPA program, though his focus has been on funneling federal stimulus funds directly to local governments.
Despite the difference in these emergent approaches, there seems to be a general recognition that the first round of stimulus funding was not very effective. Aligning the true needs of our nation’s infrastructure to the Obama Administration’s vision for creating jobs seems the greatest challenge to overcome.
In our mind, the real question is this: if we’re spending money we don’t have anyways, why not spend it on projects with long-term value? And on a “touchier” note, at what level of government is “value” determined, when it comes to apportionment of federal tax dollars? Is it time to appoint a new “infrastructure czar” to work the interstices of federal/local politics, perhaps backed up by a nationwide cabinet of transit and public works officials? This panel could be given the authority needed to short-circuit the evaluation of projects, as well as to distribute stimulus funds, cutting through the red tape now hampering the process. This would be for the greater good of our nation in the short term, as well as our long-term economic prospects.
My fingers are limber. Who do we email??
As always, thoughts and comments are appreciated!
President Barack Obama’s multi-billion dollar federal stimulus package has not yet proposed a similar visionary program, instead focusing on “shovel-ready” projects, which typically translate into short-term fixes such as road repaving projects. This is even though taxpayers would be getting as much as 30% more for their money due to the favorable bidding environment (compared to pre-recessionary times).
Of course the type of planning needed requires a long-term vision which, in the arena of national politics and partisan bickering, is not necessarily the expedient route. Some cities such as San Diego have recognized this and are focusing on longer horizon projects entailing major transit/highway expansion or rehabilitation, with life spans of 50-year or longer. Schenectady, New York Mayor Brian Stratton, echoing the position of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has been pushing a re-creation of the FDR-era WPA program, though his focus has been on funneling federal stimulus funds directly to local governments.
Despite the difference in these emergent approaches, there seems to be a general recognition that the first round of stimulus funding was not very effective. Aligning the true needs of our nation’s infrastructure to the Obama Administration’s vision for creating jobs seems the greatest challenge to overcome.
In our mind, the real question is this: if we’re spending money we don’t have anyways, why not spend it on projects with long-term value? And on a “touchier” note, at what level of government is “value” determined, when it comes to apportionment of federal tax dollars? Is it time to appoint a new “infrastructure czar” to work the interstices of federal/local politics, perhaps backed up by a nationwide cabinet of transit and public works officials? This panel could be given the authority needed to short-circuit the evaluation of projects, as well as to distribute stimulus funds, cutting through the red tape now hampering the process. This would be for the greater good of our nation in the short term, as well as our long-term economic prospects.
My fingers are limber. Who do we email??
As always, thoughts and comments are appreciated!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The ‘Adaptive Integrator’ and Efficient Project Delivery
We read and enjoyed the excellent book Designing Greenways: Sustainable Landscapes for Nature and People
and came across the notion of the “adaptive integrator”. For a large-scale public works design project, this key individual can function both inside and outside the traditional “collaboratory” environment surrounding the project. The integrator straddles the boundary between those project personnel performing the planning and engineering, and the regulatory agencies who work in a more compartmentalized and process-oriented fashion, and interfaces with a range of stakeholders as well. Using a new greenway design project as an example, and quoting from pg. 22:
Most if not all municipal or special purpose public agencies have (perhaps infrequent) experience managing larger, more controversial projects that test the limits of in-house staff. We’d be interested to hear from agency staff, as to what kinds of challenges these projects bring in terms of finding the right match between project and key personnel. Does your agency handle large-scale project management in-house? At what point does the agency bring in outside consulting help, versus recruiting from within the department? If looking outside of the agency, what qualities are sought?
As always, your opinions are appreciated.
and came across the notion of the “adaptive integrator”. For a large-scale public works design project, this key individual can function both inside and outside the traditional “collaboratory” environment surrounding the project. The integrator straddles the boundary between those project personnel performing the planning and engineering, and the regulatory agencies who work in a more compartmentalized and process-oriented fashion, and interfaces with a range of stakeholders as well. Using a new greenway design project as an example, and quoting from pg. 22:“Although collaboration is useful and important, also needed are broad integrators (our emphasis) who see connections and relationships and who can envision futures that combine the best aspects of a range of issues. Because greenways combine social and natural objectives and because they frequently sit within highly disturbed settings, visions for their future need to be integrative or creative.”The individual who can best work with the various stakeholders to bring the project to fruition may actually be a non-specialist without previous ties to the project, one who can be seen as an objective party by others close to the project, whether advocates, opponents or project-neutral. What is crucial, we believe, is that the individual should have a strong background in project as well as process management, and be given responsibility to develop and adhere to a schedule-tempered project management plan that allows regular assessments of a project’s progress in light of its goals and objectives.
Most if not all municipal or special purpose public agencies have (perhaps infrequent) experience managing larger, more controversial projects that test the limits of in-house staff. We’d be interested to hear from agency staff, as to what kinds of challenges these projects bring in terms of finding the right match between project and key personnel. Does your agency handle large-scale project management in-house? At what point does the agency bring in outside consulting help, versus recruiting from within the department? If looking outside of the agency, what qualities are sought?
As always, your opinions are appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)