Spending my customary half-assed effort, I've redone my blogroll to better promote other blogs which cover similar subjects to this one, upon adding a new and promising entry: the Austin Contrarian. Chris, the author, started his own blog after participating frequently in comments on New Urban Prospect whose author apparently decided to stay in Vancouver. Not that anybody blames her...
Neighborhood groups are crowing over the results of the Capital Metro streetcar workshop which is, frankly, just a load of barely-informed fluff that anybody who's bothered to ever ride a transit line of any type knew about three minutes after getting on the bus or train. Capital Metro holds these things mainly in order to appear as if they're accepting input from the community - I'll write about that someday if it bugs me a bit more than it already does.
As usual, what's missing from this entire thing is, getting back to the old microeconomical view, why would somebody decide to ride this thing instead of driving their car?
Take as a given that we're talking about 'choice commuters' - i.e. those who could, and today do, drive to work. So look through the series of comments from this workshop and see if you can find even one which addresses, even obliquely, the reasons why people don't take the bus today (the entire streetcar corridor is served quite well by buses which run almost as frequently as this streetcar would).
See anybody talking about signal pre-emption (a la Rapid Bus)? Nope.
See anybody talking about reserved guideway (a la light rail)? Nope.
There's about one place where the "why is this better than a bus" question is even asked/answered, and it boils down to what I always say: a modest improvement in attraction due to perception of permanence and a slightly more comfortable ride. It's not any faster than the bus; nor is it going to be any more reliable. People who try it are very quickly going to figure this out - so you're left with luring tourists, which is, I suppose, a worthy goal, but then why are we spending all the money to drag this thing out Mueller-ways? Again - people living in Mueller and working downtown are going to figure out after a couple of trips that the streetcar may look nicer than the bus did, but it's still very slow and still very much stuck in traffic, so might as well go back to driving.
Think about it this way: We've got a passenger. His name's Joe Mueller. He lives in the new development out at the old airport. He drives to work today at the Capitol. Many days, traffic is bad, and he has to either suffer through traffic, or shift a few blocks over and try to make up some time on a different road. Why doesn't he take the bus today? Well, he sees the buses every day on the same road he (usually) drives. They stop a lot; accelerate poorly; and can't shift to another street when there's an accident or congestion on Manor, for instance. What could you do to get this guy on transit? Well, cost isn't going to work - he has free or cheap parking, and the variable cost of driving is trivial. But taking a big chunk out of the current gap in speed and/or reliability might do it - and in other cities, actually has worked. So, is the streetcar going to be faster than the existing bus? More reliable?
Somewhat depressing is the Chronicle coverage of the session - in which the author conflates light rail with streetcar, and continues the Chronicle's perfect record of refusing to analyze the difference between "good rail" and "bad rail". At least they gave my colleague Patrick Goetz some play - but that makes it sound like the only choices are streetcar or monorail, which plays right into the hands of Krusee. Light rail as in 2000 would have run on the ground, for a fraction of the cost of monorail, and provided most of the speed and reliability benefits of truly grade-separated transit. Somehow, I've got to find somebody else in the world who can get a bit deeper than "rail bad" or "rail good" to "this rail bad BECAUSE".
The most depressing thing of all, though, is that TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS are apparently dumb enough to fall for this hype and think it's going to make any difference. Sigh. I had hoped that McCracken, at least, was going to be pushing for something like light rail for the center-city, but now I see all he's doing is pulling the same crappy sled as the rest of them.
Here's the first of a series about Rapid Bus, now officially branded MetroRapid, which, don't forget, is the sum total of the transit improvements on tap for the urban core of Austin thanks to the bait-and-switch commuter-rail electioneering. You aren't getting rail; you're getting a bus that looks like a train. But does it perform like a train? In each one of these articles, I'll be looking at another "rapid bus" or "bus rapid transit" city and how the mode actually performs, and compare to Austin's proposal.
Let's start with a note that my intrepid cow orker forwarded me some months ago from New Jersey: Bus Rapid Transit - Not For New Jersey. I'll provide some excerpts, since the whole thing is fairly long.
Study after study has now clearly confirmed what NJ-ARP repeatedly has reported for more than a decade - busways do not attract large ridership, cost more to construct and operate and, where they do operate, have not produced the financial results their promoters have promised. It's a lose-lose-lose situation.
In our case, we're not actually constructing a busway; so the "costs more to construct" is not applicable to Austin. However, the "do not attract large ridership" will certainly bite us here.
Statistics show that busways attract only 33 percent of projected ridership, but rail lines exceed initial estimates by 22 percent. Notwithstanding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in concert with the highway and motor bus industry, has continued to advocate for BRT. In order to justify continued expansion of BRT, supporters have used rail planning models to predict bus patronage. Even though busway supporters have sponsored trips to places such as Curitiba, Brazil, to view what in their minds is a successful application of BRT technology, nowhere in North America has this mode of public transport attracted such rail passenger boardings.
Curitiba is really starting to become like the infamous (and discredited) 85% head-injury-reduction-for-bicycle-helmets study. It's trotted out every single time some transit agency is pressured by the Feds into building BRT (or Rapid Bus) instead of rail - and every single time it's not even remotely applicable to the United States' population. Curitiba is a poor city full of people who are, at best, marginally capable of affording automobiles. It doesn't take much at all to get them to use public transportation - most don't have a choice, and the remainder are poor enough that even relatively small cost savings are worth large investments in extra commuting time. All their "bus rapid transit system" really had to do was be a smidge faster than regular buses to be a huge success there.
The same, of course, is not true in the US (or Austin in particular). Remember this post in which I estimate that a potential transit user in the suburbs might save a couple of bucks at the cost of an hour or two of time. Not compelling in the least, even if the extra time investment drops by 20% or so.
When one considers that light rail cars have a 40-year life compared with 15 years for buses, LRT is much less costly as well as more attractive and safer.
Hey! Good news for Austin! We'll only be stuck with these awful articulated buses for 15 years, and then we can get rid of the "but we invested all that money in those fancy buses" argument.
A study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that light rail vehicle was 15.5 percent less costly to operate than bus, all other factors being equal. Low floor light rail cars have a larger capacity than low floor buses of comparable length. The average capacity of a 40-foot low floor bus is only 37 seated passengers due to space that is taken up by the wheel wells which intrude on interior space that otherwise could be used for fare paying riders. While an articulated two-section low floor bus contains more seats, it will still have less capacity than a low floor light rail car. Unlike BRT, a light rail line can increase line capacity by adding more cars to a train, resulting in an increase in operator productivity. The only way to increase the capacity of BRT is to add more buses, each of which will require another driver resulting in higher operating costs.
Well, Capital Metro is so flush with money that higher operating costs won't matter at all, right?
Please check out the whole article. BRT and its stunted sibling "Rapid Bus" are nothing more than stalking horses, pushed by the Feds to avoid having to make investments in rail transit. After all, you can convert a busway back into a car lane. Don't be fooled - folks pushing Rapid Bus aren't friends of public transit.
Next time: Boston!
So I was at my cousin's wedding on Saturday down on Oltorf and as we pulled in, there was this guy in a full Superman costume waiting for the bus. (This could launch about a million jokes). According to rumor, this guy's been crashing events - he was supposedly praying in the church before we got there. I was completely embarassed as I had to tell out-of-town relatives that I had no idea about this dude, but hey, do you want to hear about Leslie? So much for my image as The Guy To Ask About Weird Austin Stuff.
So, my two readers, what gives with this new eccentric dude? I needs to know so I can rectify my ignorance.
Just sent a moment ago. Links added for reference.
Dear mayor and council members:
My name is Mike Dahmus; I served on the Urban Transportation Commission from 2000 to 2005, and still write on the subject of transportation from time to time. Until a medical condition forced me to stop, I was a frequent bicycle commuter (but, unlike some others you probably hear from, also continued to own and drive a car as well).
I can't emphasize enough the points previously made by Jen Duthie from UT that this ordinance may seem like much ado about nothing if you're used to thinking about bicycling as simply a sporting activity - like the ride Bruce Todd was on when he hurt himself. If you're going out to ride for fun, a helmet doesn't make a lot of difference - you'll probably still ride, and even if forcing a helmet makes you delay your ride until a cooler day, for instance, the overall public health is not significantly harmed.
But for transportation bicyclists, mandating a helmet be used for what is essentially a safer activity overall than driving is a critical error - many marginal cyclists will simply stop riding their bikes and return to their cars. You certainly see this effect at play among children - hardly any of whom ride their bikes to school any more, partly because of the inconvenience and discomfort of the helmet, but also due to their parents belief that cycling must be a very dangerous activity if it requires a helmet.
Every adult cyclist you convince not to ride is one more driver. Every driver is that much more traffic and pollution; making Austin less healthy not only for themselves but for the rest of us as well.
Since the evidence in the real world has shown that there has been no actual benefit from dramatic increases in helmet usage in this and other countries, there ought to be no justification whatsoever for a mandatory helmet law (or even, I'd argue, excessive promotion of helmets compared to more effective measures such as traffic enforcement and education).
Please take this in mind when voting. No serious transportation cyclist (i.e. one who actually uses their bike to get around) has signed on to this effort as far as I'm aware.
Michael E. Dahmus
Finally got some more processed: February and March 2006. I actually just processed April but ran out of disk space on my ISP, which is yet another reason to get my ass in gear and finally get rehosted....
This thread on the New Urban Prospect blog is a good launching point for a short subject which seems obvious to me but doesn't to many others: most people say they don't like density because their previous 'density experiences' were with low-density apartment sprawl.
I can get this because my first three homes out of college were all in such complexes in South Florida, and my first place here was as well. You know the kind - every building exactly three stories1 and a dozen or two units, with a dozen or more such buildings arranged around winding parking lots which you have to drive through to get to your door even if you really wanted to walk - usually set on big busy roads to boot. This is the experience most people (including myself) have today with their first after-college housing. It's not very dense, all things considered, but you still don't have much space to yourself; you have no yard; you have to worry about noisy neighbors and thin walls; etc.
The thing that shook me out of this rut was remembering my college days. Unfortunately, far too many UT students live in car-dependent sprawl-suck out on Riverside or Far West, but most people from other universities ought to be able to remember a better experience - one where, yes, you had the lack of space and yard, and yes, you had the noise; but you also could walk to many interesting places without getting nailed by the traffic on US 183.
When I started shopping for a condo in 1996, I knew I wanted to live closer in; but I hadn't yet remembered that walking lifestyle - until I was shown the condo I ended up buying, about 100 feet from the Fresh Plus in Clarksville. I believe passers-by could actually see the big light bulb above my head at this juncture. And, as it turned out, it was a great place to live (if we could find the mythical 3-bedroom non-luxe unit, we'd still be living there, I'm sure). Suddenly, density had advantages. I could walk to a grocery store and be back in 5 minutes, instead of driving 15 minutes to the giant awful HEB on Mopac/Parmer and then shopping for an hour. I could walk or ride my bike downtown to shows or restaurants (and did - usually using my car only for the occasional work commute).
That's the part most people never get to see. Again, in those suburban pod-apartments, all you ever get is the downside of density - you never, ever, get to see the upside. Ironically, even the downside was less 'down' than most people would assume - the simple fact that the neighborhood was active with pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers essentially 24 hours a day tended to discourage noise and other shenanigans. I could sleep with the windows open there (when weather permitted); I can't ever do so where we are now - in a supposedly quieter mostly single-family neighborhood. Likewise, try walking a street in Manhattan at night and you'll be surprised how quiet it is compared to the car noise you hear in most suburbs.
There you go. A shorter distillation of this topic would be more than welcome, if anybody's feeling the urge to coin some phrases.
1: Note that the fact that 99% of all apartment development in this area is 3 stories, and the fact that the MF-3 zoning category allows a maxmium of 3 stories, must just be a coincidence - because, as we all know, the market isn't interested in providing taller buildings, because people don't want them.
Saved for posterity since Yahoo is flaking out; possibly of some marginal interest here. This is in response to a post by Susan Moffat, fighting against Wal-Mart at Northcross Mall. The point answered by #1 was a study that correlated Wal-Marts with poverty at the county level.
I hate Wal-Mart too, especially after having to shop at one this weekend up here in Michigan (absence had made the heart grow slightly less contemptuous, I guess), but get real.
1. The studies you quote could just as easily have shown that Wal-Mart is attracted to poverty-stricken rural areas. IE, they didn't control for the pre-existing conditions.
2. I agree that Costco is a million times better than Wal-Mart, but I bet Allandale and the ANC would fight Costco too. If not, let's see them put their money where their mouth is and draft a letter asking Costco to please move in to this location.
3. If somebody better is not an option, Wal-Mart is certainly an improvement over what's there now. The mall is just pathetic - and only getting worse. How about for once hitching your wagon to the market instead of fighting against it and calling Wal-Mart's bluff - offer to at least abstain if the physical building layout is more urban and pedestrian-supportive than what exists there today, for instance.
Warning! High degrees of bile contained within! The excellent weather and low-stress environment up here in the UP of Michigan have somehow had the exact opposite effect as you might have predicted on my reaction to some more typical neighborhood association nonsense back home.
Here's the story: Some puff media are covering and some less puffy blogs are mocking the protests about the sidewalk-coverin' parking-reducin' patio on South Congress. Here's M1EK's position for you, short and bileful:
TRUDY'S SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BUILD MORE PARKING. Requiring suburban amounts of parking for this restaurant in a thriving urban area merely ensures that development will remain suburban in scope and blighted in quality. This is a city. Grow up, idiots.
COVERING UP THE SIDEWALK = TEH SUCK. Don't expect my sympathy when you cover up the damn sidewalk, you Trudy's buttheads.
MAKING FUN OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO STEP OFF THE SIDEWALK = TEH SUCKIER SUCK. It's easy for you or me to hop off a curb for a while. Now imagine you're in a wheelchair, or walking with a cane, you smug jackasses. Real cities have sidewalks. EVERYWHERE. (Note: The smug jackasses are sort of implied here; nothing in the non-puffy blog was all that smug about this; but I've seen this sentiment displayed in other circumstances. This city is way too mellow about protecting pedestrian infrastructure).
BITCHING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO PARK IN "YOUR SPACE" IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE = TEH SUCKIEST SUCK OF ALL TEH SUCKS. Again, you don't own the space in front of your house, you reactionist retards. YOU DON'T OWN THE STREET IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. (* - RPPP notwithstanding).
I'm thinking of getting those points printed on a big sign (with protruding asterisk for maximum pointiness) and then smacking the neighborhood association jerks over the head with it. Who's with me?
(Yes, the link is to the newer, and much more acceptable, Parking Benefit District; I can't find a general site for the RPPP, so sue me).