Understanding the FTA

Today we have a guest post from Tom Rubin.

Dane County, Wisconsin has formed a Transport 2020 task force that is trying to obtain federal funding for a commuter-rail line in Madison. During a recent meeting, a consultant “reviewed the FTA’s recent decision to include “perceived” rail advantages into ridership forecasting and modeling. This allows forecasters to quantify the quality of service for rail travel time, rail headways, and the attractiveness of rail, and include that in the ridership model.”

The problem is, this is not what the FTA actually said.

Continue reading

RTD to Raise Transit Fares

In 2004, Denver’s Regional Transit District (RTD) convinced voters to increase the sales tax dedicated to transit from 0.6 to 1.0 cents per dollar so that it could build six new rail lines. Now it says tax revenues are falling short of projections, while costs are higher than expected. So it is raising transit fares, which will only reduce ridership and harm transit-dependent people.

This is a completely predictable result of trying to build a rail megaproject. It is one thing to run a bus system where the capital costs are low and don’t require either long-term borrowing or long-term cost projections. It is quite another thing to plan a ten- or more year construction project that requires a thirty- or more year mortgage.

Blocking traffic.
Flickr photo by Jeffrey Beall.

Continue reading

Right-Wing Think Tank Releases Report on Portland

That well-known right-wing think tank, the Cato Institute, today released a report about Portland written by that not-so-well-known sprawl-loving, car-happy nut, Randal O’Toole. O’Toole spews out all kinds of so-called data that smart-growth planners probably refuted long ago, such as that transit has lost market share in Portland since they started building light rail and that Portlanders voted against building more light-rail lines.

O’Toole (did I mention that he is right wing?) even dredges up the story of Neil Goldschmidt, Portland’s former mayor who, after retiring from politics, formed a “light-rail mafia” that milked Portland’s planning process, directing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and no-bid contracts to his clients and friends. So what if Goldschmidt turned out to be be a statutory rapist? That doesn’t mean anything is wrong with Portland’s planning.

Continue reading

Summer Book Reviews #5: The Peter Hall Trilogy

Once upon a time there was an urban planner who traveled around the world and looked at urban plans and discovered they were disasters. For this, he received a knighthood from the Queen.

Sir Peter Hall is a planning professor at University College in London, and he also taught and did research for a time at UC Berkeley. Though he believes in planning, his books provide an excellent case for antiplanners. In fact, whenever I get frustrated with some planner talking or writing about the wonders of planning, all I need to do is read a portion of one of these books to get a breath of fresh air from an objective observer of the profession.

Click on the image of each book to get information about purchasing a copy.

Continue reading

TODs Don’t Work, Says L.A. Times

The Los Angeles Times takes a hard look at transit-oriented developments (TODs) and concludes that they don’t change people’s travel habits. Local officials say TODs will revitalize neighborhoods without adding to congestion, but the Times finds that “there is little research to back up the rosy predictions.”

The paper cites one study that “showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars.” Two reporters from the paper itself spent two months interviewing TOD residents and reached the same conclusion: “only a small fraction of residents shunned their cars during morning rush hour.”

Continue reading

Summer Book Reviews #4: The Road More Traveled

We are back to transportation with this book, which came out just after the 2006 Preserving the American Dream conference, so I think of it as a new book. The Road More Traveled is written by two “fellows” with the Reason Foundation and is the star (so far) of that group’s mobility project.

In contrast to Street Smart, which idealistically promotes widescale privatization, this book takes a more incrementalist look at highways and transportation. Bob Poole, who leads the Reason Foundation’s mobility project, ultimately supports privatization and tolling, but is willing to accept (and has even invented) many “halfway” measures, including high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes (which some true-blue libertarians might question because it leave most lanes untolled).

Continue reading

Happy Independence Day

Today Americans celebrate independence from a foreign nation and, more generally, freedom from tyranny. Regular readers of the Antiplanner won’t have to guess what I think about that.

Fireworks over the Willamette River, July 3, 2007.
Flickr photo copyright 2007 by Sean Dreilinger.

All my life, I’ve wondered about the relationship between the individual and society. When do the needs of the community trump individual freedom? Henry David Thoreau gave his answer in his famous essay, Civil Disobedience:

“I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men.”

Continue reading

Summer Book Reviews #3: Don’t Call It Sprawl

Rather than the polemics of an activist like Wendell Cox, today’s book is an academic look at the sprawl debate: author William T. (for Thomas) Bogart is dean of academic affairs at York College in Pennsylvania. His book, Don’t Call It Sprawl: Metropolitan Structure in the Twenty-First Century, attempts to analyze cities using data and the latest research.

Though similar in some ways, Robert Bruegmann’s Sprawl: A Compact History was an architect’s view of the sprawl debate. This book is an economist’s view — and (unlike the Antiplanner) not an economist with a particularly libertarian bent.

Bogart shows that urban areas — which he likes to call “trading places” because he sees trade as the main reason people choose to live closely together — are far more complicated that planners understand. Until recently, many planners had a monocentric view of cities; that is, they implicitly assumed that everything revolved around downtown. But that kind of city disappeared in the early twentieth century.

In the last couple of decades or so, planners have discovered the polycentric city, that is that modern urban areas have many job, commercial, and retail centers. For some reason, planners think they have to designate various regional and town centers and then stimulate their growth, as if they weren’t going to grow anyway. Planners then want to connect all those centers with a rail transit system.
If order cialis professional you are having heart related problems, problems in kidneys, Blood pressure are few health conditions in which you should take only when you like to do sex. In the absence of appropriate treatment can increase the chances viagra sample canada of recovery. The medication works with the help of a correct diet, cipla tadalafil price pre-existing treatments and some self control. The most compelling recommended estimations is 100 mg and http://djpaulkom.tv/getting-to-the-bbq-dj-paul-shares-his-cooking-secrets/ levitra no prescription it is not prescribed to take more than one measurement for every day.
But Bogart shows that even the polycentric view of a city is obsolete. Together, the old downtowns and the edge cities/regional and town centers only have about 30 to 40 percent of the jobs in modern U.S. urban areas. That means that planners are ignoring well over half the workers in the region.

For example, advocates of Denver’s FasTracks rail boondoggle bragged that it would put 29 percent of the jobs in the Denver metropolitan area within a half mile of a rail station. But 29 percent is a pathetic number. Since well under half the commuters to downtown ride transit, and even a rail system would not serve other centers as well as downtown, FasTracks will almost certainly never serve even 10 percent of the region’s employees.

I don’t agree with everything Bogart says. For example, he doesn’t see anything wrong with subsidizing 30 to 40 percent of the cost of downtown housing “if that is desired by the city.” Such subsidies may be strongly desired by downtown property owners and developers, but few others in the city are going to benefit.

Nevertheless, I recommend the book to anyone who wants a better understanding of how modern cities really work. We’ve also invited Bogart to speak at the Preserving the American Dream conference in San Jose this November.

Subways Full, Take a Bus

The New York Times says that many of New York subways are running at full capacity. A chart indicates that, on the 2, 3, 4, 5, and E lines, the trains are full and they can’t run any more trains per hour.

The Antiplanner has written about transit capacities before and pointed out that an exclusive bus lane running at freeway speeds can actually move more passenger miles per hour than a subway. However, no one expects New York City to build bus lanes running at freeway speeds on Manhattan.

Continue reading

Summer Book Reviews #2: War on the Dream

If anyone deserves the title of antiplanner, it is Wendell Cox. Wendell has challenged rail transit plans in Atlanta, Denver, Charlotte, and many other cities. For this reason, he has been called an anti-transit zealot, which is a typical tactic of the rail nuts to assert that anyone who doesn’t favor their particular flavor of transit must oppose all transit.

In fact, Wendell helped plan the Los Angeles rail network, and became a rail skeptic only after those rail lines went way over budget and, when finally built, ended up carrying far fewer riders than predicted. Now he insists that transportation funds be spent cost effectively, which greatly annoys people who think nothing of spending a $200 million a mile on a rail line that will carry fewer people than a $5 million lane-mile of freeway.

Continue reading