What ails this city? / What could it be?

[Miggy]

A couple of weeks before the Charlotte vote, I
was invited to submit an op-ed to the Charlotte
Observer, which was running a series of
viewpoints from both sides in the debate.

My op-ed was published on 21 October, but with
the references and a section on safety omitted.
The following is the original article, including
references and the section on safety. I provided
it to Light Rail Now and it has been published there, with graphics also added.

This information may be of use to others on this list.

As previously noted, the pro-transit campaign won
handily on Nov. 6th, with 70% of the vote.

LH

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_cha_2007-11a.htm

Light Rail Now! website
Updated 2007/11/05

Charlotte:
How Light Rail Can Benefit the Community

Commentary by Lyndon Henry • November 2007

Rail transit is being fiercely debated in the Charlotte, North Carolina urban
area as the region approaches a Nov. 6th vote over continuing financial
support for its transit system. This is an expanded version of an op-ed
commentary originally published in the Charlotte Observer on 21 October
2007 with the title "Why cities embrace light rail". Lyndon Henry, a data
analyst for Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Austin, Texas,
is also a technical consultant to the Light Rail Now Project.

Fusillades of claims and counter-claims are flying in Charlotte's current
debate over funding its transit system. "I'm swimming in numbers!" the
Observer's Mary Schulken complained in a recent column.

While "numbers games" are being used to sow confusion, unfortunately,
establishing truth often depends on numerical data. I'll try to cite key
sources and leave it to intelligent readers to decide what's credible for
themselves.

1. In developing rail transit, Charlotte is
definitely "riding a wave." Over the
past four decades, the number of cities with rail transit has nearly
quadrupled, from nine to 34 – plus three more cities (Phoenix, Austin,
Tucson) that have new voter-approved rail projects under way.

And, in early October, Norfolk's new 7.4-mile light rail project was okayed
for federal funding. All this would hardly be happening if rail transit were
the hopeless failure that critics portray.

[GRAPHIC]
Norfolk, Virginia is proceeding to install its
first modern light rail transit
system, a 7.4-mile line routed mostly on former railroad right-of-way.
[Simulation: HRT]

2. In both population and density, Charlotte is well within the "ballpark" of
New Start rail cities like Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Austin,
Tampa, Little Rock, Nashville, and Albuquerque. (See table below.)

[TABLE]
City Population (2003) Population per Sq. Mi.
Portland 677,813 1,558
Sacramento 1,330.711 1,378
Salt Lake City 924,247 1,254
Austin 857,204 867
Tampa 1,073,407 1,021
Little Rock 364,567 473
Nashville 569,842 1,135
Albuquerque 581,442 499
Charlotte 752,366 1,430
(Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2005. Population and density
figures are those of each city's principal county.)

3. Cities are embracing rail in part because people understand that, if you
get motorists off crowded roadways and into trains, you're going to give
some congestion relief. Rail won't make congestion disappear – nothing
will, really – but it will speed mobility in congested corridors and slow the
overall growth of congestion. For detailed data, see the Light Rail Now
section on Mobility Congestion:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/industry_is ... congestion

[PHOTO]
Traffic congestion certainly won't disappear, but Charlotte's Lynx LRT
system will provide significant mobility congestion relief by attracting many
motorists off crowded streets and freeways, especially in peak hours.
[Photo: C. Patriarca]

4. Rail transit is also significantly safer -
light rail's injury and fatality rate is
about 1.6 times less than that of motor vehicles. See the Light Rail Now
article US Rail Transit Excels in Safety:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-09a.htm.
It makes sense that, if you can minimize risk by providing a safer alterative
for many trips, you and your family members, friends, colleagues, and the
Charlotte public in general will have less exposure to the "traffic
battlefield".

5. The twin crises of diminishing oil resources plus Global Warming mean
higher fuel prices and other problems – which electric rail can certainly
mitigate. Electric light rail has about 40% of the carbon-emitting energy
intensity of an automobile and 45% of a bus. See: Urban Transportation
Carbon-Emitting Energy Intensity – Major Modes in the Light Rail Now
article Transport Energy Debate: How Many BTUs on the Head of a Pin?
...er...Power Line? (http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-08a.htm.)

6. Light rail may well save money for many Charlotte commuters, as
automobile operating costs (including steadily higher fuel prices) are
avoided, plus the cost of parking, plus the cost of constructing more road
capacity.

7. With unit operating costs lower on average than those of buses, light
rail also tends to be a bargain, accommodating growing ridership more
economically (by adding more unmanned railcars to trains). See How
Light Rail Saves Operating Cost Dollars Compared With Buses
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt02.htm). And, even with capital
costs included, light rail costs may be lower than those of buses – see
"Free" buses vs. "expensive" rail?
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_myt ... L_20070531)

[PHOTO]
Study by Light Rail Now Project indicates that, with total capital and
operational costs considered, St. Louis's "capital-intensive" LRT ends up
costing approximately 16% less per passenger mile than the transit
agency's supposedly "cheap" bus system.
[Photo: Urban Review St. Louis]

8. It's a myth that new rail services require new bus routes as feeders.
Instead, existing services are typically re-routed to interface with the new
rail service, increasing ridership on both bus and rail – thus emissions per
passenger and per passenger-mile are typically lowered, not increased.

Compared with bus-only systems, new rail systems have resulted in more
ridership, more riders per capita, and lower unit costs – see Evaluating
New Start Transit Program Performance: Comparing Rail And Bus.

9. Unfortunately, all the fusillades of data in the world can't adequately
convey the urbanity, livability, and ease of mobility that rail transit imparts
to a city. For that, my "citation" would be your own personal visit to a city
like Portland, San Francisco, or Toronto, so you can experience it for
yourself!

[PHOTO]
Portland – Downtown visitors enjoy drinks at a sidewalk cafe as MAX
LRT trains pass by on the street. Light rail has made Portland one of the
most attractive, urbane, and livable cities in the USA.
[Photo: John Schneider]

[mcnichol]

Well, not that this guy is here to argue his side, but I see any modern transit system relying on a number of solutions that work with each other depending on the specific pros and cons of each.

Sure, rail transit is expensive to set up and it has an unchanging path once it is set, but it is fast and independent of changing/increaasing traffic patterns on roadways. Trains operate on a more macro level -- most will not get someone to the doorstep of their employer, but they will get people from A to B fast. Busses can operate on that more micro level -- they can serve to get people those extra distances within the city. Busses can change their paths based on changing populations or traffic patterns and not as expensive to scale up, but they are in the same traffic some people are trying to avoid in using public transit.

I would like to read more about a push to rely solely on bus transit in a city growing as fast as Austin. I don't understand how that would be practical.

EDIT: editted because I forgot to mention that I think Shana makes some good points and I agree with them wholeheartedly. Despite the push for a dense urban core, much of the traditional infrastructure to support that (like walkable bodegas, walkable entertainment) is absent.

[Miggy]

I'm giving a lot of column inches to folks I disagree with...

First, lets face one fact – Rail is not cheap, Even Nawdry was
careful in his gloating over the NC rail vote to point out
that "With unit operating costs lower on average than those of
buses" –On average operating cost and nothing said about capital
cost –Oh I forget that doesn't count in the long run.

Flexibility – there is very little in a fixed track system – the
train goes where the track goes and "hopefully" no where else
because there is no steering mechanism. Something happens on the
track, every thing comes to a halt.

In advocating for better buses service we who are against the light
rail, especially light rail in the street, are asking for a transit
system that provides service to a larger percentage of the
population, not a select small percentage and the developers that
will benefit. The numbers don't lie, city after city that has put
in rail has lost overall rider ship. In some cases as Houston, the
ride ship number has started to come back due primarily to increase
in population, but the overall percentage is still down below pre
rail numbers.

But lets tackle what the pro rail claim is the real issue – oil and
green house gases. .

> But somebody needs to look at the big picture of what is really
> causing soaring fuel prices and a collapsing dollar in
combination,
> and then try to relate it to the car-centric, greenhouse-gas-
denying
> idiocy of our local toll road-centric (as approved by CAMPO
recently,

The Cap Metro commuter train from Leander is going to run on oil and
will put a greater quantity of pollutants into the air than if the
passenger were carried 3 to 4 in "green" or hybrid vehicles. So
where is the "great' benefit to society. The second big problem as
I see it with the rail is that it takes longer for the passengers to
get to their destination than it currently does in express buses or
private vehicles even with the congestion. True, the passenger is
sitting down and not worrying about hitting anything—it will only
hurt if you are in one of the vehicles being hit – but he/she has
lost productivity, or time with family and friends unless of course
they are all on the train with him

Before I start sounding to much like an `Onion' column, let me say
again, I am for transit, good transit that serves the general public
efficiently and is where they live, not where some developer wants
them to live. There is nothing that says buses can't run on
electricity, they do in Seattle, or that car can't run on
electricity. That would get rid or the pollution factor that rail is
supposed to, except in the Cap Metro case, solve. Per mile
passenger cost in rail is less than bus where the rail is fully
occupied, but the bus cost get pretty close (especially if capital
cost is a part of the equation) and the car cost, regardless of
number of people almost always beats both. Trains are much more
efficient at moving tons and tons of goods than are cars or trucks –
but passenger on a train are not tons and tons of freight. Have any
of you ever priced an AMTRAK ticket to anywhere—how is it that the
most expensive mode- airplanes – can move people at the same price
or less? (Austin to San Diego – Air =$99.00 aprox 5 hrs; Train=$189
aprox 45 hrs http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak).

In Europe, even with fuel prices approaching $10 per gal, the number
of vehicles on the road is still increasing – and they have good
public transportation—allmost door step to desk if you are willing
to mix modes.

Sorry I have been so long winded – all this is to say, once again,
anti rail is not anti transit. Let's face one more fact, not all
people want to go to the same place and transit will never serve all
people – it doesn't need to as long as car owner ship is allowed and
roads are built. Oh but roads cover the ground and cause sprawl –
rails cover the ground and hopeful government will never have enough
power to force us to live where the developer with the most
donations wants us to. Even when there is no more oil on this
planet – people will still be getting around in some form of PRT
(personal rapid transit, ie cars on roads). If the local transit
system is rapid and responsive, they will ride it, but only if it is
going where they want to or need to go. I leave you with one last
thought; Can any of you imagine a fire truck or ambulance on a fixed
rail system? With out a good road system, how will they respond?

Frank Schleicher
a resident of Austin ETJ - not connect in any way with any supplier
or provider of transit or transit systems.

[mcnichol]

rah rah busses, don't believe liberal clap-trap of oil and greenhouse gasses...

Even ignoring the oil/pollution issue, the big elephant in the room is that busses are no faster than cars if they are on the same roadways. Sure, traffic isn't that bad now, but in 10 years we'll wish we had a transportation option that doesn't rely on overcrowded roads. Sure, public transporation should support people who cannot afford to have their own personal transportation, but the reason people who do have cars take the train in [insert any major city with a rail system] is not that they are fighting big oil or that they like the sound of trains, but that it is much faster than taking any automobile whether that's their own personal car or a bus. I'd be all for busses if they had a dedicated roadway, but then that becomes expensive in the range of building rail.

I cannot tell from this guy or the other guy's points of view if they are considering what Austin will be like in 10 years when they are weighing these transit options. Anyone who has been here for 10 years or more (not me!), tell me how 35 or MoPac were then compared to now in terms of traffic during rush hours or even in off hours. I can't imagine what it will be like in another 10, and those busses will be on the same roads.

[Jeff]

Im uginst Lite Rale!

[apiaryist]

rah rah busses, don't believe liberal clap-trap of oil and greenhouse gasses...

Even ignoring the oil/pollution issue, the big elephant in the room is that busses are no faster than cars if they are on the same roadways. Sure, traffic isn't that bad now, but in 10 years we'll wish we had a transportation option that doesn't rely on overcrowded roads. Sure, public transporation should support people who cannot afford to have their own personal transportation, but the reason people who do have cars take the train in [insert any major city with a rail system] is not that they are fighting big oil or that they like the sound of trains, but that it is much faster than taking any automobile whether that's their own personal car or a bus. I'd be all for busses if they had a dedicated roadway, but then that becomes expensive in the range of building rail.

I cannot tell from this guy or the other guy's points of view if they are considering what Austin will be like in 10 years when they are weighing these transit options. Anyone who has been here for 10 years or more (not me!), tell me how 35 or MoPac were then compared to now in terms of traffic during rush hours or even in off hours. I can't imagine what it will be like in another 10, and those busses will be on the same roads.

I remember when you could get anywhere in 15 minutes at any time. But that was the past. As to the future,
I have a solution.

[eric a. garcia]

I remember when you could get anywhere in 15 minutes at any time. But that was the past. As to the future,
I have a solution.

Things have certainly changed around here. I remember when this was all farmland as far as the eye could see! Old man Peabody owned all of this! He had this crazy idea about breeding pine trees.

[slappywhite]

Isn't Austin in the top 20 overall for worst traffic in the US? And #1 for our population size? At this point anything would be better, it's not like it could get a lot worse.

[York99]

it's not like it could get a lot worse.

Just wait. When people start moving into all those condos being built downtown and on the east side and the developments just outside of the city...
jinks

[Wesley]

Is it fixed yet?

[Miggy]

Is it fixed yet?

Ha! Funny.

There is a draft cultural plan available at this time, and comments are still being taken. Wes, I believe you represented Improv at one of their many community listening sessions. The draft plan can be found here:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/culturalplan/plan.htm

I'm still chewing on it - and I may have to postpone looking at it. I seriously need to study.

Must

walk

away.

[Miggy]

In poking around, I found this really interesting and worth sharing (ignore the stupid build up at the beginning of the video):

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/104

[York99]

This isn't so much a problem I've noticed downtown, but in the rest of the city: The traffic lights are waaaay too long.
...
Downtown might actually be the only part of the city that I've noticed that DOESN'T have that problem.

I stand WAY corrected on this. I now work downtown. From 11th to 2nd on Colorado, I caught EVERY light this morning. From 2nd to 12th on Trinity, I caught EVERY light this evening. They aren't always absurdly long, but they are sometimes.

[slappywhite]

Well to further Austin's decline into another boring cookie cutter city, Einstein's Arcade closed yesterday, finally completing The Drag's long transformation into a boring soulless strip mall...Congrats Austin!

Keep Austin weird, open another Gap!

[apiaryist]

Well to further Austin's decline into another boring cookie cutter city, Einstein's Arcade closed yesterday, finally completing The Drag's long transformation into a boring soulless strip mall...Congrats Austin!

Keep Austin weird, open another Gap!

I'm sad to see it go... I wasted a lot of prime girl-chasing time in that place.

To be fair, all arcades in the U.S. appear to be on the decline. The boys and girls are getting steak for dinner every night at home. Why would they go out?