Livability vs. Cost Effectiveness

Administration officials said they were reversing guidelines put in place by the Bush administration that called for evaluating new transit projects largely by how much they cost and how much travel time they would save. . . .

Mr. LaHood said the administration would establish new guidelines that take what he called “livability” into account — evaluating projects not only by how much they shorten commutes but also by their environmental, community and economic benefits.

 

- Administration Loosens Purse Strings for Transit Projects, NY Times, 01/13/2010

Realizing, as its predecessors apparently did not, that alternative transportation is not simply about saving time and money, the Obama administration is altering the criteria by which transit projects will be scrutinized for federal funding.  Rather than a cost effectiveness model, the new guidelines hone in on environmental impacts as well as community benefits and economic development associated with the transit lines.  As posted on the Secretary of Transportation's blog, the DOT is moving away from the "narrow" performance criteria and moving to a set of six broader performance requirements that reflect "key livability factors" - "economic development, mobility improvement, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness and land use."  While cost certainly remains a consideration, it, rightly so, is not the only factor by which projects are judged.

 

I will admit that this new system could make individual projects more difficult to judge and could further open fund awards to back-room negotiations and political favors.  The key will be how clearly and thoughtfully the DOT can define some basis of metrics for evaluating the performance criteria that could become more ethereal than concrete.  But in any case, this is a step in the right direction, I believe.  In a land of freedom, liberty, and opportunity, one area where many citizens have no choice is transportation.  Hopefully this policy shift will become and remain an effective tool for providing that choice to more of America's people.

Official DOT Press Release

A report from Houston about how the new guidelines are affecting existing rail plans.

More on Denver's Living Streets Initiative

A few weeks ago, I blogged critically about the perspective of a Denver Post opinion writer regarding Denver's Living Streets initiative.  Now the co-chair of Living Streets has responded as well.  His brief letter to the editor raises some of the same objections to Carroll's column that I did. 

For People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

U.S. News and World Report: 15 Cities for People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

I like this report because it balances two often opposed concerns: (1) wanting to drive less and (2) maintaining a reasonable commute time.  As the article notes, some cities with heavy public transit ridership did not make the list because of the time it takes to commute on public transit.  That statement may be a little misleading.  There are certainly other factors to consider in those long-transit-commute cities - auto traffic, parking availability and cost, convenience - that make public transit the preferred option for folks despite the time commitment.  Cities in this category should not be surprising: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, among others.

The cities that did make this list have a common element - compactness.  That characteristic makes non-motorized commuting a viable option.  There should also be little surprise that several college towns make the list - Chapel Hill, Boulder, Eugene, Madison, and others.

The desirability of commuting options - including walking, cycling, and the like - has led some cities to try and incorporate elements of the named towns into neighborhood design.  Denver's Living Streets Initiative is one example.  Some of the aims of the initiative are multi-model transportation access (including non-motorized transportation) and increased mobility for the population in general; efficiency (increasing convenient stops per outing); sustainability; community; and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.  The initiative is integrated with the zoning code revision that I have written about several times recently, particularly the new code's Main Street districts.  In some neighborhood commercial areas, for example, the initiative would narrow lanes to slow car speeds and allow for wider sidewalks.  I live near the University of Denver in Denver.  The restaurants and shops along both Evans Avenue and University Boulevard are perfect for such a design.  For one thing, parking is not sufficient.  It is incredibly frustrating to try to drive to and park at many of the restaurants, especially during peak times.  Secondly, because of the rate at which traffic moves along both Evans and University, I sometimes do not absolutely safe walking, particularly at night or when I have either my dogs or infant son with me.  In short, the skeleton of great, compact, walkable neighborhood are there, so why not implement the necessary policies and physical changes to encourage that profile?

Such planning is not without its critics.  A recent opinion column in the Denver Post criticized and ridiculed the Living Streets Initiative.  But I think the author is ignoring an important aspect of the initiative - it will not work for every street in Denver.  Two of the roads he mentions, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue are major arterial streets (three lanes in most places) and serve very busy commercial districts.  While it might be nice to make those commercial areas more accessible, the reality is that it would require significant alteration of the infrastructure already in place.  Any of you who live in Denver and know the areas to which I am referring know there is a vast difference between Evans near DU and Colorado Boulevard.  I could also counter the author's arguments about traffic and induced congestion, but I will not belabor that point.  I will say, generally speaking, that advocating the status quo,  as the author does, certainly will not alleviate and is more likely to perpetuate the complaints he describes.  At least a fresh perspective represents a chance at progress, even if it ultimately fails. 

For those of us who feel tied to our cars, the cities in the U.S. News and World Report article are encouraging and inspiring, even if a bit aspirational.  Personally, I appreciate the efforts of my city to provide myself and fellow Denverites with options.  

Let a Little Sunshine In . . .

Disclaimer: This post will be primarily of interest to you Denver readers out there.

If you are not already aware, Denver is undertaking a massive rewrite of its zoning code. The rewrite aims to overhaul how the city handles planning, zoning, and land use matters. The new code is also taking particular care to incorporate sustainable practices and the variety of mobility options available in Denver. Despite being basically a from-scratch rewrite of the zoning code, the new version is based significantly on the neighborhood characteristics and building types that already exist in the city.

I suppose one downfall of such an ambitious project is the possibility for little issues to become lost in the shuffle. The link below to a Denver Post commentary illustrates one such issue that seems minor in the abstract but would be quite noticeable in practice.

"Retain Solar Access in Code"

For those readers in Denver, I would encourage you to check out the site www.newcodedenver.org. There you can find all sorts of information, summaries, blogs, and profiles of the folks who are actively working on this project. I would also encourage you to take a look at the proposed zoning maps and see how your property or neighborhood might be impacted by the code revision. On the site, you can also find information about public comment, meetings, and hearings if you do have concerns about how the new code will affect you. I am working my way through the second draft of the proposed code, so if you have questions, feel free to get in touch with me and I will see if I can be of any help.

(If you are really really interested (read: nerdy interested) in Denver zoning, you can compare the old zoning code with the new proposed code. The old code can be found here. Scroll down the table of contents on the left to Chapter 59 - Zoning.)

States Seeking Federal Funds for Rail

In contrast to the Alabama highway project I highlighted recently (See "Federal Highway Funding Going to 'Wrong Places'"), many other states are seeking to capitalizing on federal funding opportunities to maintain, upgrade, and expand their rail networks. I hope to see more reports of this type of state and local government recognition that "balance" in transportation options is a worthy investment and a characteristic that residents find both useful and desirable.

"States Seek Slice of Rail Funding", Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009

"Maryland Seeks $360 Million for Rail Upgrades", Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2009

Federal Highway Funding Going to "Wrong Places"

In my post about obstacles to public transportation in the U.S., I talked about incentivizing alternative transit options for commuters. A corollary to that concept is promoting transportation policy through funding. But federal highway funding policy threatens to keep the country locked in the status quo for some time to come.

The PBS segment highlighted in this report from Next American City magazine discusses a particular project included in the Appalachain Highway Development System, a federal program that matches federal to state dollars $4:$1 for included highway projects. As highlighted in the video clip, authorization for the Northern Beltway around Birmingham was included in federal legislation and largely bypassed local planning and projection processes. From the comments of Birmingham's Mayor Larry Langford, its clear the project faces some pushback from local government: "Yes, we can get from point A to point B but now what we are doing is cycling traffic around because of the grandiose idea that ‘we need more interstates.’ No, we don’t need more interstates—we need high-speed public transportation. But we’re always spending our money in the wrong places."

Aside from these specific issues, including the demolition of homes along the beltway's proposed route, projects such as this raise questions about the effectiveness of federal funding priorities. It seems clear from Mayor Langford's comments, as well as those of a local real estate developer, that Birmingham could use federal assistance in a number areas within the city itself. Rather than helping to fund urban renewal projects or stimulate economic growth within Birmingham, federal funds - 80% of 3.3 billion dollars, according to PBS - will instead go to highway project cutting through undeveloped portions of the surrounding countryside.

All of this is occurring at a time when the Obama administration, at least in words, is attempting to dramatically alter the general transportation policy of the United States. Certainly an appropriate starting place would be examine who federal transportation are allotted and awarded and how those programs affect the decisions of state and local lawmakers.

Considering the Usefulness of the Carbon Footprint Concept

Chuck Plunkett published an editorial in the Denver Post this past Sunday entitled, "Prius effect: energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail." Today, Post contributor Ed Quillen responded with an opinion piece, "Fallacy of the carbon footprint." I want to take a look at both of these articles for two fairly distinct reasons. First, as Quillen clearly hints, I want to discuss the admitted narrowness of Plunkett's analysis and how that limitation, at least in my mind, does much to discredit an attempt at a well-reasoned argument. Secondly, I want to think about how effective the concept of the carbon footprint actually is, as it is being used in studies like that relied on by Plunkett.

Plunkett's premise is that as the fuel efficiency of automobiles improves, transit options such as light rail become less appealing. Plunkett admits that his analysis focuses on one perceived benefit of light rail - environmental effects - though I believe he attempts to bury this admission. Furthermore, as Quillen points out, that singular focus is not even fully analyzed. The study Plunkett utilizes seems limited to energy consumption of the transportation modes themselves without accounting for all the incidental environmental effects. In Plunkett's defense, these are almost too numerous to name, let alone account for in a statistical study; however, the failure to even acknowledge them is unacceptable. What about comparing the environmental effects of highway versus rail infrastructure? What about the effects on watersheds of all the impervious surfacing needed to accommodate a metropolitan area moved by cars (or buses)? Plunkett also does not broach the subject of how his automobile carbon analysis would change in citywide standstill traffic. How would all of those cars essentially idling for minutes at time effect the per passenger per mile analysis? Given all these glaring absences, I cannot understand how Plunkett can make the statement that light rail is "a transit option our environment can no longer afford," unless, of course, he's powered by the same agenda as Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, who contributed the data utilized by Plunkett.

Aside from Plunkett's limited environmental analysis, he ignores other benefits of light rail and public transportation. When all car commuting expenses in a city like Denver are accounted for - gas, car maintenance, parking, etc. - light rail can be an enticing option economically for many commuters. This is particularly true if employers are providing or subsidizing the cost of transit passes. And what about safety? Look, we all know that transit proponents will throw out some exaggerated traffic fatality statistics. However, I think it is safe to assume that more people die every year in the United States in personal automobile accidents than in light rail, commuter train, or bus accidents. There are a host of other benefits I could mention - productivity during commuting, potential time savings, etc. The take home point here is that, as regular readers know, I value inclusive and well-rounded analysis of any issue. For me, Plunkett's argument falls fatally short of that mark.

Quillen raises the same questions in his response to Plunkett's article. He does so in a way that challenges the concept of the carbon footprint, a fixture in the escalating discussion about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plunkett's article is evidence that, when one can pick and choose factors for statistical analysis, that person can customize the statistics results to justify almost any conclusion. This is certainly the trap to which calculations like a carbon footprint can fall prey. Like interpreting a work of art, there are a variety of angles and perspectives that are simultaneously legitimate and contradictory. Depending on which set of these are chosen as criteria for a particular analysis, results can widely vary.

I am not advocating discarding the concept for that sake. Rather, I do believe the world needs some sort of index that attempts to quantify the impact of products, projects, and activities on the environment. Such an index must be as inclusive as possible to be truly useful, but this is also where complexity enters the picture. Practicality necessitates a paring down of factors included in the index to those whose impacts are readily ascertainable and quantifiable. Striking this balance between accuracy and practicality leaves a tool that is imperfect but a tool which may still be useful as an indicator for ballparking environmental impact. For some examples of corporate attempts at indexing their environmental impact, see Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles as well as Walmart's proposed sustainability index (and a New York Times article about the index).

I think this is essentially what we have in the carbon footprint concept. The key is remembering that, as a tool only addressing one aspect of environmental impact, the concept is inherently limited and must be utilized with that in mind. Thus, for Plunkett to base his conclusion solely on the per passenger per mile carbon footprint of light rail versus automobile commuting ignores other necessary aspects of the analysis, even if that analysis is limited solely to environmental considerations. And as I stated before, even if his environmental arguments are given credence, the fact that he completely ignores economic or social aspects still, in my mind, dooms his conclusion.

Again, all of this babbling is to remind all of us that we cannot solve our local, national, or global problems with piecemeal analysis or solutions. Realizing that a completely inclusive analysis of all environmental impacts of any one item is nearly impossible, we must also realize the limitations of the practical tools at our disposal and strive to think as inclusively as that practicality allows.

Obstacles to Expanding Public Transit in the U.S.

In a recent L.A. Times piece, David Lazarus discusses some of the obstacles currently inhibiting the expansion and creating of a "world-class" transit system in the United States. Read his article; he is much more eloquent than I. But I will make a few brief observations about some of these obstacles as I see them.

Transit expansion was one of the most touted pieces of the Obama administration's stimulus plans. However, the money for transit projects is focusing on new build projects while ignoring the fact that many local and regional transit systems are struggling to fund daily operation of their existing routes and services. (See "A Seat on the Bus?", The Nation, July 22, 2009.) As Lazarus indicates, transit must be affordable, reliable, and pleasant - characteristics which are hard to reach or maintain when funds are insufficient. Yes, expansion of transit necessitates new construction, but building support and enthusiasm for transit requires focus on customer service and efficiency.

While the stimulus funds grab headlines, local funding issues should not be ignored. Lazarus points out the difficulty in raising sales tax revenues for Measure R in L.A. County. In Denver, the Regional Transit District (RTD) and its FasTracks program are suffering a similar fate in efforts to add new light rail lines in the Denver metro area, including a much-needed connection to outlying Denver International Airport.

Incentivizing transit means discouraging car use for everyday commuting purposes. Parking fees, inhospitable urban driving (traffic), gas prices - all of these could contribute. However, the American attachment to the personal automobile is ingrained in most of us, and taking commuters out of the driver's seat will not be an easy task.

Land use and development (or redevelopment) must conform to, encourage, and permit (on a practical level) public transportation. Cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago have established transit systems that were in place early in each city's life. Development conforms to the transit routes there like it conforms to highways and roads in other cities. The difficulty that some big cities are facing now is retrofitting a transit system to a land use pattern built for automobile commuting. In Denver, finding locations for tracks, stations, and rail yards has involved contentious and controversial use of eminent domain. Even if these problems are solved, many station locations require an automobile to access them. Many potential riders simply opt to stay in their car for convenience's sake, even if it means spending more money on gas and parking. This is not an easy problem to solve and will continue to be a spur in the side of transit proponents seeking to build or expand intra-urban transit systems.

Those are a few thoughts. This is a topic that is likely to come up again here. If you have particular thoughts or questions you would like to discuss, please leave a comment on the site.

Thinking Comprehensively About Development

In an interview with PBS's Blueprint America, Rep. Jim Oberstar discusses the current state of transit policy in the U.S., his theory on how that policy needs to be reformed, and how his Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 would help steer the country in that direction.

I appreciate that Rep. Oberstar recognizes that land use and growth should drive transit development rather than the opposite. Though his bill deals specifically with transit funding and planning, the fundamental principle he seems to advocate is a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of proposed urban or suburban development. A common pattern in the U.S. today is for a new road to be built first, and development around that road comes later. This generally promotes piecemeal, spotty development. Such an approach really prevents planners from accurately projecting the needs of transit, utilities, and public services required for the development.

To me, Rep. Oberstar is promoting an approach that will strive, as much as possible, to get things right the first time. Comprehensive planning could help to avoid such problems like needing to retrofit a larger roadway or a rail system onto an area that is designed to accommodate it. Such planning relates to the sustainability of development. Are we promoting development that will be accessible, livable, and desirable for years to come? Or are we thinking only about capitalizing on opportunities in the short-term? Ideally, projects could be developed in a way that attempts to satisfy both the goals of attracting private investment and building a community that will become and remain a community rather than just another place on the map.

Thoughts on Neal Pierce's "Obsolete Notion of States?"

In his recent piece, "Obsolete Notion of States?", Neal Pierce asks the question: "Are America's state governments becoming obsolete?" Taken out of context, this question borders on absurd. The states are governmental institutions enshrined in the Constitution and a necessary component of the federal government (e.g., the legislature). Besides, what would the United States be without the States?

However, in context, Pierce asks a shrewd question that ought to be given due consideration. Are state governments the right place to seat control of everyday affairs? To clarify, again, Pierce is not advocating for the dissolution of state governments. Instead, under his scheme, state governments could concentrate attention on their "indispensable priorities." For example, he posits higher education systems, a truly state-wide institution, the general governance of which can be relatively similar across all locations in the state.

What Pierce does propose is to vest greater autonomy in regions as the state's political subsidiary. Thus, for instance, Denver and its surrounding suburbs and communities would ideally form a regional council of governance that would foster cooperation among the individual members as well as promote consistency of policies that cross municipal boundaries. In fact, such an organization already exists to address some of the regional issues (e.g., regional transit, regional planning, water issues) in the Denver-Metro area. See www.drcog.org for more information. Pierce does not indicate whether he believes such regional organizations would be or should be granted binding authority, and, if so, how that authority would relate to the municipal authority of its members. Would the regional councils serve primarily as advisory boards and forums for inter-municipal discussion? Or would the regional councils essentially be another level of governance inserted between the state and municipal governments? In either case, more autonomy is given to the local unit of government to recognize, confront, and address issues specific to the local unit, rather than relying on a state legal scheme that must attempt to adequately serve the distinct needs of urban and rural regions within the state.

For Pierce, this approach makes sense because life in the United States does not revolve around the state. Rather, in terms of population, economics, jobs, etc., life occurs in metropolitan regions. The interconnectedness of these metropolitan regions - logistically and philosophically - is thus a key aspect of continued growth. Perhaps under Pierce's scheme, metropolitan areas in close proximity could jointly develop laws and regulations to make it easier for businesses operating in both areas - establish one level of governance rather than force corporate citizens to deal with the regulations of multiple municipalities or multiple states.

A crucial point is that power still resides in the state government. Any autonomy given to regions or metropolitan areas must be granted by the state. State governments would still exist to manage state-wide institutions (e.g., higher education, as noted previously) and to represent the interests of its subsidiaries in the federal government. As Pierce notes, given the financial difficulty facing many state budgets, reducing the role of state government may be a timely means of easing those crises somewhat.

Taken in context, Pierce's question about the obsolescence of state governments may be a bit less absurd than previously thought. Nonetheless, this delegation of authority by the state to its regional or metro units remains quite unlikely. Does it make sense in that it conforms more to the realistic division of life in the United States? Yes. But many obstacles exist, not the least of which is rural resistance to a scheme that would no doubt increase urban progressive influence in the state and federal government. However, as citizens, we should be constantly mindful both of reality and aspiration and encourage our law and policy makers to be so as well.