March 2008

You are browsing the archive for March 2008.

Translink and Real Estate, Take 2

A couple of months back daijimin at STB and I went back and forth
over Vancouver’s proposal to become a real-estate developer. At the time I argued that it was illegal because TIF is barred in our state constitution. Daijimin said, in response, that “if it’s illegal, we might as well go ahead with the even shadier plan of buying the land with eminent domain, building light rail then selling it after the prices go up. That way you capture all of the gains.”

Well, now that more details of the plan have emerged, I think daijimin may have been on to something: Translink has, it seems, gone with the “shadier” approach.

The nickel version of the idea is this: Translink needs funding to build new rail lines, and they know that the property around the stations is going to be in demand, so why not go the extra step and develop the property yourself and use that money to finance the project? It’s certainly more attractive than more property or sales taxes.

There are a couple of problems…

The first is eminent domain. Giving a property developer that kind of power sounds like a recipe for a massive conflict of interest. Already Translink is saying that the only way to reall make it work is to buy the property on the sly:

To build three rapid transit lines in a decade, TransLink will need to secure high-density zoning from municipalities to feed ridership and create opportunities to profit from the real estate appreciation, Jacobsen explained.

To acquire the land cheaply and beat out developers and speculators, TransLink will have early discussions about alignments and station locations and then quickly and quietly buy the land where stations are to be built.

Shady! Especially if, as a government agency they have access to the records about property transactions that private developers don’t have.

The second issue is that property development is itself a risky business. I know that Vancouver (and Cascadia generally) is supposed to be The Land Of Eternally Rising Property Value, but reality doesn’t work that way. Developers go belly-up all the time. Do we really want the trains to stop running if the real-estate market tanks?

Now, Vancouver’s planners are hella smart and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve thought of these things. Or maybe it’s just different in Canada and the idea of giving a government agency that much power doesn’t make anyone sweat. After all, they’ve already done it in Hong Kong, apparently.

But if we’re looking for a potential solution for our own fair city, it seems like a LID is a safer, more reliable revenue stream, but one that effectively accomplishes the same thing. Of course, a LID requires all the property owners to approve. Even in South Lake Union, where the vast majority of the property is held by a single owner who was in favor of the tax, there was significant opposition from some property owners.

In short: there are no free lunches!

No Light Rail on 520

This shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise:

Long before planners knew 520 needed to be replaced, I-90 was identified as the priority corridor; compatible infrastructure already exists. An eight-lane 520 corridor for light rail is unacceptable to Seattleites on the west side of the bridge — even for those who would ride it. Connections to the University of Washington, to much of Seattle, and to Bellevue pose hurdles, as do some technical and engineering problems.

Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit’s chief communications officer, said light rail across 520 would overload the rail system as it is currently designed south of the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

I’m fine with that. The only way to really get light rail on there without disurbing other bus runs would be to build an 8-lane bridge, and that just wasn’t going to happen.

Also… Rep. Fred Jarrett is quoted in the article as saying, “it will be 2012, optimistically, before the first part of the line is open from downtown Seattle to downtown Bellevue.” Is that true? That’s pretty darn quick.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

The imperialist game was simplicity in itself- the white man controlled the economy of the ‘colony’ and exploited it or bent it to send money to the ‘homeland’. Railroads in colonized regions do not connect adjacent countries, but reach inland to a resource. Utilities perform only the most profitable tasks, and support whichever local government will support them. Countries that did not act as collection agents for the industrialized nations were eventually forced to pay up.

Toll roads, or “congestion pricing” as proposed by the Bush gang (not to be confused with real congestion pricing, as seen in London) is the colonial game- reversed. Now the Chinese will buy our highways, and the Bush gang, in office or out, will be happy to act as collection agents. Turn-about’s fair play, right?

Get a bicycle. Driving a car is about to get really expensive.

"Don't Blow It"

I’m sure KCM and ST thank the Times for this backhanded complement:

Skyrocketing gasoline prices, more transit options and a customer-service sensibility gave King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit a glorious 2007.

So here is a message of support for two agencies starting to click: Don’t blow it. Complacency is a killer. Every new rider is a quality-assurance pop quiz. Buses and trains long available are newly appreciated as the cost of commuting soars and transit agencies get smarter about the options they provide.

Sound Transit’s light rail plan will likely be up for a re-vote this fall, and the Seattle Times will have a chance to support them with an endorsement.

So here’s a message of support for the Times: Don’t blow it.

Tolling

Remember that federal grant that Seattle received last summer to study tolling on 520? The Washington Post has a story on the program behind it, which is part of a larger effort on the part of the Bush Administration to privatize roads:

When Democrats took control of Congress and stripped most earmarks from last year’s federal budget, Peters took $850 million that would have been shipped to hundreds of municipalities and poured it into Urban Partnerships, a pilot program awarded to five cities on the condition that they test congestion pricing.

The focus on toll roads alarmed the transit industry, which argues that public transportation is the best way to fight gridlock in cities. Industry leaders say the DOT has made it increasingly difficult for expensive rail projects to qualify for federal dollars. The number of major new rail and bus projects on track for federal funding dropped from 48 in 2001 to 17 in 2007, even as transit ridership hit a 50-year high last year and demand for new service is soaring.

William Millar, who heads the American Public Transportation Association, says he set up three appointments with Duvall to try to influence how the Urban Partnership money would be spent, but each was cancelled. “They just see no role for transit,” Millar said.

I think congestion pricing of some sort is inevitable, and probably a good idea in the long run, but we have to keep in mind that once you’ve moved to a tax-supported infrastructure to a fee-supported infrastructure, the next logical step can be to privatize the whole darn thing. This is one reason why environmentalists oppose use fees for parks: once you’ve created a consistent revenue stream, sooner or later it makes sense to let the Mariott Corporation, say, come in to run Yellowstone and collect the fees.

In other words, we need to tread carefully here. That’s not to say that tolls are impossible. After all, highways on the East Coast have been tolled for decades and have still stayed within public ownership. But beware the words “public-private parntership,” which can often lead to a whole lot of public funds going to enrich private companies with little emphasis on what the public’s getting in return. But don’t take my word for it, listen to the GAO:

Public distrust of privatization, however, remains high. Republicans lost control of the Indiana state legislature in 2006 partly because of controversy over the governor’s lease of a public highway to Macquarie. Political opposition has also forced governors in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to suspend plans to lease roads. Texas lawmakers put a two-year freeze on the governor’s strategy to privatize a 4,000-mile network of tolled highways.

Last month, the Government Accountability Office warned that tolls on privatized roads are typically higher than if the roads remain under public control, because of the need to generate steady profits for private investors. The report said the federal government needs to better protect the public interest.

“This is all about making money,” said Frank Busalacchi, the Wisconsin transportation secretary and a member of a congressionally chartered commission that last year studied transportation funding and supported raising the gas tax. “The financiers, bankers, people coming in — the foreign dollars coming in and buying infrastructure in this country that American people put down.”

Mercer and Spokane Streets

Two East-West routes that are critical to a post-Viaduct Seattle are still short funds in the wake of Prop. 1′s failure.

The Mercer cost estimate has increased $78 million since late last year, chiefly because of inflation and advanced design work that now includes property costs. The project would widen Mercer between Dexter Avenue and I-5 but not include reconnecting streets above Aurora Avenue.

Some $78.9 million has been secured for the Spokane widening, now estimated to cost $168.5 million, which includes $3.4 million from the Port of Seattle; new ramps would connect the Spokane Street Viaduct to the waterfront.

Lowering Aurora and reconnecting the streets above has always been the most appealing part of this project for me, but that’s because I don’t have to deal with Mercer during rush hour.

Also, if you’re interested, you can watch a video simulation of the 2-way Mercer and narrowed Valley streets here (22MB .avi movie). It sure will look cool when that new Amazon.com office goes in!

No More Big Digs

Interesting piece in the Boston Globe talking about how cities like Seattle are re-thinking big downtown highways after the Big Dig. The article notes that the federal juice isn’t there like it used to be — the Dig would basically never have happened had Tip O’Neill not been Speaker of the House.

Of course, we’ve got our own Tip O’Neill here in Seattle, but thankfully she’s focused on funding for transit, not big downtown highway tunnels.

I also liked this bit from John Norquist:

John O. Norquist, a former mayor of Milwaukee, concedes that his plan to tear down a 0.8-mile stretch of an elevated highway would not have passed a public referendum.

Instead, he persuaded Milwaukee’s downtown property owners that the old Park East Freeway was hurting their land values and undermining economic progress. Then he took the plan to the governor and bartered a deal, he said.

Norquist is so convinced of the economic and cultural values of the project that he now goes around the country advocating highway removals, as president of the Congress of New Urbanism.

Norquist argues strenuously that successful cities are not built on their lack of traffic congestion. He offers Detroit as an example of a city that has defeated congestion, but has yet to recover from its economic problems.

“The thing that makes Boston valuable isn’t its fast traffic,” he said. “The thing that makes Boston is its complexity.”

As much as it pains us to admit it sometime, traffic congestion is a happy problem. It means people have lots of jobs to go to. If Microsoft were to close up shop in Redmond, I’m sure it would ease traffic on the 520. But at what cost?

Sierra Club

Mike O’Neill rightly wonders if the Sierra Club is going to live up to its promise to support the next round of light rail. The club is still on the fence, apparently because park-and-ride lots encourage sprawl.

Let’s be honest: park-and-rides do, in fact, make it easier for people to mix cars and transit. But as Will says, it’s important to design with your users in mind. As long as you have to pay to park, you’re imposing a cost and letting people make a rational decision. And park-and-rides eventually facilitate denser, transit-oriented-development down the line (notice how all the parking lots in downtown Seattle are being developed). Finally, Seattle has chosen (for good or ill) to go down the path of most mid-sized American cities and decided to use basically one system for both intracity and intercity transit (ignoring Sounder for a moment). So park-and-rides are an inevitability as the system expands outside of the downtown core.

As always, one has to consdier the alternatvies, and I will be curious to see what Mike O’Brien at the club has to say on that at the forum Will mentions on March 20. Because it’s perfectly reasonable for the Sierra Club to be anti-light-rail, and they don’t even have to be advocating an alternative. They’re just an interest group with a singular mission: stop sprawl at all costs. That’s one angle, but it’s not the only angle.

But we as policymakers (yes, in the initiative-driven transit world, Joe Citizen is a policymaker) do need to weigh the alternatives. What, overall, is going to provide the best mix of decreasing fossil fuel usage, respecting the environment, increasing density, providing options to commuters, etc., etc. When you consider al the factors, ST 2.1 is a no-brainer.

Update: What Ben said. Habituating people to transit — even if only for part of their commute — is important in the short-term.

Asleep At The Switch

“Along with other panelists, Beth Osborne, an aide to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., agreed that “smart growth” planning principles can help cut the growth in vehicle miles traveled and make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But she warned that transportation and land use are unlikely to get much federal money for climate change because the electric utilities and coal companies are doing a better job of lobbying Congress.”

More here.

Forty Forevers

Most of us aren’t involved in the nuts-and-bolts of transit system building, but we need some understanding of why in the heck this is all taking so long. Mass Transit Magazine has an article about some of the problems associated with increasing size.