September 2009

You are browsing the archive for September 2009.

Density, Carbon Emissions, and the Built Environment

By Frank on September 29, 2009

You go to battle climate change with the built environment you have, not the built environment you might want or wish to have. Choices made decades or even centuries ago with respect to street layout and such are still with us today. Which is why an abandoned military base becomes the perfect car-free suburb, or why transit works much better in San Francisco than in nearby San Jose.

Changing land usage patterns is a long-haul effort, as Clark Williams-Derry at Sightline argued last week, but one that’s worth making if we’re going to blunt the impact of climate change.

I feel like one thing that gets lost in the debate over density here in Seattle is that the city isn’t uniform. The built environment is going to affect our options regarding density, as it should. What works in some neighborhoods won’t work in others. It’s more important, I’d argue, to pick and choose your neighborhoods, and then figure out how to make them densify gracefully, rather than haphazardly sprinkle 4-pack townhomes in predominantly single-family neighborhoods.

One of my favorite streets in the city is 17th Avenue, South of Union St. It starts with gorgeous, 3-story apartments and co-ops:


View Larger Map

Then, a block South, it’s turned to basically a full block of townhomes that all make sense together, and all open right out onto the street, and finally, a block South of that, it’s single-family homes. The overall effect is that the neighborhood seems cohesive.

One reason it seems to work is that there’s an alley behind the townhomes that provides parking access, so that the homes don’t have to have the typical 4-pack design. Let’s work with Seattle’s built environment to build the kind of density that works with the street (and alley) grid that we already have.

The Process

By serial catowner on September 28, 2009

By 1994 I was sure that rail transit would come to Puget Sound. The basis of my assurance was the professional quality of regional governance, which was increasingly including a rail solution to regional planning.

By regional governance, I do not mean a council or board. I am referring to the planners employed by the towns, cities, and counties of the region, and the increasing seriousness with which elected representatives viewed their jobs. I had grown up at a time when the Bellevue School District bought oil furnaces instead of electric heat pumps because Mr. Gilliland not only owned the oil distributor, but also sat on the school board. In those days the freeways and roads were quite literally built to the vacant lands the developers were waiting to build on.

The professional planning staffs collected and interpreted information for elected representatives that made it possible to see the region as a whole, and to plan better ways of meeting future needs. Representatives and their staffers took trips to Europe and Asia to study how other similar regions had built their transportation systems. The LINK light-rail system that has emerged represents, not just what could be done, but what needed to be done.

In contrast, Mike McGinn’s “run it up the flagpole” promise, that Seattleites would get a vote on a new transit line, is pretty much the opposite. Even McGinn is careful to hold this one at arms reach, carefully noting that any route or other *details* would be worked out by citizens and the staff for Sound Transit and KCMetro. McGinn’s role here is to offer a “pie in the sky” idea in the hopes of attracting voters who think they might get something for nothing. This is so American it really should have American flags on it.

The numbers, of course, do not support the glittering hope that was flashed before us of a West Seattle-Ballard line. The process will grind out a proposal that might come in on budget, and the public will probably be appalled at the cost and vote it down. The lesson McGinn supporters will draw from all this is that professional staffers form some sort of sinister cabal, dedicated to thwarting the popular will.

It’s too late, of course, to lament the departure of Nickels, who had made such progress in a new streetcar on First Avenue. The next four years will be a learning experience for Seattleites. Possibly the City Council and professional staffers will be able to supply the guidance that obviously will not be found in the office of the Mayor. We can only hope.

The Coast Starlight- Ride It Now

By serial catowner on September 22, 2009

It wouldn’t take much to put our long-distance rail routes out of business- just a sincere national commitment to high-speed rail. Build HSR from Vancouver to Eugene, and from SF to LA, and that long stretch from Oregon to SF starts to look like a lot of trouble for the return we’re getting. If you can, ride some long-distance routes now, before you wake up some morning and read about their last day.

Many tips could be shared about traveling on these routes, but I’ll confine myself to two- first, take some oatmeal-raisin cookies with you, and second, well before the bar closes, buy a half-dozen of the little bottles of booze.

And, well, one more- if you can, travel with a full moon. It will almost double your viewing pleasure.

Posted in

Audit of Metro Trolley Bus Audit

By Matt the Engineer on September 21, 2009

When an audit was released that listed Seattle’s electric trolley buses (ETB’s) as more expensive per year than a hybrid bus replacement, I was amazed. Although the benefits of ETB’s are many, I’ve considered cost efficiency a large benefit. As the report did not list sources for its data, I took the next step of asking the auditor to view the source data. I was e-mailed two spreadsheets with almost all of the information I wanted.

Observations from the audit:

1. The main source of the cost difference is that the ETB’s are claimed to cost twice that of hybrid buses. I can imagine this if they bought just one, since it’s not an off-the-shelf product. But they’d be buying close to 200 – there has to be economies of scale there, and the components of an ETB have to be cheaper than a hybrid.

2. Hybrid fuel efficiency was listed at 5 mpg. This is in direct conflict with Metro statements in the past of observing 3.8 mpg.

3. “Engine overhaul” is listed at 6.7x as frequent for ETB’s vs. hybrids. This just can’t be right, as ETB’s don’t have engines. If they’re talking about the electric motors, these last a long time and shouldn’t cost the same as a engine overhaul.

4. Overall, operating costs are much cheaper for ETBs than diesels or hybrids. It’s really the initial cost of the buses that seems to drive up the price.

I am following up with a list of questions to the auditor, and will report back when I get a response.

[update] The new bus costs and “engine overhaul” data came from Metro. It’s almost as if Metro is trying to kill ETBs (tries to feign shock).

The scheduling spreadsheet also came in. It’s too dense of calculations for me to follow (without a paycheck for such things, that is).

Layover/service ratios appear to be much higher in trolley buses. The auditor’s explanation for this is that they can’t pass each other and they lack flexibility. But flexibility doesn’t mean that they can’t change routes (though this would help in case of an accident), but that they can’t pull double service for two routes.

My comments regarding flexibility:

1. Anecdotally, the reason passing is a large issue is wheelchair loading. The trolleys don’t have a kneeling ability, which can make a wheelchair stop take a long time. Combine a few such stops and you get a line of trolleys waiting for the one in front. If this is costing so much money, wouldn’t the obvious solution is to design in a kneeling ability into the next batch of trolleys?

2. If there would really be an efficiency gained by adding more routes together, couldn’t we just add more wire to create these routes? Why tear out a system that could in all other ways be much more efficient than hybrids? Go all the way and make as many routes electric as you’d need to remove routing inefficiencies. [/update]

Posted in

Electric Busology 103- Squaring the Circle

By serial catowner on September 20, 2009

There’s a simple reason it might cost more to hang wire and run electric buses than diesels- you’re buying more. You’re buying clean air and less noise, both of which have been proven to improve health, and you’re hedging against future energy costs, something you have to do with diesel also if you depend on diesel to perform your task.

Probably most importantly, you’re buying community, in providing a clear commitment to maintaining quality service in the corridor. The real question becomes whether it is a proper role of the transit agency to budget for building community, and the answer is an obvious “YES”. We already have a large investment in transit that does not make a profit at the farebox. We already expect transit to play a role in solving planning and transportation problems. We already know this will continue into the future.

Peering into the crystal ball then, we can ask the next questions- which type of transit, electric or diesel, will work better in the future? Again, the answer is plain- if the price of diesel fuel falls, and carbon emissions become unimportant, two things nobody believes will happen, the diesel wins. If not, it’s electric.

And if the answer is electric, the electric bus of today helps build the infrastructure, ridership, and community for the streetcar route or light rail of tomorrow.

In a sense, the recent auditor’s report highlights the chilling disparity between electric and diesel, suggesting that money could be found to maintain the far-flung diesel routes that have created a budget crisis by taking down the wire on the in-city electric runs. Yes, we could do that- but it would be wrong.

Posted in

Electric Busology 102

By serial catowner on September 19, 2009

America in the mid-20th century had cities to burn. Did we care if the freeways scooped out the hearts of Boston or Detroit like we scooped the seeds from a cantaloupe? We did not! Entirely new communities would be built around the old cities.

But as time passed, a counter-current developed, and Americans began talking about things like New Urbanism and Urban Villages and Transit-Oriented Development, just as though nobody had ever done those things before.

But of course they had- when the streetcar and interurban were new, lines were laid to vacant land to be sold for houses, and in many cases the streetcar company built the first paved streets in a town. Even today, you can see in Seattle the more substantial buildings along the old streetcar lines and compare them with the less substantial development off, or beyond, the lines.

Does it make sense, in cities that are already heavily electrified, to install overhead wires for transit? Common sense would suggest that, operating in conjunction with other policies, it does.

Installing overhead wires is a signal to homeowners and businesses that the transit corridor will stay, and that it will be quiet and free of transit tailpipe emissions. Developed in conjunction with other city policies, such as Seattle’s policies of arterial development, it helps build the skeletal frame and allows higher densities with more street-level retail and less parking and traffic. The inclusion of a transit agency in the ratepaying base of the electric utility improves the utility’s ability to bargain for the purchase of power and to install the mechanical structure needed to deliver it.

In short, building the infrastructure for clean silent electric transit is expensive, but promises rewards if the goal is building a sustainable community. And we have every reason to believe that sustainability may be the challenge of the 21st century, and require a global effort to achieve that will cast into shadow every previous human accomplishment.

Posted in

Electric Busology 101

By serial catowner on September 19, 2009

Any transit fan who rides an electric bus will admit to admiration of the strong silent acceleration and the total absence of tailpipe emissions. To appreciate the role of the ETB in transit systems, however, we need to step back and get the bigger picture of what these systems are.

By definition, the systems are large. They maintain service that has been provided, in many cases for over a century, and the equipment they use is intended to last 25 years, implying the continuance of service. In many cases they include a large sunk investment that can’t be recovered if service ends, they usually have many large things on quite a bit of real estate, and when they drink fuel, they don’t use a soda straw.

Consider the railroads in the age of steam. To generate steam you needed coal and water, so each railroad had two parallel structures to provide the coal and water. Steam locos liked to eat and drink every hundred miles, and these frequent stops were more convenient in the days of hotboxes and wayside setouts of cars.

Thus, every steam railroad was a series of small towns, with coal and water storage, and often a railroad hotel or YMCA for train crews. At the end of the age of steam, the steam loco still had a greater thermal efficiency than the diesel, but the cost of maintaining the fuel and water supplies was prohibitive.

Maintaining the fuel supplies for the railroad, indeed, requires an investment so great it becomes a matter of long-term financial planning. Fuel stocks must be maintained to provide service in case of disruptions, and to hedge against market spikes. In the age of coal, this meant mountains of coal stockpiled in the summer months against the anticipated strike of the miners in the winter months. In the age of diesel fuel it means tanks in the ground and contracts for guaranteed deliveries. Large electrical users need to be sure the grid can overcome local disruptions or that they can generate their own essential energy.

In many respects electricity is the best energy source. You don’t need to keep tanks of it on hand, you don’t need to pump it into buses in the morning, you don’t need to carry the weight of the electricity around with you, and you don’t need to deal with the problems of leaks, fire danger, and emissions. An enormous world manufacturing base is constantly trying to improve the performance of electric motors and transit systems have already tried just about everything, so there’s a lot of experience to draw on.

The problem with electricity is that it requires a very large capital investment to deliver the electricity to the bus, usually by overhead wires. That’s a big problem for a transit system, but is it a problem or an opportunity for the society it serves? That’s probably a good topic for another post on electric buses.

Posted in

Seattle-Portland ranks 29th in High Speed Rail (HSR) study

By mSkehan on September 18, 2009

An interesting study, just completed by America 2050, examined 27,000 city pairs for suitability for future HSR corridors. http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf
Not surprisingly, the NE Corridor, California, and Chicago all ranked very high, but when the selection criteria of population, density, GDP, local transit, highway congestion and distance between cities were applied, SEA-PDX came out close to the top.
I�ll let you draw your own conclusions after reading it.
OR and WA Dot�s are currently applying for billions in Federal Stimulus funding to continue building our own Cascade Corridor HSR network. As fossil fuel gets scarcer and more expensive, and alternate energy sources (mostly electric) are developed, we will thank our DOT and legislature for their vision to promote an alternative transportation choice that pollutes our atmosphere less than planes or autos, AND is easily electrified.
Mike Skehan, Member, All Aboard Washington

Posted in ,

The Portland Green Line Example

By Frank on September 17, 2009

Mike McGinn’s plan for Westside light rail is welcome news. Ben @ STB notes that Sound Transit is planning to study this in 2015, so McGinn might try and find the money to push that up a few years.

Great.

But here’s where I start to have a problem with the McGinn proposal:

He mentioned Portland’s newest light-rail segment, the Green Line, which opened last weekend, as a good model. Eight new miles of new corridor were built for $576 million, in the east suburbs and near Portland State University downtown.

The reason why the Green Line was so cheap, as The Transport Politic explains, is that it was built in a highway median that was set aside 30 years ago for transit, much like our I-90 HOV lanes. No such right-of-way exists on the Westside.

The old engineer’s adage is: “Fast, good, or cheap. Pick Two.” McGinn’s promising all three, which should make us all a little suspicious.

Posted in

Sharrows

By Frank on September 17, 2009

The CD is getting some more sharrows. I live on a street with sharrows, and I don’t see a huge benefit to them. But if they’re at least a big honking sign saying “bicycles exist” then they’re probably worthwhile.

Biking in this (or any) city is tough. So few people bike these days that anything that increases the number of bikers and/or bike safety even a bit has to be seen as a success. Fortunately, like urban renewal, it’s subject to feedback loops. The more people who bike the safer biking becomes, which gets more people biking, etc., etc.

Posted in

Next »