To Catch A Train

Trains are wonderful, but they usually don't stop at the origin nor at the destination of passengers' journeys. This is especially true of medium-to-long-distance itineraries. Instead, a train trip generally consists of at least three parts: getting to the station, riding the train and connecting transportation from the station at the other end. In addition, riding a train almost invariably involves (short) walks between vehicles and also at either end of any given trip.

Transportation planners like to scope these literally pedestrian issues out of their projects because there's a lot of work but relatively few construction dollars associated with them. Plus, addressing them would actually require co-ordination with other projects, a potential political minefield they prefer to avoid. However, allowing pedestrian access to fall through the cracks - e.g. between HSR stations and airport check-in counters or, between SF Transbay Terminal and Embarcadero BART/Muni - is a sure-fire strategy for failing to meet the ridership forecasts for the shiny new big-ticket services. Ideally, CHSRA should designate one member of its board to take on responsibility for adequate pedestrian facilities at transfer points. The state legislature should also insist that HSR feeder funds from prop 1A are used to optimize connections, rather than just local/regional transit capacity.

The general assumption on this blog appears to be that passengers could and would take local/regional transit to reach the nearest HSR station. Indeed, some $950 million of prop 1A are reserved for capital improvements to qualifying heavy rail "HSR feeder" services like Amtrak California, BART, LA Metro, Metrolink, Caltrain, ACE and NCTD. That's not nearly as much money as it sounds. For example, there will be little or no money left over for local/regional connecting bus services. Expect nothing at all to be available for improving pedestrian connections, e.g. between the Transbay Terminal in SF and Embarcadero, the nearest BART station.

However, like it or not, the vast majority of Californians never uses transit at all or at least, very infrequently. For the most part, that's because service tends to be infrequent and slow, except during rush hour. In addition, not everyone feels comfortable sitting or standing near strangers. Instead, decades of cheap gasoline/kerosene have enabled low-rise sprawl and got California residents used to either driving the whole way or else, driving to an airport, parking their car, flying and getting into another car at the other end. That other car might be an airport shuttle van, someone coming to pick them up or, a rental car. In short, travel within California is very oil-intensive and the hope is that HSR will make a dent in that.

However, a common objection to the California HSR project is that local transit should be put in place first, lest HSR cause massive traffic problems near downtown stations. The counter-argument is that politically, HSR serves as an anchor project big enough to prompt/accelerate the development/expansion of local/regional transit that's long been talked about but never properly funded. There is some evidence of this in that voters LA, Santa Clara, Marin and Sonoma counties all voted to increase local sales taxes to pay for improved rail transit, in addition to approving prop 1A on the statewide ballot.

Still, counting on local transit funding to ride the coattails of HSR is risky in that it forces both types of services to receive massive infusions of cash at the same time. If the political appetite for passenger rail were to dry up for any lenght of time, there's a good chance that funds intended for bread-and-butter local transit at the federal and state level would be raided to keep the politically sexier HSR project alive, with knock-on effects at the county and city levels. There is some evidence for this as well, in the shape of last-minute re-allocations of funds already within the transportation section of HR1, the stimulus bill. Indeed, the capital expenditure budgets of passenger rail and other transit services are liable to be raided at anytime by the politically entrenched highway-and-runway lobby.

These budget shenanigans will be going on all through the planning and construction phases of the California HSR project at both the federal and especially, at the state level. Urban traffic planners and station architects therefore need to anticipate a wider range of connecting transit options than just local transit. Moreover, the appropriate mix of options will be vastly different in the major HSR locations (SF, SJ, Fresno, LA, Anaheim, Sacramento, San Diego), at stations near airports (SFO, PMD, ONT, MER?) and at stations in smaller towns (Bakersfield, mid-peninsula, Gilroy, Modesto, Burbank, Riverside etc.)

Perhaps, then, we ought to take a closer look at connecting transportation from the customer's point of view. They will base their choice of vehicle on multiple parameters: door-to-door travel time, risk of delays, flexibility to reschedule, convenience, safety/security, comfort, privacy and fare cost - plus old habits that may be hard to break. No single strategy will work for every passenger, so station designers and local traffic planners have to reserve adequate room for multiple modes of connecting transportation.

1. Walking: If you work in e.g. the financial district in SF and commute by BART, chances are you just hoof it for the last few blocks. There's no reason to assume that someone coming up from LA on a high speed train won't do exactly the same. Pedestrians average no more than 2.5 mph, less if they need to stop at traffic lights. That said, it is a little light exercise and you don't have to wait around for a bus to show up - one that might not drop you off exactly where you need to be anyhow. The converse is also true: in a number of places around the state, people are increasingly choosing to live in condos close to a subway or light rail line rather than chase after a McMansion out in the boonies, where the car is the only possible option for commuting to work, often dozens of miles away. Transit villages are a welcome new phenomenon, but their long-term popularity will depend on the future price of oil.

2. Cycling: In flat but crowded places like Holland and Denmark, China, Vietnam etc. bicycles are perceived first and foremost as modes of transportation. Sure, there are special bikes intended for strenuous exercise, but those are a separate category. In California, that category is almost all there is: road racers and mountain bikes. City bikes are often perceived as being strictly for kids too young to drive a car. This obsession with bikes as exercise machines may explain why pedelecs (bikes with electric assist motors) haven't really caught on yet in the Golden State, even though they let you climb hills and brave headwinds without working up much of a sweat - deal if you're about to board a train.

There are plenty of folding designs on the market and, they're much easier to take along on any type of transit. Folding pedelecs are a new category that is only just emerging, thanks to recent advances in Li-ion battery technology, permanent magnet motors and control systems for the assist motors in these muscle-electric hybrids. China is arguably the world leader at the economy end of this emerging market.

Even in Europe and Japan, many railroads still think of all bicycles as equal and are only just beginning to wake up to the potential of folding bicycles and pedelecs to increase their catchment areas without having to sacrifice space for passengers who pay full fare. Just slide your under your seat (and perhaps the adjacent one, too) - done. At first, the notion of taking a folding pedelec along on a high-speed train may seem absurd, but if you travel light it's actually a perfectly sensible option, especially if there is a courtesy outlet to let you recharge. Pedelecs are limited to 20mph by law in California and you have to be 16 to ride one. Range on a single charge is typically on the order of 15-30 miles, depending on conditions and on how hard you pedal.

The biggest drawback is that bicycles are vulnerable in traffic unless there are designated bike lanes or better yet, segregated bike paths. In California, cities are loath to close traffic lanes or entire streets to motor vehicles without a special permit - pedestrian zones are almost unheard of (except in purpose-built shopping malls). The second biggest is that biking in wet or extremely hot weather is no fun at all, so transit planners tend to discount it as an unreliable ridership source. That may be a mistake, since pedelecs are by far the most affordable personal electric vehicles and the weather in California's population centers is reliably sunny for at least four months out of the year.

3. Local Transit: If you happen to live or work near a bus, light rail or subway stop with frequent and reliable service, then that may be the best option for either the first or the last leg of your trip. Unfortunately, it may not be on the other end - you may have to settle for one or more slow bus connections or else, shell out for more expensive direct service. Excellent connecting transit at one end a city pair only boosts HSR ridership if the same is true at the other end. In California, the volume and frequency of transit service varies greatly from county to county. The recent rapid run-up in gasoline prices prompted a renewed effort to spruce up transit services and, HSR stations provide a suitable anchor for multimodal hubs in major cities. Unfortunately, those same gasoline prices burst the housing bubble so it remains to be seen if these plans will come to fruition. Offering a single ticket valid on all transit services in a given region (e.g. the Bay Area) could boost off-peak ridership.

4. Taxi/Limo/Sharecab Service: For those who place a premium on their time and/or their privacy, catching a cab or arranging for a limo may be the preferred option, much as it is at airports. Sharecabs (cp. airport shuttles) are not private and usually less comfortable, but they do get you to exactly where you need to be at more moderate cost. HSR stations will be excellent anchor locations for sharecab services based on vans that can transport up to 8 passengers and their luggage, supplementing fixed-route local transit or replacing it where none exists today. There is a case for subsidizing sharecab services, as they ease congestion and the related air pollution in downtown areas.

5. Personal Car: Driving your own car to the station is often cited as the most convenient or even the only practical option. Sure, there's traffic and you need to pay for parking but you can get there fairly quickly, without having to wait for local transit, in comfort and privacy. Plus, you can take stuff along - it's especially hard to travel light with children or disabled persons in tow. Pets are another issue for anyone considering train travel. Fortunately, most railroads already operating high speed trains do permit them provided they don't bother other passengers. A leash and muzzle are often required to at least be on hand and, a half-price ticket may be required for large dogs.

However, the biggest downside is at the far end of the trip: either someone has to pick you up, you have to use a taxi/shuttle or, you end up renting a car. Add it all up and simply driving yourself all the way starts to look like a way more attractive option for a family of four. And therein, perhaps, lies the biggest challenge of all: persuading Californians to travel more frequently within their state but with less stuff, to make going down to Disneyland or up to San Francisco a simple weekend trip with just one night's stay rather than a major multi-day outing. For those living in the Central Valley, either destination could easily be an occasional day trip.

Conclusion: Getting the most out of HSR means adjusting the way way you work and play - it's not a drop-in replacement for the lifestyle you lead today. In particular, more frequent outings within the state will inevitably mean less frequent leisure travel to other states or overseas. The upside is that more tourism dollars stay in California, doubly so if HSR + connecting transit attract larger numbers of out-of-state tourists.

The Asphalt Empire Strikes Back

UPDATE by Robert: Sen. Kit Bond, Republican from Missouri, is offering two anti-transit amendments - including one that would kill the $2 billion in high speed rail funding currently in the Senate version of the stimulus. Contact both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to let them know those amendments must be defeated - and while you're at it, ask Boxer's office why the hell they're advancing the cause of carbon pollution and global warming denial by helping Inhofe.

Dianne Feinstein DC office: (202) 224-3841
Barbara Boxer DC office: (202) 224-3553

Obama's silence on all this is also rather deafening. He has allowed Republicans to narrowly define what is stimulus and what is not - he hasn't mounted a strong defense of including mass transit funding as stimulus, and hasn't spoken out against Republican demands to gut the stimulus package. A new president with extremely high approval ratings should not be letting his administration get tied down by these Lilliputians, yet here we are.

UPDATE 2 by Rafael: Right now, Republicans are playing hardball. There will be no broad bipartisan majority because House Democrats will not accept a completely watered down bill in conference. The idea of stripping down the bill to the elements the GOP already agrees with in order to pass something, anything, Real Soon Now is a bad one because it does not require Republicans to voting for less palatable policies down the road.

Democrats may be able to bribe at least one Republican Senator into breaking ranks this time or, they may succeed in calling the GOP's bluff by forcing them to read telephone books for a while while thousands are losing their jobs every day. I'd quite like to see the latter happen just to underline how anachronistic the whole concept of filibusters is in the 21st Century.

However, given the gravity of the situation, it might make more sense for President Obama, Sen. Reid, a small group of Rockefeller Republican Senators and Speaker Pelosi to hammer out a European-style formal coalition agreement for a two-year legislative agenda. It would be more diplomatic to show deference to Senate Minority Leader McConnell, but this isn't about playing nice. It's about cobbling together a narrow, filibuster-proof majority. This is also why I didn't include House Minority Leader Boehner in the above list - his job for the next two years is to articulate the GOP alternative to the Democratic agenda, not to govern.

The alternative to a stable coalition agreement is to fight over each and every amendment of each and every bill, wasting precious time while the economy is tanking. Consumer and business confidence will only recover once there is visible evidence of a coherent strategy going forward, one that absolutely should include HSR as a means to gradually wean the nation off its addiction to oil.

Original post begins here:

---

Streetsblog SF warns that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is about to enter into an unholy alliance with Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). They plan to introduce an amendment to add $50 billion for highway construction to the stimulus bill (h/t to Robert Cruickshank). This comes on the heels of the GOP blocking a $25 billion amendment sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for highways, water and mass transit, ostensibly because no compensating cuts in other spending were offered. The Senate did pass one amendment: "Most consumers who buy new cars, minivans or light trucks by the end of the year would get tax deductions for the sales or excise taxes and the interest on their loans. Sponsor Barbara Mikulski , D- Md. , estimated that a family would save about $1,500 on a $25,000 vehicle. The key vote on the $11 billion measure was 71-26".

It is understandable that lawmakers are worried about the deteriorating state of the economy and focusing on the short-term issue of preserving and/or creating jobs. The DOTs of many states have a lot of planning expertise in highway projects, so most of their "shovel-ready" projects relate to roads. It's quite likely that there are at least $80 billion worth of road and road bridge repair projects around the country. If the bill contains verbiage targeting the funds that specifically, the Boxer-Inhofe amendment may make sense. However, it is not in the long-term interest of the country to substantially expand highway capacity in the context of this stimulus bill.

Similarly, it may make sense to provide tax breaks that generate demand for new cars, lest one of the Big Three goes belly-up. If that were to happen, it would amount to more than just job losses. The domestic automakers opted out of social security and Medicare decades ago, when that seemed like a good idea. Instead, they committed to providing pensions and health care to their retirees themselves. With Chapter 11 unlikely to succeed for an industry that depends on long-term relationships with its customers, bankruptcy would quickly lead to Chapter 7 a.k.a. liquidation. That would saddle the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and either Medicare or Medicaid with the burden of providing a taxpayer-funded safety net for hundreds of thousands of retired auto workers that never contributed a dime towards these programs during their working lives.

However, the devil is once again in the details. A blanket tax break for the purchase of just any new car encourages the purchase of cheap gas guzzlers. Germany has taken a different approach: it limits its incentive to new car buyers who agree to scrap their old jalopies. The idea is to finally take cars without catalytic converters or with antiquated diesel engines off the roads to improve air quality. The US has a different problem: low average fuel efficiency. Therefore, any tax break for new car buyers should be limited to models that get at least e.g. 30mpg in the 2008 combined drive cycle and then only if the old vehicle was both rated at less than e.g. 22mpg in the old combined drive cycle and is scrapped.

The excessive dependence of the US transportation sector on fuels derived from oil exposes the economy to volatility in the price of that commodity. In particular, it was the assumption that gasoline would always be cheap that prompted cities to promote low-density urban sprawl in favor of high-density transit-oriented development. Combined with generous tax breaks and exotic mortgages for home buyers, this led to a large asset bubble that was massively reinforced by the securitization of mortgages by investment banks and insurance companies. The run-up in the price of oil, triggered by a combination of robust worldwide growth, a temporary lack of reserve production capacity plus rampant speculation, caused that bubble to burst.

In other words, the most obvious approach for a stimulus in the short term - perpetuating the status quo - risks cementing the same car culture that enabled the current economic meltdown in the first place. There were many other contributing factors, but creating funds and incentives for highway expansion and purchases of gas-guzzlers would simply set the scene for a repeat performance in the future.

It is essential that strings be attached to the stimulus measure to ensure long-term strategic objectives are not sacrificed on the altar of short-term expediency. Moreover, it would be extremely foolish to raid transit and intercity rail funds to expand those for highway construction and new car purchase incentives. Diversification of primary energy sources for the transportation sector is a national security issue, as is tackling wasteful congestion on the nation's roads.

Electric trains remain the only proven technology for moving large numbers of people over long distances safely with a small land use footprint, zero tailpipe emissions and without using a drop of oil. Blind faith in the holy grail of advanced automotive batteries is a risky bet and does nothing to address land use and congestion issues. It would be better to hedge by promoting the development of transit networks, folding electric bicycles and bicycle lane/path infrastructure to complement high speed intercity rail. Of course, as Trains4America reports, there will be conflicts over how to use the limited rights of way that remain after half a century of disinvestment in passenger rail services. Atlanta is one such case, the whole Altamont HSR vs. BART extension controversy in the Bay Area is another.

Bottom line: if funds are added to boost road and road bridge repairs and incentives to improve the average fuel economy of the nation's car fleet, there should be concomitant increases for electric rail and bicycle infrastructure funds to facilitate long-overdue changes in land use policies and oil consumption patterns. Note that vehicles running on grid electricity will only yield reductions in CO2 emissions if that electricity is generated from renewable sources. The stimulus bill already contains funding to build up that capacity, but the real value of electrification is that it dissociates primary energy sources and energy use in the transportation sector.

That means increases in the transportation infrastructure portions of the bill - including incentives to buy more efficient and/or electric vehicles - can be paid for either by deferring tax breaks or, by deferring the construction of renewable electricity generating and distribution capacity (or a combination of the two). As always, the art is to find an appropriate balance without breaking the bank.