To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net
More and more California cities are looking to bring protected bike
lanes to their streets, and a growing body of research showing the
benefits they provide are giving city leaders a stronger case in the
face of opposition to change.
The demand to make streets better for walking and biking is clear:
local jurisdictions in California applied for more than $1 billion in
funds from the state’s Active Transportation Program to build bike and pedestrian projects, triple the amount of funding available for the program.
Protected bike lanes, also known as protected bikeways or
“cycletracks,” are lanes set aside for people on bikes, separated from
motor traffic by physical barriers such as curbs, planters, or parked
cars.
To earn approval from Caltrans, some
of these projects have been legally categorized as “experiments,” built
with easily-removable materials. This has also given planners some
leeway when faced with objections from people who fear the street design
changes.
A year after Long Beach installed protected bike lanes on the one-way couplet of Broadway and Third Streets, the city published a study [PDF] that
found numerous benefits from the project. Crash rates decreased for all
street users, bicycling and walking increased, and vehicle traffic
slowed down. There was no increase in congestion, even with the removal
of a traffic lane.
But since protected bikeways often remove a traffic lane and/or
parking, cities still meet resistance from residents and merchants who
fear that removing parking will hurt businesses, and that removing a
traffic lane will worsen car congestion.
In San Diego, a proposal for protected bike lanes on University
Avenue is going through the public planning process. Although there is
strong support for the bike lanes, Sam Ollinger of BikeSD said some of
the interactions at public meetings range from “ugly to unpleasant.” Local businesses have objected
to the loss of some on-street parking along one narrow section of the
street, even though planners have bent over backwards to replace that
parking nearby.
Similar objections were raised in Oakland
when planners proposed protected bike lanes along Telegraph Avenue. The
street is currently a four-lane roadway that works well for no one
except drivers speeding through. Although a striped bike lane exists
along most of the street’s length, it is placed between parked cars and
moving cars, and even that basic facility disappears at a few crucial
points.
The proposed plans for Telegraph could replace the striped lanes with
parking-protected bike lanes, but they would still disappear where they
are needed most, at the complex intersection with 51st Street. Instead,
planners have proposed either removing parking from one side of the
street to create room for a striped, unprotected bike lane, or leaving
the configuration as is and simply painting sharrows. Business owners
have objected strenuously to removing car parking, but bicyclists
counter that ditching the lanes at the intersection won’t work.
The same story has played out in San Francisco, where plans to add protected bike lanes on Polk Street
met resistance from local business owners. Although its current
iteration still has some protected lanes, the plan was watered down and
now includes standard bike lanes and sharrows along most of the street,
with much of the on-street parking preserved.
A growing body of research has debunked concerns that businesses in
urban neighborhoods rely heavily on parking spaces. Studies in LA and
the Bay Area have consistently found that merchants tend to underestimate the number of customers that arrive without a car,
and that customers who do arrive by car spend less than others on a
weekly basis. Studies have been conducted in areas including the East
Bay’s San Pablo Avenue, LA’s Santa Monica Boulevard, and Oakland’s Temescal and SF’s Polk Street:
In Oakland, a city study [PDF] of the Temescal neighborhood showed that 38 percent of land in the area is devoted to car storage. Another report [PDF] found that parking is heavily underutilized, with occupancy peaking at 65 percent between noon and 2 p.m. on weekends.
In San Francisco, a survey conducted on Polk found
that almost 85 percent of people arrive without a car, and that people
who do come by car visit less often and spend less money overall than
customers who bike, walk, or take transit.
For Long Beach, its effort to install protected bike lanes on Broadway and Third was part of the city’s quest to become “the most bike-friendly city in America.” Charlie
Gandy, then the mobility coordinator for the city, said that keeping
that goal in mind was key when listening to arguments against changing
the status quo.
“We had support from bicyclists, from small business owners, and from
residents along the streets,” Gandy explained. “We never had complete
agreement, but what we didn’t do was allow the loudest voice, or the
most curmudgeonly, to hold sway.”
Classifying the protected bike lanes as a removable pilot project
placated some of the initial objectors. “Those that were opposed to it
observed that what they expected to happen didn’t happen, and their
basic concerns went away,” said Gandy.
Gandy told a story of one man who originally opposed the lanes, but
later stopped in the street to tell him what a difference it made for
his family to be able to ride their bikes to the beach, rather than
feeling it was so dangerous that they had to drive instead.
“It’s important to move forward deliberately and not gnash teeth
endlessly,” Gandy advised. “These things have a rhythm. It’s also
important to look at fact-based concerns rather than fear-based
concerns.”
With the pr
otected lanes on the ground, Long Beach has shown that
implementing safer street designs makes negotiating traffic easier for
everyone.
“Particularly among young people,” said Gandy, “it’s changed the conversation about Long Beach.”
Last week, President Obama announced that amid
Congressional dysfunction around transportation funding, he was taking
action to foster infrastructure investment and economic growth. The Build America Investment Initiative
will provide technical assistance to communities looking for guidance
on how to leverage private dollars to build public works. But the
initiative doesn’t actually provide any dollars itself.
Here’s the scoop.
President
Obama announced his new infrastructure investment initiative in
Delaware last week. Screenshot from video of announcement.
What’s the idea? Public-private partnerships, or P3s, have
become a hot trend in infrastructure investment, but they get talked
about a lot more than they get done. The allure is clear: Private
industry can help build needed infrastructure projects when the public
money is inadequate, as it is now, with Congress refusing to increase
investment. The U.S. hasn’t done a good job providing a platform for the
private sector to get involved, and Obama is trying to focus some
federal resources on changing that.
Is it actually helpful? P3s are a way to finance
infrastructure projects, but they’re no substitute for public funding.
So this initiative doesn’t really speak to ongoing efforts to backfill the Highway Trust Fund
for a few more months and perhaps someday even pass a long-term bill
with a sustainable funding source. This is a solution to a whole
different problem. That said, Robert Puentes of the Brookings
Institution says without reservation that the White House’s initiative
does serve an important purpose. “There is a real problem of lack of
expertise on the public side to begin to negotiate these kinds of deals,
to explore what it means to engage in public-private partnerships,” he
told Streetsblog. The local and state officials being tasked with
figuring out P3s, as a way to try to make up for the lack of federal
funding, aren’t necessarily schooled in the finer points of contractual
arrangements or up to date with the latest new ways of sharing risks and
rewards. A go-to place for guidance at the federal level could be a big
help.
Is this “investment initiative” an infrastructure bank?
I got confused myself last week when Michael Likosky, who’s written a
book encouraging Obama to create an infrastructure bank, sent an email
declaring, “Obama Creates Infrastructure Bank by Executive Order” and
generally patting himself on the back for it. But no, Obama’s “one-stop
shop” for P3s is in no way an infrastructure bank. It doesn’t have any
money of its own and it’s not processing loans.
Is this initiative just going to help build more toll roads?
It shouldn’t. Sustainable transportation modes can make great candidates
for P3s. Passenger rail advocates have long looked to the private
sector to help build new high-speed lines. Bike-share and car-share
systems are public-private innovations. There are lots of great projects
that could get built if communities use the new Build America
Transportation Investment Center to find partners to help them meet
their transportation goals.
Is Obama just trying to look like he’s doing something?
Undoubtedly there’s a lot of political posturing going on here. Obama is
trotting out his “I won’t wait for Congress” line and creating this new
initiative by executive order, when in fact he has been distinctly
unhelpful in the whole transportation funding question. By unequivocally
rejecting both a gas tax and a miles-driven fee, Obama has shut the
door on the two most viable avenues for raising revenues. In recent
months, some have read White House officials’ remarks as indicating a slight softening of the anti-gas tax rhetoric, but it’s still a far cry from support.
Is this just more government bureaucracy? More bureaucrats,
maybe, but not more bureaucracy. It doesn’t add red tape, it’s just a
place that officials can go — if they want — for guidance. For better or
for worse, it doesn’t create any new programs. Puentes said it’s been
“mis-framed as a big federal initiative” when really it’s just “flipped
the pyramid — the federal government is not going to be on top raining
P3 projects down all over the place.” The administration recognizes that
the innovation at the local level and the capital in the private sector
are having trouble finding each other, and it’s just trying to help
bridge that gap.
A mix of a hugely important Metro Board meeting, some great bike
events, a Streetsie party and some news from some other Westside cities.
Monday
– Does a Pacoima Pedestrian Plaza qualify as “P3″? Attend and give your
input for the planned People Street Bradley Avenue Plaza. Meeting
tonight! Get the details, here.
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday – The Big Blue Bus
continues to plan for the arrival of the Expo Line. This week, they’re
holding three meetings to get feedback on how they should alter the
existing routes when the line opens in less than a year and a half. Get
the details, here.
Wednesday – The City Council is in summer recess so
there will be no City Council Transportation Committee. However, this
seems as good a place as any to congratulate Committee Chair Mike Bonin
and his husband Sean Arian on their marriage this weekend. Wooot!
Wooooooot!
Thursday – Active transportation, congestion
pricing, short range transportation plans, poor management of the
Sheriffs, it’s a full agenda for the Metro Board of Directors in their
last meeting until September. Read the full agenda, here.
Saturday - Join Walk ‘n Rollers in Culver City for a
fun day learning how to bike and walk safely in your community. All
ages welcome and we’ll even have bikes and helmets for those without
(helmets are required on the course and group rides). More info.
Sunday – We’re having a small private party to
celebrate the Streetsie Win of Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Connor as our
2013 Elected Leader of the Year at 2 p.m. If you’re interested in
joining us, drop me a line at damien@streetsblog.org
It's not just your imagination—Amtrak really has been delayed more
than usual lately. According to the passenger rail corporation's latest monthly performance report,
on-time arrival stands at roughly 74 percent for fiscal 2014 (which
began in October 2013). That's down nearly 12 points from fiscal 2013,
when Amtrak was on-time for 85 percent of its trips.
Amtrak - May 2014
So
what gives? Well, if you look closer at the above chart, you'll notice a
clear dip between May and June of 2013. On-time performance fell from
83 percent to 76 percent between those months, and it's remained below
the 80 percent-mark ever since.
What you're seeing is the aftermath of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision, issued July 2, 2013,*
that severely damaged Amtrak's leverage with the freight rail companies
whose tracks it shares. Roughly 72 percent of all miles traveled by
Amtrak occurs on tracks hosted by other rail providers. In 2008, as part
of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, Congress gave
Amtrak the power to penalize these providers for giving dispatch
priority to freight trains using the same routes. The July 2013 decision
called an end to that power, and likewise triggered the start of
Amtrak's on-time performance decline.
In May 2014, for instance, host railroad delays accounted for roughly
two-thirds of all Amtrak delays, according to Amtrak's performance
report. Only 7 of Amtrak's 48 routes had a better on-time rate in May
2014 than in May 2013, before the ruling went into effect. Amtrak's
latest report also shows that from June 2013 to May 2014, hosts have
been responsible for 72 percent of Amtrak delays—with "freight train
interference" the leading problem.
Amtrak - May 2014Amtrak
spokesman Craig Schultz says on-time performance is a complex issue
that can't be reduced to a single problem, but that shifts in host
railroad dispatching priority had a clear and immediate impact across
the board. Amtrak pays the hosts for its services, and provides
incentives for on-time performance. But at the end of the day, he says,
trains running on host railroads are subject to decisions made by
dispatchers who don't work for Amtrak.
"That's really one of the major factors: the handling of
trains—certainly on the long-distance network, especially—by host
railroads," says Schultz. "That's something we're actively working with
them to address."
Amtrak's long-dista
nce routes rely heavily on host infrastructure and
dispatching, and the latest performance figures—mapped nicely by Wonkblog'sChristopher Ingraham last week—indeed show their recent struggles. Several routes failed to crack the 50 percent on-time rate in the past year.
These include the Empire Builder (Chicago to Seattle/Portland) at 21
percent; the Capitol Limited (Washington to Chicago) at 29 percent; the
California Zephyr (Chicago to San Francisco) at 34 percent; and the
Texas Eagle (Chicago to Los Angeles via San Antonio) at 45 percent.
(For the record, Amtrak varies its definition of "on-time" depending
on the length of a route. Trains traveling less than 250 miles are
on-time if they reach the final destination within 10 minutes of
scheduled arrival, for instance, while trains traveling more than 550
miles get 30 minutes of leeway.)
Long-distance routes carry far fewer passengers than, say, trains in the busy Northeast Corridor.
But even NEC trains have underperformed of late. In May 2014, Acela had
an 80 percent on-time performance, down 10 points from May 2013. The
Northeast Regional train, meanwhile, was at 78.5 percent in May 2014,
down 9 points on the year before.
Amtrak says its new fleet of locomotives, the ACS-64, should improve reliability in the Northeast Corridor. Host
issues alone can't explain that decline. Amtrak took a beating with the
long, cold winter this year; indeed, on-time performance in January and
February 2014 dipped below 70 percent. Aging infrastructure in the
region also causes delays on occasion. Schultz says the new fleet of electric locomotives slowly making its way onto Northeast Corridor tracks should improve reliability, among other benefits.
"Poor on-time performance is unacceptable to our passengers, to our
employees, to our management," he says. "It's a major inconvenience to
our customers. It impacts the business through decreased ridership, lost
revenues, higher operating costs. So it's something we're really taking
very seriously at all levels of the organization."
To some extent, Amtrak's ability to restore the high performance
rates of 2013 may rest in the hands of the justice system. The Supreme
Court recently agreed
to hear an appeal of the 2013 decision that went against Amtrak. The
high court's next session begins in October. So there's a little more
waiting in store yet.
