How Fares the Eco-City?

I'm writing this as I race east aboard a French Intercity train (not a TGV) from Bordeaux to Toulouse. I'm in France for a couple of reasons, both "business", if you need to know. A couple of people asked if I was going for business or pleasure, and the answer is that it's for a very pleasurable business. After all, it was my choice to investigate transportation around the world and bring back to Michigan whatever best practices I've found.
I see it's been three months since my last blog post, and and I apologize for the silence. A lot has happened since then. I've been accepted as a member of the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Administration's Citizens' Advisory Committee. That has meant a lot of meetings, though not of the CAC itself. And I've been asked to serve as Ypsilanti Township's representative on the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, though that has not yet been confirmed. I've also got a couple of projects under way for Trans4m and MARP.
So the two angles I'm working here in France are (1) the EcoCities Summit, and (2) innovative light rail and bus rapid transit technologies. Let's hit EcoCities in this post, and leave transit technology for later, OK?

EcoCities Summit

In 2008 I went to my first EcoCities conference, in San Francisco. The conference is the brainchild of Richard Register and his EcoCities Builders organization. The idea is to bring together all the elements necessary to build sustainable cities throughout the world. That includes just about everything needed for cities to "live long and prosper": healthy food, good water, clean air, social justice, upbuilding education, and efficient transportation.

Nantes was chosen as the host of EcoCities
partly because it had been declared
the 2013 "Green Capital" of Europe.

The 2008 conference was very inspiring: lots of ideas, big and small, were enthusiastically expounded. Many of them had to do with innovative city designs. There was an ebullience, a sense of hopeful energy, a feeling that change for the better was in our grasp.
That was before the crash.
The 2013 conference had more of a sense of fighting our way out of from quicksand. Many of the most hopeful ideas were centered not on what to do, but on how to finance whatever we should be doing. I only ran across one innovative city design, from the Italian architectural firm of JMSchivo&Associati. The general concept is a ring of mixed-use sections or "cells" surrounding a central river/lake and green area, with gardens, parks, forests. The ring is theoretically about one kilometer across, making it easy to walk from any section to any other or to the green center. Rather like my proposed greenfield town turned inside-out.
From Bhutan, we heard from Dasho Dr. Sonam Tenzin. He illustrated for us the Bhutanese idea that nations should measure their Gross National Happiness rather than Gross National Product, while most of the other invited speakers maintained their stodgy ideas of measuring success by economy. I'd like to write more about that later.

François Delarozière's "Green Expedition"
display in central Nantes

From Silicon Valley, we heard about the Urban Observatory from Shannon McElvaney of ESRI. This is a way of comparing the "big data" available from cities around the world in several different areas of interest. On the Web, you can compare three cities at once; in its physical implementation, large screens are set up showing twelve at once.
From Medellín, Colombia, a really encouraging glimpse at a city rising from fear to fulfillment. We used to hear of Medillín only in connection with the drug trade, as home of the fearsome Medellín Cartel and its ruthless leader, Pablo Escobar. Ana, a young woman representing the Mayor (her name unfortunately doesn't appear in the program) gave a quick but powerful talk about the rise of Medellín from fear through hope to action. Their financing methods involve public corporations whose earnings are used solely for


building up city infrastructure and services, but details weren't given in enough detail for me to pass them along. Medellín is hosting a major conference in April next year, which I hope to be able to attend. And that says a lot, as I never wanted to go to Colombia before, and especially not Medellín.
Finally, kids of guests and, I assume, kids from Nantes itself, were invited to build their ideal "city" using Legos, with sponsorship from Lego). The general outlines are lost in the mass of detail, but I did notice the presence of warriors in one part of a city, presumably built by a little boy. For better or for worse, I suppose human boys will always have the seeds of violence in them.

A child-built Lego "EcoCity"
with warrior guards

So let's keep up the struggle to get out of the economic "quicksand", get free from the violence, into unpolluted, sustainable, and prosperous cities.

To learn more:

• Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority
• EcoCities Summit 2013
• EcoCity Builders
• ESRI
• Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority
• Urban Observatory
• Wake Up Washtenaw's greenfield town concept

Atlanta Transit-Oriented Development

I'm in Atlanta at the "Transit Initiatives and Communities" conference, and like many transit conferences there are tours of interesting things. Yesterday, two tours were offered, which tested our mettle for walking and standing in Atlanta summer weather (and it wasn't too bad...for Atlanta!)

Quick Streetcar Detour

Auburn Avenue looking east toward Ebeneezer Baptist Church

Monday morning was a walking tour of the new Atlanta streetcar line under construction. And we did walk the entire line, which is a loop, from Centenial Olympic Park on the west to Ebeneezer Baptist Church and the Martin Luther King Jr. Historic District on the east. We got to see the streetcar line in several stages of construction, from barely begun to almost done. This pic on Auburn Street shows the track slab nearly done, with Ebeneezer Baptist in the background. This is the church where Martin Luther King Jr. was baptized and later became co-pastor with his father. The streetcar line will run northward beside the church before turning west on Auburn.

Atlanta's TOD

But I wanted to share the transit-oriented development scene in Atlanta. MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority) began running heavy-rail service in 1979. The system now consists of a north-south line with two branches on the north side of the city (Red and Gold lines), and an east-west line with one minor branch on the west side (Blue and Green lines), crossing downtown at Five Points station. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MARTA_Rail_Map.svg) Route miles total 48.1, wth ridership of about 72 million trips per year in 2012. The "bread and butter" of the system is its 91 bus lines, almost all of which originate at MARTA rail stations.

Credit: MARTA

In the late 1990s, MARTA decided to launch TOD. Lindbergh Center Station is their flagship development; several of us enjoyed a tour guided by Dr. John Crocker (MARTA Director of Development and Regional Coordination), and Gregory Floyd (MARTA Senior Land Use Planner). According to their narration (as I heard it), MARTA purchased land around the station during its initial construction in the 1970s for use as a park-and-ride lot. In 2000 they purchased more land, including some buildings, bringing the total land owned by the agency around the station to about 47 acres; at the same time, they lengthened the platforms to accomodate longer trains and added a second entrace with direct access to the lengthened platforms via stairs, escalators, and a second elevator.

Lindbergh Station, new section, looking southwest toward TOD apartments

To make room for new development without reducing parking space, they built two new parking structures; other work was done to encourage development, such as putting in water and sewer, electric service, and a gridwork of streets. The investment in the enlarged station, parking structures, and utilities cost close to $100 million, paid for largely by a Federal grant. Predictably, the neighbors resented having their area developed, and mounted a stiff opposition, which required sensitive negotiation and significant mitigation.

Lindbergh Station looking northeast toward AT&T west tower

Development came quickly in the form of two office towers just east of the station (about 10 stories tall) for use by AT&T - originally Southern Bell - whose world headquarters is about three miles south of Lindbergh Station. (Atlanta was - and still is - growing significantly in population.) South and east of the station is a mixed-use 3-4 story complex, and west of the station are two blocks of 4-5 story apartments. All very nicely decorated with trees and "street furniture", walkable and pleasant.

Credit: MARTA

MARTA has encouraged development by offering very reasonable 99-year ground leases. From this, they reap about $2.5 million annually. Compared with the investment of $100 million, this seems relatively low. I suspect - though I didn't ask - that the rate is not adjusted for inflation as the years go by. Absent inflation, this is about 2.5% return on investment annually, but if inflation is over 2.5%, it's a theoretical loss. There are two advantages for MARTA, though: first, the majority of the initial investment was paid with Federal, not MARTA's, funds, so actually most of the return is pure profit for MARTA. In addition, like most transit agencies, MARTA has difficulty raising the local portion of its operating funds - it uses mainly a 1/2 cent sales tax, and when recessions curtail sales, this income dwindles. The constant income from land leases like those around Lindbergh Station are a hedge against these fluctuations. The total coming from such leases around MARTA's region is about $5 million annually. Though a relatively small part of their operating budget, it's always welcome.

And in Michigan?

As our Regional Transit Authority plans to establish its transit lines, it will need to acquire land for any significant stations. If this can be done on terms as advantageous as those made to MARTA (a straight grant), it would be a significant chance to develop both income and TOD. There are only two problems....

First, Congress - especially the House - is currently in a very parsimonious mood. Very little money is being made available for grants like the one MARTA used, and though nobody's crystal ball is perfect, prospects for more free grants look very dim.

Second, the Southeast Michigan RTA, as enabled by statute, is required to use (mainly) rubber-tired vehicles. So far, at least, rubber-tired transit has not performed as well as steel-wheeled (rail) transit in attacting investors. Bus Rapid Transit by its nature cannot move as many people as heavy rail subway-type trains, so the commercial advantages of large numbers of people passing through subway stations is greatly reduced with BRT. What is more, the main attraction of BRT for Michigan is its low initial cost. With a small initial investment, such as modest stations, we can't expect large returns down the road.
So let's bear these variables in mind as we plan, and (as I emphasized in the previous post) plan for the long-term future as best we can.

Credit: MARTA

To learn more:

• About Ebeneezer Baptist Church
• Atlanta Streetcar official site
• MARTA
  • Home page
  • Ridership
  • Wikipedia

The Foresight Saga

You may be aware that I was a computer geek for thirty or forty years. As such, I became a member of two professional societies, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE) and the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). Disclaimer: in spite of the hardware-sounding names of both these organizations, I'm no way an engineer or computing machinery nerd. It was all software, save for some very amateur tinkering with the innerds of my own computers.

So what does this have to do with transit-oriented development, you ask? Well, I ran across a couple of articles in a recent issue of the ACM's Communications, their monthly "flagship" publication. And though the authors thought they were writing only about computer systems, their observations struck me as spot-on about transportation systems - and very applicable to southeast Michigan.

Peter G. Neumann

Both articles deal with planning infrastructure, the skills needed and mistakes one can make. Interestingly, they discuss not only the systems themselves but how people need to think and be educated to solve infrastructure problems. And that's been a topic of discussion among several people who think carefully about Michigan and its future, including Phil Powers (Bridge Magazine) and Lou Glazer (Michigan Future).

As the title suggests, foresight is a central theme in these articles. I've contended for years that one of the major problems in contemporary America is lack of long-term thinking. Lack of foresight. So as soon as I realized that "Foresight Saga" was focused on long-term planning, I tagged the article as a must-read. And yes, I stole the title. It is actually taken from "Inside Risks: The Foresight Saga, Redux", by Peter G. Neumann, which appeared in Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, October 2012, vol.55 no.10 pp.26-28. (I'd give you a link to the article, but it's restricted to subscribers.) Following hard on the heels of this article is another with thoughtful material we can apply to transportation: "Viewpoint: Computing as if Infrastructure Mattered", by Jean-François Blanchette, in Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, October 2012, vol.55 no.10 pp.32-34. (I know, these were published more than seven months ago, but trust me: I'm pleased to have read them while they were less than a year old!)

Jean-François Blanchette

Plan Ahead

OK. Here's what they have to say about foresight, interlarded with my observations...

Short-term thinking is the enemy of the long-term future.

RTA, are you listening? Ann Arbor Connector Study, are you listening?

In general, we know from experience that it can be very difficult to retrofit systems with new implementations to make them trustworthy... Thus, a well-reasoned understanding of the trade-offs is essential before potentially sacrificing possible future opportunities in an effort to satisfy short-term goals. One complicating factor is that much more knowledge of the past and the present - and appreciation of the effects of possible futures - is needed to intelligently mak[e] such trade-offs. (Neumann)

Neumann says "to make them trustworthy" because his focus is on computer security. We can substitute, "to add greater capacity," or speed, or economic value, or safety, or operating efficiency - any of the many factors that make transportation more worthwhile.

"Much more knowledge...is needed to intelligently mak[e] such trade-offs". Yes. Fortunately, transportation has been around much longer than computers, so we have knowledge and experience available - if we care to seek it out and apply it. Unfortunately, some Michigan people seem largely unaware of the wisdom that resides in communities all around us. One of my primary missions now is to gather this wisdom together and disseminate it to Michigan people in this blog and elsewhere.

Requirements. We should anticipate the long-term needs that a system or network of systems must satisfy, and plan the development to overcome potential obstacles that might arise, even if the initial focus is on only short-term needs. This might seem to be common wisdom, but is in reality quite rare. (Neumann)

Rick Harnish, of Midwest High Speed Rail Association, has been asking us to urge officials of the "South-Of-The-Lake" project to make plans compatible with true high speed infrastructure, capable of supporting 220 MPH running. What are our chances that such an alignment will be given the green light? My opinion...Slim to none. "We don't have the funding." True, in the sense that funding for any long-term project other than "national defense" is off the table in Congress. And anyway, a high speed alignment would take longer to build. "Don't we need to get this done ASAP?" And indeed we do need improvement quickly, since we've put off investment in rail for so long.

And what about transit for Detroit? "Bus Rapid Transit!" This is seen as a silver bullet by just about everybody. It's quick. It's cheap (compared to rail). And sotheast Michigan is aching, groaning, torn apart by lack of efficient, reliable transit. "Let's just get something done! Anything!!!" As Neumann says, anticipating long-term needs "might seem to be common wisdom, but is in reality quite rare."

With particular attention to critical national infrastructure systems, we seem to have arrived at lowest-common-denominator systems and have had to live with them, in the absence of better alternatives. The standards for acceptable levels ... and best practices are typically much too simplistic and basically inadequate. Relevant efforts of various research and development communities seem to be largely ignored.
...
The financial crises of the past few years present another example in which the almost total absence of realistic long-term thinking and oversight contributed to worldwide economic problems. Optimizing for short-term gains often tends to run counter to long-term success (expect for insider investors, who having taken their profits have little interest in the more distant future).

Remember this next time someone says, "The market knows best," or "Private enterprise can do anything better than government."

Research. Solving problems more generally with preplanned evolution, rather than just barely attaining short-term requirements, can be very advantageous. With some foresight and care, this can be done without losing much efficiency. Often a slightly more general solution can prove to be more effective in the long run. There is much to be gained from farsighted thinking that also enables short-term achievements. Thus, it seems most wise not to focus on one without the other. (Neumann)

Yes! It's not necessary to throw short-term solutions out the window in favor of long-term only. But it takes vision. It takes research and thought. This is where the education component comes in: we need people in Michigan who have been educated to apply long-term problem solving techniques.

Cognitive vs. subconscious thinking. A recent book by Daniel Annemarie (Thinking, Fast and Slow; Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2011) revisits some of the earliest studies of left-brain (logical, linear, methodical) versus right-brain (intuitive, subconscious, out of the box) thinking. Our educational systems tend to prod the former, while in some cases neglecting the latter. Kahnemann's fast thinking (more or less right brain) tends to be checked or modulated by slow thinking (more or less left brain). What is important in the present context is that long-term thinking inherently requires a well-integrated combination of both ... A holistic balance of human intelligence, experience, memory, ingenuity, creativity, and collective wisdom, with slow and fast thinking, is extremely valuable in exploring the trade-offs between short-term gains and long-term potentials within some sort of holistic big-picture foresight. (Neumann, emphasis added)

What is Michigan doing to encourage this "holistic balance of human intelligence"? Why, cutting back school funding, of course! Duh! What a great way to maximize the human capital of our state. (NOT!)

Indeed, for the graduate professional degrees...what is required is a set of skills to analyze the complex forces that direct infrastructural evolution. It is such skills that provide the means to anticipate the curve ahead in a continuously evolving technological world. (Blanchette)

So: Michigan, we need to take the long view. Foresight requires starting with a good, solid, well-rounded education for our kids, our college students, and our grad students. We all need to understand the past, be aware of present trends, and be very thoughtful about what the future may bring. Leaving a meaningful legacy - a sustainable, inviting Michigan - requires investing thought, intelligence, knowledge, effort - and yes, money - for future generations.

Let's get with it, Michigan!

To learn more:

• About Peter Neumann: Wikipedia, home page
• About Jean-François Blanchette: home page
• Phillip Powers' Bridge Magazine
• Lou Glazer's Michigan Future, Inc.

What's Our Community?

What is "our community"? At its retreat on May 21 this year, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board members spent a lot of time discussing how much territory AATA should cover. With the (temporary?) rejection of county-wide transit, AATA has decided to focus on "the urban core". Since the retreat, the City of Ypsilanti has been accepted as an integral part of the agency, but let's look at the concept of the "urban core" first, then turn to the larger question of what "the community" needs.

What Is the Urban Core?

Washtenaw County Land Use
(SEMCOG)

Not all the Board members share the same idea of what the "urban core" actually is. And the whole discussion is confused by the fact that political subdivisions within the county don't correspond to anybody's definition of an "urban core". The legal boundaries of local governments are one thing; people's daily travel needs are quite another. But since local governments are responsible for paying transit subsidies, they obviously have to be taken into account as well.

Washtenaw County Population Density

A logical, efficient bus system is based on population densities, destinations, and the network of roads connecting them. As the Board and staff think about the urban core, their planning should be based primarily on those facts. Citizens and elected local officials should consider those facts exclusively when deciding on service for the area.

So who's going to pay for it? The answer will actually depend on how the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) organizes its financial structure, and what the voters of the four counties in the RTA district approve. In all likelihood, the RTA will depend on current methods of raising funds (local millages) for local transit, though transit agencies have recently been given the possibility of a regional vehicle registration fee.

Washtenaw County political subdivisions
Darker is higher population
(U.S. Census Bureau 2010)

Does that mean Washtenaw County's service will need to be paid for by millages in the local subdivisions that include this urban core? Or will the RTA impose a uniform funding system throughout the four-county area? I expect it will be a while before we find this out, since the RTA legislation requires a 7/9 majority (77.7%) vote, including at least one representative from each county, before a tax request can be put on the ballot.

Here's the problem. Elected officials - who appoint RTA Board members -  have been very reluctant to propose transit millages. The county-wide transit proposal in Washtenaw County was never put to a vote of the citizens. It was killed in the council chambers of the cities and townships. Many elected officials seem to believe they are politically vulnerable if they allow people to vote on a tax issue. But a critical part of democracy is to allow people to vote on things that are important to them. Nationally, seventy-eight percent of transit funding issues have passed during the last 10 years, and even more - 82% - in the last 3 years. In Michigan in 2012, according to the Center for Transportation Excellence, there were 35 ballot proposals either to renew, increase, or institute new transit funding. Of these, only one failed. That's over 97% success for transit millages. How much courage do elected leaders need to let their voters decide transit issues for themselves? When citizens have a say in what transit service they want, and when they trust the organization that delivers the service, they vote for it.

Serve Locally, Act Regionally

Of course, that's a take-off on "Think global, act local". A big factor in the defeat of the county-wide transit effort was people - especially local officials - thinking too narrowly about who their "community" consists of. Naturally, elected officials are responsible to their own citizens (often mis-named "taxpayers"). But the trap Southeast Michigan has fallen into is to act as if citizen welfare and prosperity is limited by the boundaries of the local jurisdiction within which they live. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to transportation.

Driving from east to west through Washtenaw County on I-94 is a distance of 32.9 miles, and in light traffic takes about 29 minutes from end to end. People think nothing of spending that amount of time driving across the county, yet some Washtenaw County citizens seem to believe we don't need county-wide transit. And transit to Southfield, Farmington Hills, or Detroit? "How ridiculous!"

Some short-sighted Ann Arbor people have voiced a concern that people who work in Ann Arbor but don't live in the city - and so don't pay the AATA millage - should not be served by AATA - at least, Ann Arbor "taxpayers" should not have to subsidize their transit-ride. But it's short-sighted because it costs the city more to have commuters drive in - and widen the roads so they can get through - than to bring them in buses. And I'm not talking about the cost in money alone, but also the deterioration of city quality all their automobiles cause.That includes congestion, wear-and-tear on the roads, the cost of building parking structures, and the extra space required for the parking structures and surface lots. Ann Arbor is a much better place to work and live if AATA can get people downtown without their autos, regardless of where they come from.

What is Our Area?

Southeast Michigan is struggling. Think for a moment about some of the successful U.S. cities: Seattle, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Boston. Every one has extensive regional transit systems. Do we believe we can succeed without them? But Washtenaw County, one of the most successful in Michigan (choose your measure) can't even get it together to have county-wide transit.

In the age of "the global village," what fraction of the globe can we reasonably be held responsible for? Specifically, what is a reasonable area to expect a "transit system" to cover? Here's my suggestion: as far as you could drive, do a day's work, and get back in one day. It's a rough measure, but fairly practical. That embraces all of Southeast Michigan. Of course, an area that size is seldom served by a single transit agency, but all the transit agencies in this area need to be coordinated - woven into a single system that acts seamlessly for passengers.

And now we have a Regional Transit Authority in Southeast Michigan to do just that. Washtenaw County is part of this fledgeling RTA, like it or not. Naturally, there are fears that our exemplary service provider, the AATA, will be dragged down to the level of the dysfunctional transit authorities east of us.

I think it's very unlikely for that to happen. I see the RTA is a bit like a family with three teenagers: one is promising, a good student, college-bound. The other two are struggling with addiction (debt), poor grades (on-time performance), absenteeism (opt-out jurisdictions), and in danger of dropping out of school (bankruptcy). There's no way the parents (RTA Board) are going to let their star kid's grades go down; anyway, their hands are full dealing with the problem kids. Benign neglect is the worst-case scenario for the "good kid".

OK, beyond that analogy, providing the transit service people need involves all of Southeast Michigan. AATA can only do that by participating actively in the RTA. AATA has sent people to both of the RTA meetings that have taken place so far. There was some question at the Retreat whether sending people should be a low priority to save staff time. No! It should be a very high priority!

Working with the RTA is a high priority for several reasons: it can solve some immediate problems, it can lead to future cost savings through economies of scale, and most important, it will lead to meeting more of the transportation needs of citizens in the AATA area.

One immediate problem that needs a solution is how to pay for the express service AATA operates between Canton and Ann Arbor. There was some desultory talk of negotiating with Canton Township officials to see if they could be persuaded to pay part of the cost. Highly unlikely! The solution is to receive funds from the RTA to cover the part of the route that isn't in AATA's funding district. (The problem is immediate, but the solution isn't: it will have to wait for the RTA to figure out how to raise funds.)

Another problem on the horizon, but not immediate, was discussed: transition to fare-payment cards and away from cash. Most cities now use them, but researching the best system and planning a transition are time-consuming and expensive projects. However, those are perfect things for an RTA to do: partly because the RTA can do it once for all the transit authorities in its jurisdiction, and more importantly because it would result in one system that can be used throughout all of Southeast Michigan. A region truly united by its public transportation system has one payment system that can be used everywhere. A single-payment system is one of the most important things an RTA can do to unify transportation in the region.

But sending people to RTA meetings is only half of the relationship. The other half is inviting Washtenaw County's RTA representatives to be part of the discussion of what AATA should become. Having them as part of the Board Retreat would have been an ideal way to help them understand where AATA's strengths lie and what issues need resolution. Yet neither Richard Murphy nor Elizabeth Gerber were at the AATA Board Retreat, where they could have added a lot of perspective to the discussions - and taken very helpful insights back to the RTA itself. Can we afford to think of AATA as "us" and the RTA as "them"? Not if we're going to succeed in the next few years.

Washtenaw's RTA Board members should be at every meeting of the AATA Board. In fact, serious consideration should be given to making one or both of them ex-officio members of the AATA Board of Directors.

Serve locally, act regionally.

To learn more:

• AN ACT to provide for certain regional transit authorities
• Center for Transportation Excellence transit elections database

AATA Board, What is AATA Here For?

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) had its Board of Directors annual retreat today (May 22). During the four hours of discussion lots of topics were brought up, as you can imagine. I'd like to comment on a few issues that I feel are fundamental, and offer this blog post as a substitute for what I would have said during the end-of-meeting comment period, had we not been limited to two minutes.

In this post, I'll be looking at how transit fits in to communities. Beyond just getting people from point A to point B, transit can play a very important role in the economy - in fact, in the very shape of our community and what it feels like to live here. In the next post, I'll try to answer the question, "Who are We, the Ann Arbor Community?"

The Mission of Transit

OK, maybe not THE mission of transit, but here's why transit is critical in Southeast Michigan now. (I should point out that AATA has an excellent statement of is mission, vision, and values on its Web site. No quarrel with that.)

AATA aims to provide a "prefered" way for people to move around the community in an efficient, timely way. They do a fairly good job at that. But it's important for a Board of Directors to keep in mind the larger role of transit in a community. Besides providing efficient mobility, a good transit system exerts a planning role, a livability role, and fills a public health role in ways that no other entity can.

Planning, in the sense that transportation has always influenced how communities grow and develop. When people began to build cities, they chose sites that offered security, water, and good connections for trade with other cities. The shapes of these cities varied according to how people could defend them, and efficiently get around in them and between them. That was about 4,500 years ago. In the 21st century, security is no longer provided by strategically locating our cities and building high walls around them. Water is still critical, but we now build cities where we like and pipe the water in from distant sources. That means modern communities a primarily shaped by how people get around - by transportation.

The second half of the 20th century saw private cars and highways encouraging communities to spread out over large areas, to provide privacy and a feeling of "country living" to large numbers of people. But with the coming of the 21st century, the tide has turned as people realize that living in spread-out communities has many unforeseen drawbacks. The most obvious is the cost of "care and feeding" for multiple vehicles, but lots more problems are becoming apparent as time goes by. That's where a transit system comes in.

Transit can provide much less costly, more efficient transportation - but not when communities are spread thinly over large areas. Conversely, transit increases the value of communities that are more compact - of housing and business that is closer to transit lines. This makes the communities more sustainable, in the sense that people can continue to live in them without the excessive cost of owning and operating multiple vehicles. So if transit routes are planned in such a way that they reinforce compact development, over time communities will become more sustainable. (Of course, rail-based transit exerts the strongest economic pressure towards sustainable development, but even buses are effective to some extent.)

By Livability I mean the "cool factor" of a community. (Some call it "vibrancy" or "quality of life".) It's about whether a community is fun to be in. I sensed that quality in some of the cities I visited last month in Spain, especially in Barcelona. It's the ability of a community to put people first, offering beauty, entertainment, chances to meet people or just watch them go by. (I confess: I love to watch people!)

A good transit system makes it possible for people get to a variety of places and then enjoy being there. Cars make it possible to get to lots of places, but then you have to find someplace to park them. Space for cars takes away space for people. Parking lots and structures take up prime real estate in the places where people most want to go. Car-space pushes apart the people-space, making it farther to walk from one interesting place to another. That, in turn, makes more people want to drive in their cars from one place to another, leading to a "need" for even more parking spaces. Anyone should be able to see that's an unsustainable downward spiral, but most of us prefer not to look at it too closely.
So a good transit system allows the places people want to be in, to be closer together. The proximity of interesting places makes a community more fun to live in. Cool!

Public health is increased by transit as well. When people have no alternative but to use cars for transportation, they are much less likely to get the gentle but effective exercise of walking to the bus or train (or more strenuously running!). Along with diet, over-dependance on personal vehicles is a major factor in the American obesity "epidemic". I mentioned in my recent blog about Spain and Madrid how trim the people riding trains looked. Of course, transit is not "the cure" for obesity - I've seen plenty of obese transit riders in the U.S. - but it helps.

In addition to obesity, transit is a public health tool because it's so much safer than driving. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, someone dies every 15 minutes in a motor vehicle crash on US roads; crashes kill more people ages 5 to 34 than any other cause of death, and in one year motor vehicle crashes cost Americans $99 billion in medical care, rehab, and lost wages. Transit bus crashes represent only 0.2% of traffic crashes.

So the Board and staff of our transit agencies should be saying to themselves, "We have the power to make our communities healthier, more sustainable, and better places to live and work. How can we best shape our service to do that?"

To learn more:

• AATA's Mission, Vision and Values
• CDC: the cost of motor vehicle-related injuries
  
• The Costs of Automobile Dependency
  
• Economic Impact Of Public Transportation Investment
• Traffic Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  

Spain: Trains and Stuff

(Written April 8, 2013)

OK, so I'm in Spain for a couple of weeks - partly to tour around with my wife Martha, and partly to attend the twin conferences "MetroRail 2013" and "LightRail 2013". What are my impressions...?

First, let's look at the economy and people in general, then at trains in particular (of course!) and finally at transportation and development (settlement) patterns.

Economy and People

We've heard a lot of bad news about Spain's economy, particularly the high unemployment. Indeed, when my wife and I landed in Barcelona and took a taxi (*gasp*) to our hotel, we got an earful from the taxi driver about how bad things are. "The Euro was terrible idea. We're paid Spanish wages but charged German prices!"

Perhaps I should point out that I've spoken Spanish since childhood. I don't speak Catalan - the native language of Barcelona and its region - but it's partly intelligible if you know Spanish, and all Catalan speakers seem to be equally fluent in Spanish, at least the day-to-day variety.

Barcelona: Plaça Catalunya

After recovering (somewhat) from jet-lag, we went out to get acquainted with that charming city, and found no evidence of distress except a few pan-handlers - but not as many as I've come to expect in Chicago. And that was the case throughout Spain: people crowding the restaurants (and not only tourists); Spaniards on vacation or on business in the trains; young couples (lots of them!) out on dates; people fashionably dressed (especially women and business men); families out and about with small children; people in stores and shopping malls. Lots of cars, hardly any of them old clunkers. In general, a prosperous, seemingly contented people.

So why all the bad news? Basically, I believe the Spanish Government is protecting its people from the impact of the recession by borrowing - and that's the problem. We have a debt problem in the U.S. as well, but our productivity and reputation is sufficient to enable us to continue to live "on credit", while apparently Spain is being held more strictly to account.
Some of the signs of economic distress I look for are shuttered factories and construction projects abandoned for lack of funding, like we have in Ypsilanti. What I saw instead was factories apparently in production and infrastructure being built. There's quite a lot of new housing in evidence. The high-speed rail extensions from Sevilla to Granada and Cádiz were both going forward with men and machines in evidence. Plenty of cars (as well as trucks and buses) on the highways, though having traveled mainly by train, I haven't been on highways much.

Spain is a very European country, unlike much of Latin America. It seems Europeans in general know how to live well without as much over-use of resources as we Americans. Maybe the extended families have continued to hold together as the primary social unit, sheltering multiple generations, while we in the U.S. have the nuclear family as our primary unit. Perhaps most Spaniards know how to enjoy life whether with or without large amounts of money - I don't know. What I am certain of is that they know how to create beautiful, enjoyable communities.

Trains

As you may know, the Spanish have invested very, very heavily in their railroads over the last few decades. They have 3,000 kilometers, or 1,864 miles of high speed line, making theirs the longest in Europe and second in the world only to China. Their trains are fast, frequent, and comfortable. They are heavily used, though not as crowded as I remember from visiting in 1972.


The equipment is all relatively new. Spain has two major companies that design and manufacture railway equipment: C.A.F. and Talgo. Both have their equipment running in the U.S. and other parts of the world; Talgo primarily in the U.S. Northwest between Seattle and Eugene; C.A.F. in commuter or urban service, though I don't recall where. (I'm riding in a train now, between Barcelona and Valencia in a Talgo train without WiFi, so I can't check now...) [Update - CAF in the U.S.: One generation of Washington Metro cars; Pittsburgh, Sacramento, and Houston LRVs; Amtrak's Viewliner II railcars.]

High speed rail lines of Spain

High-speed lines radiate out from Madrid - not surprising, since it's both Spain's capital and its largest city. I rode line from Madrid to Barcelona this morning in 3 hours 10 minutes (compared to 5 hours 36 minutes for Google's fastest estimate of driving time) a distance of about 616 kilometers (383 miles). The top speed on this train, a Siemens ICE-3 (Renfe Class 103), was 300 km/h, about 195 MPH.

The line south of Madrid to Sevilla may be a bit slower; the top speed our "Alvia" train went was 250 km/h (155 MPH) according to my GPS. (I'm not sure if that's the top speed on the southern line, or if it's the max for the Talgo equipment used for "Alvia" service.) [Update: Talgo "Alvia" is a dual-mode train, equipped for guage-changing and, in some cases, with both diesel and electric power. Their maximum service speed is 250 km/h (155 MPH) under 25 kV 50 Hz AC catenary.]

In Cadiz Station, L-R: Two Alvia class 130s (Talgo-Bombardier); a class 449 regional; a Civia class 462

But the "big deal" about this is not just the speed, but the punctuality and frequency. Punctuality is not quite as good as Japan's: a couple of trains I was on were 5 minutes late (*gasp*) and the rail operator, Renfe, will not guarantee connections with less than about an hour between trains. High-speed service between Madrid and the major cities of Barcelona (northeast) and Sevilla (in the south) is offered throughout the day at hourly intervals, and more frequently in the morning and afternoon; service to other major centers is close to this frequency as well.

Like some French TGVs, Spanish Alvia runs on both high-speed (up to 155 MPH) and regular-speed (max about 125 MPH) lines. This provides a one-seat ride between smaller cities without high-speed lines, and the major centers that have them. But the Spanish have introduced a feature practically nobody else has, on account of historical peculiarity: the normal guage in Spain is "broad" - 5' 5.67" (1668 mm) rather than the world "standard" guage, 5' 8.5" (1480 mm). But in order to make their high-speed lines compatible with the rest of the world, they use "standard" guage for those, and developed changeable-guage axles on Talgo and CAF equipment. So when an "Alvia" train goes from one guage to another, it goes through a cambiador ("changer"). These are in gray metal sheds, which the train moves through slowly with a great deal of creaking and squeaking while a specialized device unlocks the axles, the rails force them to the new width, the axles are re-locked, and a mechanical specialist observes to make sure the process went correctly. Then the train is off again with its new gauge, passengers none the wiser if they haven't read about it!

Naturally, there is a whole hierarchy of services with different equipment, from the exalted "Ave" to the lowly "Metro" subway. Renfe services are in three categories: long-distance, medium-distance, and suburban. Spanish state governments subsidize their suburban and regional services. Cities run their subway, light rail, and streetcar services as well as transit buses. All the Renfe services are very comfortable, with large windows, relatively new equipment, and smooth track. "Preferred" service (1st class) includes meals at your seat; the high-speed and medium-distance trains have café cars but not diners, where people can stand at tables but not sit down. Some long-distance trains that aren't high-speed, and all overnight trains, have full-service diners - excellent food and wine!

The Barcelona to Granada "Trenhotel" in Granada Station behind a class 334 diesel.

Subways, on the other hand, are primarily designed to fit the maximum number of passengers - and they can be quite crowded. I've ridden the Madrid and Barcelona subways; Bilbao, Valencia, and Seville have them too. Some of the subway lines are shared by Renfe suburban trains, and long-distance trains also share the tunnels to access the centers of cities.
All in all, our children and grandchildren in the United States will be

fortunate if our generation leaves them a system as good as Spain's.

Transportation and Development

Is there a connection between the Spanish people's apparent contentment and their transportation system? I'd have to say Yes, though naturally transportation is only part of the story. Many Spanish people have cars (most of them small), but it's easy to travel pretty much anywhere without one. Certainly no city dweller need consider getting a car unless they particularly want one, which saves the average family a lot of money - particularly since motor fuels are quite expensive and heavily taxed. This means that the cost of job-hunting and of being productively employed is much lower than for us in Michigan, so if the Spanish government pays unemployment, a relatively modest payment goes a lot farther. (You may recall also that a few years ago, when Prime Minister Zapatero was elected, he withdrew Spain from the NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan. Whether or not you agree with this move, it made more funding available for human services and infrastructure within Spain itself.)

Countryside, central Spain

Spain has a lot of open agricultural and non-arable mountainous land - it's a beautiful country, and the trains' big windows make it easy to enjoy. The cities are compact, and the majority of people appear to live in apartment buildings 6-10 stories high. There are single-family homes, of course, but it's rare to see large lots.

Avenida Constitución, Granada

The result is cities and towns that are relatively inexpensive to serve with public transportation. And it is heavily used. This morning I watched subway trains arriving at the airport every 2.5 minutes, disgorging scores of passengers at the end of the line, and leaving 30 seconds later to return to the city. I was waiting for a commuter train that goes to the center of the city more directly, every half hour. (Need I point out that no American city has both subway and commuter rail direct to an airport terminal? It's pretty common in Europe.)

City life is not for everyone, of course, but when it's done right, it can be a very satisfying lifestyle, with many amenities close by. As I said earlier, the Europeans seem to know how to enjoy life, and how to create cities that are fun to live in. I've often seen the word "vibrant" used to describe this quality lately, and I assume it doesn't refer to vibration from heavy traffic. ;-) I guess I prefer the expression "fun to live in" to describe this quality, but whatever you call it, Spanish cities all seem to have it. It's a quality I'd like to see us have more of where I live.

Note: I've written the preceding part of the blog entry on various trains today (Monday, April 8). I'll have to look up some facts when I can get access to the Internet, but this is a great illustration of how train-travel can be comfortable, scenic, and productive all at the same time. :-) [Updates have been added in square brackets]

Spain and California

To give an idea of how Spain compares with the United States, the closest similarity is between Spain and California, in size and population.

	Spain	California
Size (sq mi)	195,364	163,696
Population (2012 estimate)	47,265,321	38,041,430
GDP (PPP) 2012 estimate total ($trillion USD)	$1.407	$1,936
GDP Per capita	$30,412	$51,914

Spain is somewhat larger than California (but smaller than Texas); has more people than any U.S. state; has a GDP somewhat smaller than California (but larger than Texas); and per peson produces less than any state in the U.S., but close to average for the European Union.

To learn more:

• CAF in the U.S.
• Talgo America
• Talgo 250, Renfe Class 130 trainsets
  

Madrid Public Transport

Last week I attended MetroRail 2013, a conference of rail-oriented urban transportation providers from around the world (except from the US). Hosted in Madrid, Spain, the conference included many presenters from Europe and Latin America, with some representation from southern Asia, South Africa, and Canada. I approached the conference as someone from a third-world country might, knowing how far we have to go in Michigan, but determined to learn what I could about the economics and system organization of those who have more experience than we do.

Of course, much of the emphasis was on problems we don't have - particularly, how to expand capacity of existing metro rail lines that have been saturated and overcrowded. (In case you're curious, the leading strategy for managing this is Communications-Based Train Control, CBTC, but that's not a problem we need to address in Michigan yet!)

Madrid Area Stats

Since Madrid was the host city, I'd like to give you a brief look at its public transport system in comparison with what we're more familiar with in the States. My main source of information is a talk presented by Carlos Cristóbal-Pinto, Director of Quality, Processes and External Affairs of the Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid (CRTM), the Regional Transport Consortium of Madrid. I believe this is a fairly close organizational equivalent to the Detroit area's Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

I've pulled together some figures to compare the Madrid and Detroit areas. I've included the Southeast Michigan RTA area, since I'm focusing on transportation here; and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), since it's the closest US metro in population to Madrid.

City	Pop	Area (SqMi)	Density
Madrid city	3,250,000	232	14,009
Madrid Metro	6,489,680	3097	2,095
Detroit city	706,585	143	4,946
RTA Area (4-county)	5,563,643	6,537	851
Dallas MSA	6,700,991	9,286	722

Notice that the city of Detroit is more than twice as densely populated as the Madrid metro area as a whole - even after Detroit's loss of population during the last few decades. Also, the RTA area is only 41% as dense as the Madrid metro area (which is the same as their Regional Transport Consortium's area).

The Madrid metro area is made up of 179 municipalities, with almost 6.5 million inhabitants in an area of 3100 square miles. In population, it's a bit bigger than the Southeast Michigan metro area - about the population of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, though only about ⅓ its area. About half of Madrid's population lives in the City of Madrid proper, which has an area of 232 square miles. Compared with the city of Detroit, the city of Madrid is almost twice as large in area, but with five times the number of people. Private houses are rare in the city of Madrid; most people appear to live in apartment buildings eight or ten stories tall.

Madrid's "RTA"

Madrid's CRTM was established in 1985; our RTA held its first Board meeting a few days ago, April 9, 2013. I'm not familiar with the legal framework for transit authorities under Spain's constitution and laws, but we can piece together some inferences based on what I heard and read. In Spain the government appears to have jurisdiction over transit in much the same way that the U.S. government has jurisdiction over roads. That is, if you want to build a road here, you need permission from the government unless it's all on your property; if you want to provide public transportation in Spain, you need permission from the government. Here, if a company (for example, Indian Trails) wants to run bus service, they need to get a Common Carrier license from the state in which they operate - or, if they operate between states (like Megabus) from the Federal government. Once a license is obtained, the company can operate pretty much as it chooses, as long as safety rules are observed.

In Spain, metropolitan area transit is controlled more closely by the authorized agency, and private companies wishing to run urban transit (like the M1 Rail consortium in Detroit) must go one step further and contract with their equivalent of the RTA. The Authority has broad powers to determine the terms of the contract and how the service will be operated. Later in this post, we'll look in more detail at one of the contractors.

Among the 179 municipalities that make up the Madrid metro area, several have their own transit agencies, or contract with private companies to provide it.

• Metro Madrid is owned by the Region (I suppose through the CRTM) and runs the subway system, providing 2.2 million rides per day. 
• EMT is owned by the city, rather like DDOT, and runs buses that carry 1.4 million passengers per day. 
• In 38 outlying municipalities, buses are provided by three public agencies (rather like SMART and AATA), plus 8 private companies that operate as concessions directly under the CRTM. 
• But there are also 21 private bus companies that provide regional service under 31 different concessions. This is a little like Indian Trails providing regional service with support from MDOT; more like Indian Trails operating AirRide under contract with AATA. 
• With all these buses running between cities in the region and nationally, CRTM has contracted with private companies to operate five intermodal bus terminals roughly in a ring around the core of the city.
• Commuter and national rail services are provided by RENFE, the Spanish equivalent of Amtrak. 
• Finally, four light rail lines have been built recently. Two of these are run by one private company; we'll look at this in more detail in a moment. One is run by another private company, and the fourth is run by Metro Madrid, the subway company.

As you can see, this urban region is served by lots of different modes of transit, and these are provided in several different ways. Some are directly owned by the "RTA", others are owned by municipalities, and still other are privately financed and operated.

Mode Share

Given the density of Madrid, it's not surprising that 63% of trips in the city were by public transportation, while only 37% were by private vehicle. (Data is from 2004, the figures presented by Sr. Cristóbal-Pinto.) Of the 15.2 million daily trips in the region that year, there was a pretty even split between modes, as shown in this chart:

Modal split of total trips in Madrid
(Carlos Cristóbal-Pinto)

It's interesting that somewhat more trips within the city were by private car, fewer within the region. Perhaps the congestion on expressways explains that, at least in part. The region has a well-developed system of limited access and trunk roads, easily comparable to Detroit's in quantity, quality...and congestion.

Madrid metro area showing expressways (in yellow)
(Google Maps)

Investment and Ridership

Madrid's first subway was opened in 1919 by a private company, and expanded slowly during the following decades. A much more vigorous expansion took place in the1970s to help serve the rapidly expanding population of the area and combat urban sprawl. Unfortunately, by the late 70s the company's project management deteriorated, and work ground to a halt until the 1990s. At that time, the CRTM, which had been formed a few years earlier, purchased the Metro company, took over operations, and resumed expansion.

Since then, Madrid has invested heavily in transportation, both highway and public. Of course, the ups and downs of the economy have caused acceleration and deceleration of progress; Spain is currently in an economic down phase, but even so, investment continues - though more slowly.

The primary public investment has been in rail, which makes sense given the need to move lots of people through a densely populated area. In length, Madrid's Metro is now the sixth-longest in the world, though it's only the fiftieth city by population. The majority of rail investment has been in subways, followed by commuter rail and light rail. Here's a breakdown - not of investment but of ridership (passengers per day):

• Subways: 2,200,000
• Madrid city buses: 1,400,000
• Intercity buses (through intermodal terminals): 900,000
• Commuter rail: 800,000
• Regional buses: 700,000
• City buses other than Madrid: 150,000
• Light rail: 50,000

Madrid metro area urban rail lines (not including commuter)
(Metro de Madrid, S.A.)

What's it Like?

My own experience of the public transport system includes commuter rail (the airport line), light rail (one short ride with a tech-tour group), and primarily subway. None of the modes seem to stress speed - the commuter rail was relatively slow, but comfortable; the subways were also slow relative to other systems I've been on, but quite frequent (every 3-6 minutes most of the day, every 10 between about 8 PM and 1 AM).
As to speed, the line I rode most often (Line 5) took me downtown in about half an hour. The distance is about 9 miles, and there are 16 stops. That's about 1.8 stops per mile, an average speed of about 18 MPH. Anywhere near the city center, the train was always standing-room only.

Superficial demographics: Madrid subway riders included people of all ages and most socioeconomic levels (except perhaps the very highest). One thing that impressed me was that almost everyone was trim and reasonably fit, though of course many appeared tired at the end of the day. At least half were reading or using electronic devices - whether seated or standing. Racial diversity was evident: the majority of Spanish people are European in appearance, with a high percentage of light-skinned people and quite a few blond-haired with light (green or grey) eyes. (Most of the blonds were women, which may require us to discount the numbers somewhat...)
The darker-skinned people were primarily native-American in appearance, and I got the impression that many were employed in the more menial jobs. It is relatively easy for Latin Americans to work in Spain since they know the language, though I don't expect immigration is much encouraged. There was a smattering of Asians, Mediterraneans, and Africans. And of course some of these were tourists or international students, though the majority of tourists probably stay above-ground. (It takes a real transit-nerd like me to plunge under a city into crowded trains running on complex routes...)

Madrid's BRT

Madrid has a single bus rapid transit (BRT) line on the west side of the city. It's a ten-mile line running through an area of relatively un-dense, affluent population, built during the period 1991-1995. This video on YouTube refers to it; more information has been difficult to find.

Concessions

As I mentioned, many of the lines are run by private companies with concessions from the city. This is a type of PPP that seems to work well in Madrid. I've gotten materials from one such operation: the Metro Ligero Oeste (Light Metro West) during a visit to their operations center at Cocheras on the Colonia Jardín to Bobadilla light rail line.

In order to win the concession, a company, "Metro Ligero Oeste" (MLO), was formed whose stockholders are an investment bank - Ahorro Corporación (30%), with two concession operating firms - COMSA EMTE Conceciones (18.70%) and OHL (51.3%). The majority partner, OHL, is a diversified Spanish company with operations in several countries involving development, construction, and operation of a port, an airport, toll roads, and this light rail line.

Here's how it works: the CRTM gave MLO a 30 year finance+build+operate contract in 2006. (It wasn't clear whether they were responsible for design and engineering.) MLO then invested about €650 million - just shy of $1 billion US - to build the track, stations, maintenance depot, and a small state-of-the-art control center. They also purchased a fleet of Alstom Citadis 302 light rail vehicles, and began operations in 2007 over 13.8 route-miles with a staff of 180. They do not receive fares directly; rather, fares are collected by the CRTM, and MLO receives a per-passenger-trip amount from CRTM. The expectation of the MLO partner companies is that they will recoup their capital and operating expenditures at some point before the end of the contract. CRTM, on the other hand, has authorized the establishment of a public transportation line with little or no cost to itself (depending on whether it did the initial studies and engineering), and apparently no risk.

What a deal for the transit authority! This type of arrangement wouldn't be possible in Southeast Michigan, or in any of the US, because there is no track-record whatever of public transportation making a profit. Apparently the situation is different in Spain. It's not that the fares are significantly higher: the base fare for an adult traveling in one zone is €1.50, roughly $2.00 US. Other factors include the high cost of motor fuels and the greater population density - though the area where the light rail operates is not a particularly dense one. It remains to be seen whether MLO will make a profit, break even, or fail. An interesting experiment, and I wish them well.

So...

Madrid and Southeast Michigan have about the same population, but we have a lot lower density. Naturally, that makes public transportation more expensive to build and operate.

But there's a reason for our lower density: lack of public transportation. That's a fine "catch-22", right?

Low density is a problem. It will become increasingly expensive to maintain any kind of transportation in the coming decades if we don't start now to build good, sustainable transit systems. Cars will get more expensive even if fuel costs stay level or decrease; auto insurance - especially medical - will increase. If "automated roads" are developed and built, the cost of construction and maintenance of roadways will get much more
expensive.

But if we build good transit, density will start to increase. This has been shown time and again in American cities. And higher density lowers the cost of providing transit systems.

Building good transit now is a WIN for Southeast Michigan. Let's do it.

To learn more:

• A little about Dallas-area rail transit (this blog)
• Wikipedia has up-to-date, accessible statistics about cities: Detroit, Dallas, and Madrid
• Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
• Madrid Transport Consortium (CRTM)
  (Unfortunately, Carlos Cristóbal-Pinto's power-point is available only to conference attendees) 
• Madrid Metro history