The Ground Floor

Got the Fourth of July Travel Blues?

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Krueger, communications associate at the Urban Land Institute.

As high prices at the pump keep you from either traveling this Fourth of July or spending less, it is important to note how national prioritizing has resulted in both. 

If you decide to hit the road, you might notice how Federal prioritizing has affected the roads and bridges that you drive on. Last week, there was an article in the Economist that spoke of America's deteriorating transportation infrastructure, which at one time in our nation's history, was an important national project. 

In the same article, Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association (RPA), an organization that strives to improve the metropolitan planning in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut region, said that if the U.S. government continues to not address our transportation problems, it will only take a few decades for our roads and bridges will resemble those of a third-world country.

Not only do our roads need repair, but what about providing an alternative to driving? Two weeks ago, the U.S. Conference of Mayors had a meeting in Miami where they discussed how cities' operations are dealing with rising fuel costs.  Nine in ten of the 132 mayors surveyed said that they are currently working on proving alternatives to driving, such as public transit.

Who’s the Best MPO?

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Dunphy, senior fellow of Transportation at the Urban Land Institute.

The question of who is the best Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) came up at a recent Washington meeting of national transportation experts pondering the challenge of how to accommodate the growth projected for the nation's metropolitan regions without having traffic come to a complete halt.

First, what's an MPO? An MPO is designated by the federal government to coordinate federal funding consistent with local and regional wishes in areas with more than 50,000 population. There are over 400 MPO's in the U.S. While these organizations are populated by local officials, state transportation agencies play a strong role, enjoying the Golden Rule –- those with the gold rule. They run an awkward balance between local officials, who jealously guard their own authority over land use decisions, and state Department of Transportations (DOTs), who bristle at the idea others could set policies for the federal funds that typically flow through the states.

So who are the best? In most of these discussions, the usual top pick is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area. They have been given authority by the state of California to allocate state transit dollars, satisfying the Golden Rule philosophy.

Interestingly, the MTC does not deal with land use. That is the province of a separate agency -- the Association of Bay Area Governments -- but the MTC did create a grant program called Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) in 1998 to identify and nurture the kinds of community projects necessary to create truly livable places, an incentive for smart growth.

In addition to being able to flex some real authority and promote smart growth, MTC's Executive Director, Steve Heminger is also an important leader in national transportation issues –- most recently as a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. For that matter, Heminger's predecessor also played a prominent role in national transportation debates, serving on key committees of transportation, transit, regional officials, and testifying before Congress.

Another MPO that has achieved lasting respect –- and the Golden Rule -- among its officials is the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which was picked to allocate funds raised in a regional sales tax in 1988. SANGAG has also promoted a 2004 regional "smart growth" agenda calling for local and regional land use decisions that move the region toward a sustainable future.

The list beyond the top two MPO's is harder, and one participant in this discussion suggested considering the credentials of the top staff directors, since it is difficult to tell how much of an impact the agencies themselves make.

Other top list MPOs include, in no particular ranking include: North Central Texas (NCTCOG); Washington D.C.'s National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board ; Albany, New York's Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC); possibly Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) (recently reorganized, so only time will tell); and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (a personal pick).

What is your experience with MPOs? Who else ranks high?

Transportation Infrastructure Infects Capitol Hill

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Krueger, communications associate at the Urban Land Institute.

This week, four different Congressional committees held hearings to discuss the current state, effects, funding, and future of our transportation infrastructure.  These hearings follow the letter dated Friday, June 20, in which 67 Senators signed a letter calling on leadership to quickly and effectively fix the Highway Trust Fund.

Members of Congress are preparing for the reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs.  The new bill will replace the 2005 reauthorization known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which will expire in September 2009.

Below is a quick summary of the two Senate committee and two House committee hearings this past week:

OK, That's It, We're All Done

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Trisha Riggs, the vice president of communications at the Urban Land Institute.

You would think I had learned my lesson last year. But no...I decided to give Amtrak the benefit of the doubt and hop on board again this year to travel from Washington D.C. to Charleston, South Carolina for a family vacation.

I thought that by purchasing business class seats for my family, we might receive a slight improvement in accommodations and service from our experience in 2007. I was incredibly wrong. This is what business class accommodations got us:

• Separate seats -- Amtrak makes no arrangements to allow people to reserve seats together in business class.
• A filthy car -- the overhead bin above us was covered with what appeared to be sticky cola. There was ample trash on the floor, no bathroom in the business class car and closest bathroom was...disgusting.
• Business class car connected to box car -- The car ahead of ours was a box car used to transport mail. Throughout the entire ride, Amtrak employees went back and forth from the passenger car to the freight car; every time they opened the door, dust, exhaust fumes and hot air flooded into the business class car.
• Frequent unscheduled stops -- "Why do they keep stopping?" This came not from a passenger, but from one of the conductors. Incredibly, the train was only 1.5 hours late getting in to Charleston -- apparently a real victory for service on this corridor. Glad we weren't napping when we arrived, because no announcement was made -- we looked out the window and happened to see the station sign.

This trip served as yet another reinforcement of one message in ULI's 2008 Infrastructure report -- being that the U.S. simply MUST start investing more to revive this sad rail service. What the 2008 report describes in detail, and what my family experienced first hand, underscores just how pitiful passenger rail service is in this country -- unless you happen to be traveling between Washington, D.C. and Boston.

With gas prices going nowhere but up, the opportunity has never been greater to vastly revamp and improve rail travel in the U.S. It could be a pleasant alternative to driving and flying. But that certainly is not the case now. What will be the tipping point?

Increasing Infrastructure Investment: A Tip from the Post Office

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Dunphy, senior fellow of Transportation at the Urban Land Institute.

Last month, the cost of first class mail went up. To most, this was another annoyance, requiring new stamps or penny stamps to use the existing stock, as well as the added expense - minor to most, but just one more thing on top of rising gas prices and fuel costs, as well as ongoing worries about the mortgage crisis.

There is, however, a nugget of hope for those interested in the somewhat intractable problem of convincing tax averse officials of the need to increase infrastructure investment. The rate increase was not negotiated among public officials, but the first decision of the postal rate commission, a non-partisan group that annually assesses the post office budget and decides if additional revenues are needed.

Up or down, nice and clean, and it removes the political sting -- maybe such an idea could work for national transportation policy. That was one of the suggestions of the National Surface Transportation and Revenue Study Commission. It's worth a look.

Gas Prices and Transit

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Rob Goodspeed, an Information Intern at the Urban Land Institute.

Record high gas prices are having a profound effect on our cities. As we wrote recently, they're one reason downtown properties have been unaffected by the housing downturn. They're also causing more and more commuters to choose public transit.

Here in Washington, D.C., officials are preparing contingency plans in case high gas prices cause a "massive" shift from driving to transit. Earlier this month the New York Times reported transit use has increased substantially in many cities, with the biggest gains in southern and western cities with newer and more limited bus and rail lines. The Times reported ridership is up 8 percent in Denver, 13 percent in Miami, and 16 percent in Minneapolis. In Charlotte, ridership is up 34 percent on a regional transit system that includes a newly opened Light Rail line.

Data from the American Public Transit Association (APTA) released this week confirmed the trend is nationwide. Although overall transit use is only up 3.3 percent, Light Rail ridership jumped 10.3 percent and bus service in small cities increased by 7.82 percent. Ridership on the D.C. Metro is up 4.3 percent, despite a recent fare increase. The APTA said the increase was "stunning" since it is happening during an economic downturn and when many transit systems are increasing fares. Charlotte is just one of many cities building or expanding light rail recently.

Transit blog, The Overhead Wire, has taken to calling the expansions entrants to a "transit space race," tracking systems in development in eighteen cities. Transit advocates will have a major opportunity to revisit federal policies for mass transit when Congress debates a new surface transportation bill next year to replace SAFETEA-LU, which will expire next fall.

As the NBC Nightly News pointed out last night, our transit systems may not be ready for all the new riders coming their way. A new federal surface transportation policy could lay the foundation for future economic growth and play a role in cutting greenhouse gas emission.

After all, as the ULI Infrastructure 2008 report concluded, "This country simply cannot afford to keep treating infrastructure as an afterthought.”

Is Changing Corporate Culture the Answer?

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Jamie McAfee, Virtual ULI associate at the Urban Land Institute.

In Washington, D.C. the majority of workers either take a bus or the Metro to work. On May 22, Metro General Manager Jon Catoe told the Metro Board of Director that he had begun an energy contingency plan to help area transit to cope with the large shift in ridership as a response to high gas prices.

Many people are turning to the Metro instead of driving into the city. But the outdated and ailing Metro rail system is having trouble keeping up. In reponse the MTA is using projections based on population and job growth, but haven't factored in the effect of gasoline prices on ridership.

"There is a point at which we may see a massive move of commuters from driving to transit because of the cost," said Catoe. Metro has seen increases in ridership each month this year from 2007, despite fare increases in January, reported The Examiner.

In addition, as gas prices rise to new records daily, the transit systems have no idea how to handle riders who are abandoning their cars.

"We're just taking the first steps toward such a contingency plan now and there is a great deal of work to do, but, when we need it, we'll be glad we made the effort," Catoe concluded.

Catoe is trying to figure out how many riders it would take to overload the sytem. In an effort to address the issue of high ridership, Catoe's first idea would require people to spread their commutes over a longer period of time, instead of peak commuting hours. "It would make a big difference if the federal government and other employers instituted some sort of mandatory flex time," he said.

Is requiring Washington to change its whole corporate culture a likely answer to easing high ridership?

Downtown Real Estate Bypasses Housing Crisis: Gas Prices Are Making City Centers More Attractive

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Krueger, communications associate at the Urban Land Institute.

An article in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, it was reported that despite the mortgage crisis and falling house prices, downtown properties have seemed to be unaffected by the housing downturn.

The article explains that in the bigger cities, the closer that residential properties are to the center of the city, the better they are maintaining their value. Of the three metro areas the article examines, all show resilience to tumbling prices and may serve as a great option for those buyers who are looking for an investment that is already gaining value and sure to surge even more once the economy begins to recover.

What are the reasons for this phenomenon? Many speculate that gas prices have something to do with it. Yesterday, CNN reported that according to AAA, the national average of gas is up 9 percent from a month ago and 19 percent from a year ago. Yesterday, the nationwide average for regular unleaded hit $3.83 a gallon.

As the price of crude oil continues to affect the price Americans are paying at the pump, it is also having a direct affect on the charm of living in the suburbs. In the Washington, D.C. area, like many other metropolitan areas, the average house price has plummeted. While the average of the area is an 11 percent decrease, the price decrease in parts of the housing bubble magnet, Ashburn, Va. of Loudoun County, has seen a much steeper plunge. Ashburn’s 40-mile distance from the center of D.C. is a good reason that foreclosed houses in northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs of D.C. are not getting many bidders for auctioned homes.

PA Makes Money off Infrastructure

The City of Harrisburg is using its infrastructure to work its way to fiscal health. A partnership between New York-based Citi Infrastructure Investors, Barcelona, Spain-based Abertis Infraestructuras, and Barcelona, Spain-based Criteria CaixaCorp won a bid to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike with a $12.8 billion, 75-year plan, Gov. Ed Rendell announced yesterday, as reported by Casey Freeman for GlobeSt.com.

If approved by state legislature, the plan could raise $1.1 billion a year for highway improvements, the largest bid for private operation of a US toll road.

"This is a great day for Pennsylvania," Rendell said in a statement. "We urgently need new funding for road and bridge repair, and a turnpike lease will help us meet that need. Under the terms and conditions we set, the turnpike will be upgraded and tolls will be no higher than the Turnpike Commission will charge."

The Rendell administration would invest $3.6 billion of the lease payment to pay for highway, bridge and public transit projects. The plan would also support 73 public transit agencies. The rest of the lease money would be invested with the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System. The administration says it expects to earn a 12 percent annual return on the investment.

In addition, the Parking Authority issued a Request for Proposals last year to invite investor interest in leasing the parking facilities. The highest offer was selected and negotiations have been occurring since.

Harrisburg Public Parking, LLC (HPP), the proposed new parking facility operator, would pay the Parking Authority $215 million in one lump sum. Reed said the Parking Authority would remain the owner of these assets and would continue to own and operate the City Island parking garage and lots. The lease would be for 75 years, and during such time the operator assumes all responsibility to maintain and rebuild these assets.

Reed also noted the that the transaction must be approved by the Parking Authority board and City Council. Further, negotiations must be completed.

At the end of the lease term, operation of the Parking Authority garages and lots return to the Parking Authority, Reed said. During the next five years, if the surface parking lot adjacent to the North 7th Street Garage at North and 7th Streets is not developed with a highrise building on the site, the Parking Authority would be paid an additional sum of $3.8 million, which is in addition to the initial $215 million lease price. In the interim, HPP will operate this lot and will pay the Parking Authority $258,000.00 per year during each of the five years to do so and whatever has been paid annually would be deducted from the $3.8 million price.

HPP will also annually pay the Parking Authority a sum to cover their administrative costs, starting at $120,000.00 per year and increasing later at the Consumer Price Index inflation rate.

Deteriorating Infrastructure? How about a social security tax holiday?

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Dunphy, senior fellow of Transportation at the Urban Land Institute.

The recent flap over whether to declare a "gas tax holiday" to give relief to drivers coping with astronomical gas prices illustrates how badly we have lost a national consensus on transportation policy.

Just last week, ULI’s new Infrastructure 2008: A Competitive Advantage listed the well known statistics on the poor state of infrastructure -- roads, bridges, levees, etc. and pointed out that the U.S. is coasting on prosperity, headed toward third world nation status. So why reduce the gas tax? State and federal combined is about $0.40 per gallon compared to European country’s levy of $4 or more.

This public dust up confirms what transportation analysts have been saying, that the days of the gas tax, the cornerstone of financing federal highway and transit programs, are numbered. Since there is no longer a political consensus on a national transportation program, it is hard to gain consensus for increased funding other than for pork barrel projects, which are also losing their luster.

During the glory days of the Interstate Highway System, it would have been inconceivable to call a delay in the completion of these roads that were connecting America like never before. The last increase in the federal gas tax was in 1993, so every year it loses buying power to increased costs of construction and operating costs. The transportation community hopes that the gas tax will hold up for one more federal transportation program, scheduled to expire in 2009.

So far, the technological fix seems to be a tax on actual miles traveled, a so called VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax, which has been tried in an Oregon experiment. Getting the technology in place will require some time, but the politics could take even longer. It is an elegant solution that could also be adapted to special prices during peak or off peak hours.

Meanwhile, how about a holiday on social security taxes?

Private Infrastructure

Attracting more private capital within the next ten years is critical for the United States' infrastructure problems, which could reach crisis proportions, according to a key finding in Infrastructure 2008: A Global Perspective, a report published jointly by New York-based Ernst & Young LLP and ULI.

Currently, the U.S. has a US$170 billion annual funding gap for infrastructure projects, the report estimates. However, the gap is widening every year and the gap could balloon over the next few years as local and state governments experience "revenue shrink," particularly from lower property tax collections.

The report concludes that infrastructure funds -- private vehicles set up to invest in infrastructure assets -- currently hold an estimated US$400 billion in capital for investment. This, combined with broader adoption of the public/private partnership model, could alleviate much of the current strain on public coffers caused by the need for radical improvement in local, state and regional infrastructure, says the report. However, the report also questions whether the U.S. has the political will and determination to take a long term approach to the infrastructure issue.

The EY/ULI report provides a snapshot of current and planned infrastructure investment in a variety of categories across the globe, with an in-depth look at the United States, China, Japan, India, and Europe.

For more information on the report and to view a press briefing, go to ULI's webcast of the release.

Cities Strive to Lessen Environmental Impact

As cities continue to grow, so does its impact on the environment. In recognition of Earth Day today, the National Press Club hosted an event, "Protecting the Environment in Cities, the U.S., and the World," where Ben Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Richard Baier, the director of transportation and environmental services for Alexandria, Va., discussed how cities are tackling stormwater management and other infrastructure issues.

Grumbles informed attendees and other guest panelists about the EPA's recent efforts in green infrastructure and green transportation. Green infrastructure can be defined as management approaches and technologies infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture and reuse stormwater to maintain or restore natural hydrologies.

Of note, Grumbles detailed a recent initiative formalizing an effort among EPA, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the Association of States and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Low Impact Development (LID) Center, in addition to over 50 companies who signed a statement of support, to assist state, city, and local governments in implementing and evaluating innovative and effective green infrastructure approaches.

Transit, smart growth, and the Pennsylvania primary

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Dunphy, senior fellow of Transportation at the Urban Land Institute.

The Pennsylvania primary turned up an interesting factoid for urban observers. The Washington Post reported that the city of Philadelphia had a population loss of over 600,000 people since 1950, while Pittsburgh lost over 300,000. These two cities rank in the top eight highest transit shares for commuting, making the state of Pennsylvania the only one to boast two so high on the list. Both are struggling to maintain once extensive transit systems.

The trends are the same among all of the other leading walkable, transit oriented cities other than New York (Chicago, Boston, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco). Despite such unfavorable demographic trends, some of these regions are still seeing increases in overall transit ridership as a consequence of suburban growth near transit and increasing gas prices.

Both San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), according to an article "S.F. on Verge of $4-per-gallon Gas," by David R. Baker, Michael Cabanatuan for the San Francisco Chronicle, on April 19, 2008, and Washington's METRO have set ridership records recently as reported on April 14, in "Metro Posts Another Record Day," written by Joe Coombs for the Washington Business Journal.

Since 1950 these five cities, whose regions have some of the lowest levels of driving, have lost 1.9 million people, with only New York City bucking the trend by gaining one-third of a million people. The six cities with the largest population gain of a net 7.5 million people over the same time period are Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, and San Jose -- all in the Sun Belt, all low transit and pedestrian hostile, and with at least two of the highest driving cities (Houston and Phoenix).

One aspect of the transit conundrum is that national trends are pushing us away from diverse  transportation cities to transportation limited cities dominated by driving. The most ambitious efforts to expand travel choices and reduce driving in these fast growth Sun Belt communities would be trivial compared to a major program to grow the population in transportation rich cities, like Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to add a million people in New York. Perhaps the Pennsylvania primary could be an occasion for promoting a similar turnaround?

Institutional Investing in Infrastructure

Are you an investor in infrastructure or just interested in the subject? If so, Institutional Real Estate, Inc., (IREI) a well regarded source of information and analysis of what institutional investors are investing in, has recently started to cover the subject through a new publication, "Institutional Investing In Infrastructure." 

The initial issue included information about a wide array of subjects including defining investment strategies, global infrastructure investment, investment news including offerings, research, and mergers and acquisitions, and a market focus on Western Europe.

Maybe the Government Should Build the Cars

Is transportation like education, a communal service that works best through heavy general funding that pays off down the road in a community's overall prosperity, or is it best delivered by targeting users, especially road users through congestion pricing to reduce demand and increase revenues?

That question was posed by Alex Marshall, in a Governing magazine piece "King of the Road," April 2008. He blasts conservative- and libertarian-oriented think tanks for embracing roads as a solution to traffic congestion, "an expression of the free market and American individualism, and a rail line as an example of government meddling and creeping socialism." Marshall even catches Robert Poole, Reason Foundation's founder and former president, in a philosophical inconsistency.

Asked to square Reason Foundation's support for roads with its general dislike of government involvement, Poole replied, "I'd never thought about it that way." He insists that Reason doesn't want to eliminate government from transportation. "We aren't going to have competing companies putting roads in where they like, and letting the chips fall where they may. We aren't anarchists."

This is a surprising lapse from one trying to offer a different view, the premise, "that transportation infrastructure would work better if it were market-driven, that infrastructure should be run in a business-like manner with users paying full cost."

Rail Transit Not A Greenhouse Saver, Cato Institute Says

A new Cato Institute study reports that in the last 15 years, cities across the United States has spent $100 billion on new rail transit projects with claims that rail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but these projects fail to meet their promised reductions, the study says.

Randal O'Toole, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of "Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Emissions?" demonstrates that rail transit is ineffective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. "While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder bus operations," O'Toole analyzes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile. The result is that, when new transit lines open, the system as a whole can end up consuming more energy, per passenger mile, than it did before."

"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average automobile," O'Toole adds. He suggests technical alternatives that reduce energy use and Co2 outputs than rail transit, at a far lower cost. Such alternatives include the following: powering buses with hybrid-electric motors, biofuels, and -- where it comes from non-fossil fuel sources -- electricity; concentrating bus service on heavily used routes and using smaller buses during offpeak periods and in areas with low demand for transit service; building new roads, using variable toll systems, and coordinating traffic signals to relieve the highway congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year; encouraging people to purchase more fuel efficient cars. O’Toole notes that getting 1 percent of commuters to switch to hybrid-electric cars will cost less and do more to save energy than getting 1 percent to switch to public transit.

"There may be places in the world where rail transit works," O'Toole says. "There may be reasons to build it somewhere in the United States. But saving energy and reducing greenhouse emissions are not among those reasons."

Urban Farming

The publication Growing Cooler, released September 2007, demonstrated how redesigning our metropolitan regions will reduce the release of greenhouse gases by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) –-- the more compact we design communities, the less people have to drive. While this is a seemingly obvious conclusion it is important to have the research to demonstrate and quantify its benefits.

But there is more that must be done in redesigning metropolitan areas in addition to building compact communities. Space must also be planned for urban and regional farms close to where people live and shop.

Stop, don’t click away.  This is not about how nice it is to have a farmers' market, though that is more than nice.  Nor is this a cute ‘60’s throwback, “Let’s all get back to the land.” Eating local food reduces energy and thus greenhouse gases, possibly as much as cutting household energy use by 20 percent, according to a Japanese study reported in Bill McKibben’s excellent book Deep Economy.

Concerned about Climate Change? Build an Ark

Most of the focus on climate change has been determining the reality, the causes, and the options to prevent it. A gloomier side of the issue looks at adaptation measures to cope with some of the worst impacts of weather extremes. For example, raising your house a level, making it float, or building an ark. (On a lighter note, "Noah and the Ark," a classic Bill Cosby piece, is available on You Tube). A new report, "Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation," makes the case that climate change is happening now and that changes are needed in the way we design, build, and operate transportation facilities.

Nancy Humphrey, senior staff officer at the Transportation Research Board, noted at a meeting of the Road Gang in Washington on March 13, that the report, "turned the traditional finger pointing on its head." The report, authored by a committee of members of the Transportation Research Board and the Division on Earth and Life Sciences of the National Research Council, presents an overview of the scienfitic consensus on climate change relevant to U.S. transportation, identifies impacts on U.S. transportation and adaptation options; and offers recommendations for actions to prepare for climate change as well as additional research.

New York to Washington and Boston for $5 billion

The Northeast megalopolis enjoys the nation’s most extensive transit -- good urban systems in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington -- connected by Amtrak's Northeast corridor, linking 42 million people and a substantial share of the nation‘s economy. In addition, these communities grew up around transit -- they created transit-oriented development before the term became popular elsewhere. In a world of energy security, soaring gas prices and concerns over carbon footprint, focusing growth in the Northeast is an ideal sustainability strategy. It is also the best transit strategy in the US, compared to building transit new in the South and West, where travelers and developers need to learn how make transit work for them.

So with economic prospects good for the Northeast, this seems like a harmonic convergence, right? Smart growth in a place that was doing it before it was cool. The catch is that this corridor, largely built by the Pennsylvania railroad in the early part of the 20th century, is suffering from years of neglect, at the same time that ridership is growing, to a record level of almost 10 million passengers in 2006. Amtrak and the future of the Northeast were discussed in the 2nd Northeast Climate and Competitiveness Summit , held last week in Baltimore, by the Regional Plan Association (RPA) of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and the Lincoln Land Institute of Land Policy, based in Boston. At a session on Amtrak and the future of the Northeast Corridor, some of these challenges were brought out. Bob Yaro, president of the RPA, suggested first a goal of an Amtrak that works, followed by improving the Acela high speed service to cut the New York to Washington time from 2 3/4 hours to 2 1/4, and similar improvements on the Boston leg. The challenges are enormous. This is a crowded corridor, shared between Amtrak, eight commuter railroads, and seven freight operations. The political landscape is also crowded, with eight states and the District of Columbia, and all of the localities and special districts. Fares are unnecessarily high, to subsidize losing Amtrak operations elsewhere. Finally, the state of infrastructure neglect is enormous; rail interconnections, power, and bridges, many over 100 years old. The price tag is estimated to be over $5 billion.

Despite the cost and complexity, in a global world of crowded skies and international competitors developing true high speed rail, reinvesting and improving the Northeast corridor should be a no brainer. Most of the U.S.'s air traffic congestion problems are in this corridor, especially in New York. One participant pointed out the the most delayed flight in the US was from Hartford to Newark, a distance of about 100 miles. Reliable higher speed train service on the Northeast corridor would offer both air travelers and drivers welcome options, and help decongest those two modes. While the U.S. is struggling with how to fix the Northeast corridor, a new route opened in November between London and Paris, the last 20-mile section of a 68-mile, $12 billion stretch that will cut 20 minutes off the trip, at a cost of $12 billion. While rebuilding and improving the Northeast corridor is complex, it does not involve tunneling under the English Channel. A near term goal of cutting 1/2 hour off New York to Washington travel times is good, but seems unnecessarily conservative to me. That is an average operating speed of 100 mph. We can do better.

How many Hannah Montana tickets will it take to fix our infrastructure?

This month the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority raised fares for the first time in four years. The resulting increase -- an additional 30 cents in the base subway fare and a dime for bus users -- was quicky dubbed by the media as "the largest fare increase in history." When you wait to long to increase prices while expenses increase unabated, that's what happens, and even so Washington transit fares are still cheaper than those in some of the major markets. The predictable negative reaction was exacerbated by growing operational problems, so the board and the new general manager were faced with the awkward situation of increasing fares just to keep even, with no improvement in service. In the midst of the griping however, one of the other local stories was about the Hanna Montana concert, for which scalper tickets were going for $375 each, and one astute reporter observed that perhaps the transit fare increases did not look that bad after all.

Now let's look at a really big number, $150 billion. How can we get our arms around how big a number that would be, other than for a war? For one thing, it is the estimated cost to the US economy of the more than $30 a barrel in oil prices over the last five months. According to William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale, "it is like a $150 billion tax increase." Coincidentally, $150 billion is also the size of the economic stimulus agreed to by the House of Representatives and the President. The hope is that by putting this much money into consumer's hands, we will spend the economy back in shape, through the purchase of oil from the Saudis and laptops from China. The same number pops up again as the gap between the annual spending increase needed to make up for deferred investment and improve the U.S. transportation system by 2020, amazingly enough pegged at about $155 billion by a new report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

What does this mean? It shows the sense of values we attach to money for different uses, and is extraordinary that the economic stimulus will about the same as the loss to the economy from gas price increases. Imagine, however, if we had a rebuilding strategy in place that could have employed this amount to improving roads, bridges, and transit. The Senate stimulus plan actually does offer a modest infrastructure budget in their proposal. The benefits to the economy from such a stimulus would be enormous. While improving our future, and enhancing economic productivity, we would be creating good jobs here, and instead of sending it overseas to buy Barbi dolls. Or it would buy a lot of Hannah Montana tickets.

How Housing Subsidizes Infrastructure and Why That Matters to Climate Change

You will hear a lot about ULI's three core issues in the weeks and months ahead, assuming you haven't already. They are workforce housing, infrastructure and climate change; they are each vitally important land use issues in and of themselves but even more important when understood together. They all interrelate.

For instance, if one objective is to reduce the amount of driving (vehicle miles travelled or VMTs) so that the greenhouse gasses cars emit can be reduced, the best way to do that is to build compactly, and to mix uses and incomes together in walkable communities. 

This means that housing needs to be provided that is affordable and appropriate to people of all incomes and stages of their lives. Why? Because anyone who can't live in this compactly designed community has to live away from it and drive to work and shop, emitting greehouse gasses all the way.

But this is hard to do because it is so expensive to build housing. And what is one primary culprit in the cost of housing? The subsidy that housing is required to pay to build the infrastructure.

Pricing Congestion in New York - Lessons from London

Charging drivers to enter central London, and using the revenues to improve transit has been a big success. Will New York be next?

That was the topic of a session at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Monday. Janette Sadik-Kahn, New York City Transportation commissioner, described Mayor Bloomberg's plan to charge autos entering Manhattan $8 a day, and $21 for trucks. The Mayor's plan foundered in the legislature, but was given a reprieve in the form of a commission created to review a number of alternatives. The first meeting was held this Thursday. Ms. Sadik-Kahn pointed out the pressing need for action, a consequence of sharp growth anticipated in commuting, adding to congestion which is estimated to cost New Yorkers $13 billion annually today. The charges will help divert vehicles (expected reduction of 6% in travel) and raise significant revenues for transit.

London's experience with congestion charging has been very positive, according to a consultant speaking on behalf of former Transport for London commissioner Bob Kiley -- also a former New York transit executive. The £5 charge (now almost US$10) has been raised to £8, and the original zone expanded, corresponding with a 22% reduction in driving. Some of the lessons from the London experience were the importance of leadership, not just revenue, (Mayor Ken Livingstone withstood severe opposition, some from his own party) and the importance of improving mobility as the key to success for a world city. Congestion had gotten so bad in London, speeds were estimated to be no better than in Victorian times.

Even with such a success story, there were some things that did not work out in London, and these are opportunities for New York to get it right. One was the need for an integrated call center where travelers could get information about transit as well as paying congestion fees. New York’s 311 information center would probably work well. Another was the need to integrate payment systems on various transit systems, still a goal in New York. While this is a controversial and complicated system to introduce, London's experience shows there is great potential for New York.

Private $ for Public Purpose

When does a road become private rather than public, and how much money is in it for the privateers? Why can’t the public agencies operate toll facilities and keep the money? How does eminent domain work when a project planned by the public is turned over to investors because of lack of money? These were some of the questions I was asked about a bridge project in a call-in show from New Hampshire.

The host, Arnie Arneson, explored some of these policy issues that suggest an apparent conflict between private profits and the public good -- in the hope of gaining wider exposure for instructure as part of the presidential primary. Similar concerns have been raised in a Washington Post business article noting that the Carlyle Group, a Washington, D.C., buyout firm, had created a billion dollar fund to invest in infrastructure. One analyst voiced concerns of critics about "a bunch of billionaires making a buck off roads and bridges that municipalities built." Transparency of private ownership was raised, along with safety and even xenophobia over the potential of foreign ownership. For its part, Carlyle sees this venture as a low risk way to make returns of 15% for clients willing to accept lower returns than the 34% common to buyout firms, in return for better sleep during rocky stock markets.

Look, no hands! Contactless fare collection could make rail systems more attractive to markets

In last Sunday’s Washington Post, there was an article titled "Rocket (and Subway) Science," which highlighted new technology upgrades to Metro's electronic SmartTrip cards. The upgrades will allow riders to add money more easily and also increase revenue for Metro.

According to the article, officials believe that the new upgrade could come as soon as later next year. The new technology will allow transit riders to automatically add money to their SmartTrip cards the same way that toll road drivers do with E-ZPass payment system. SmartTrip will allow riders to link their credit cards to their SmartTrip cards, which will be set up to allow money to be automatically added to their balance once it drops below a chosen level.

A $2.5 million museum, or a $2.5 million survey?

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

One of the consequences of congressional earmarks is that they can obliterate critical, relatively inexpensive, but low visibility research functions in federal agencies. A recent example is the National Household Travel Survey, conducted by the USDOT, which provides critical information on changes in the demand for travel by different market segments, and provides insights into the use of the nation's road and transit network, as well as the only national source of information on special travel markets such as walking, cycling, and even working at home. It has been a valuable go-to source for ULI publications and research. They survey has been conducted every 5-7 years –- the goal is twice a decade, but each time it requires survey managers to convince an often new DOT management and congressional leadership of the need. The current survey is planned to start in January, but is still short $2.5 million, a consequence of congressional earmarking, which squeezes out little projects like this. The funding needed is about the same as that targeted for expansion and improvements to the National Packard Museum in Warren Ohio. I do not mean to criticize this museum, which I am sure is a valuable complement to its community, but it is one of the many earmarks that are much more attractive to members of Congress than research that could benefit all Americans.

A Quick Fix for Traffic? Hug a Traffic Engineer

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

In an attempt to help smooth the way for Thanksgiving air travelers, President Bush has opened up some air traffic lanes restricted to the military for commercial traffic. Who even knew there was unused capacity? Making better use of the transportation system was on the agenda of a group called the National Transportation Operations Coalition, which issued a report card last month on the nation's traffic signals, scoring a grade of D for the nation as a whole. The self-assessment, similar to the American Society of Civil Engineers' Infrastructure report card, surveyed 417 agencies that account for 45% of all traffic signals in the U.S. The current grade is a notch up from the last assessment two years ago, when the nation's traffic signals rated only a D-. Among the various aspects of traffic signal operations, the nation's traffic engineers did best on operating signals and signal timing practices, and worst on traffic monitoring, which rated an F. Once signals are set, it is difficult to get the resources to go back and check them out.

Monitoring traffic signals is pretty tedious stuff for the public, except when they stuck at a signal with an open road ahead. A Boston TV report cited a consultant who estimated that delays could be reduced by 20% "just by making adjustments to your signals." Boston's transportation commissioner, Tom Tinlin, reports that 400 traffic signals can be controlled from a center in city hall, and that Boston is investing millions in upgrades. One of the big winners in the national rankings was Austin, Texas, where officials were dissatisfied with their previous score of C and decided to spend more money up front by regularly checking all signals, rather than waiting to respond to problems. They now rate an A.

The gains can be huge. The NTOC estimates that a few small changes in traffic signals could result in saving 17 billion gallons of fuel annually, a 10% reduction. In addition to fuel savings, a 22% reduction in emissions is possible, a huge improvement in air quality, as well as less maddening traffic congestion. These findings should have much greater impact beyond the traffic engineering community. At a time when we are struggling to find billions to maintain and improve roads, we should focus on fixing their operations first.

No to Transit in Seattle; Yes in Charlotte

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

In the elections last week, there were two big, and opposing votes. Voters in Charlotte voted yes on transit, while those in the Seattle region said no. Including the Sierra Club.

Let's put the question of who, if either, was right, aside for now. The disparity in the votes highlights a sharp discrepancy in the culture of the two communities when it comes to making a decision and sticking with it. Charlotte is a "can do" community motivated by a strong private sector presence, which turned back an attempt to sidetrack an ambitious transit program, the first of whose light rail projects is scheduled to open this month. While there was great concern over this effort to stop Charlotte's transit development program -- opponents handed out flyers outside the Walmart -- it passed by a 70/30 vote, a landslide.

In Seattle, however, the initiative to expand the light rail system, along with an accompanying list of road projects to relieve Seattle's legendary congestion, went down in flames. While the damage control is being analyzed, part of the reason may be due to some defections -- King County executive Ron Sims reversed his position at the last minute out of concerns that the road share was too high -- it represented about one third of the funds. A letter to the editor of the Seattle Times complained that liberals were against it because it provided too much money for roads, which would aggravate global warming; businessmen were against it because it didn't provide enough money for roads, and conservatives were against it because...well, because they are against any new taxes. The author suggested that "Seattle should change its name to Whinerville."

Mark Hallenbeck, of the Washington State Transportation Center, said, "The joke we tell is that Seattle does planning better than anywhere else in the country; we just don't make decisions." Exit polls have suggested that if the road plans and transit plans were split, the transit vote would have passed. However, the disparity points out an important quality of infrastructure, that no matter how good the plans, if they are not implemented, they are useless. And we might add, with consistent public support, even contrarian ventures like transit in Charlotte may work. While planners can argue about how many angels can fit on a pin, sometimes being able to make a decision and stick with it is more important than a slow path to getting it exactly right.

The Fire Next Time

The San Diego and Los Angeles areas are hit by a raging series of high-impact wildfires -- the worst in the state's history. Many of the blazes coincide with areas already scorched in 2003 by fires that themselves were declared California's worst ever.

But is there any move to move homes away from the areas where a century of firefighting has left many forests choked and overgrown, thick underbrush creating tinder-box conditions? Apparently not. Most homeowners vow that they'll stay in the fire-prone areas, or return to rebuild on the charred foundations of their former homes.

-- Nationally syndicated columnist Neal Peirce

There is one lesson all major disasters teach us -- the first and strongest reaction of local residents is to rebuild what was lost in the same way and the same place. Look at New Orleans: residents of the city's low lying areas that flood frequently have raised such a firestorm of protest at the mere suggestion that New Orleans's land use plan might be rethought after Katrina that rational discourse has been impossible.

Now those who have been burnt out in the San Diego fires vow to rebuild despite the obvious danger that the fires will return once again. Their losses have been tragic, but their commitment to return may be more tragic still.

Transportation: A scarce resource in the future

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

Getting money to fund transportation projects is going to get increasingly difficult, and will require much more collaboration than in the past, according to a panel on "Transportation as a scarce resource."

John Horsley, executive director of the American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials, pointed out the impending crisis at the federal level, a consequence of rapid increases in the price of materials needed in construction and a flat gas tax per gallon which has not been raised in 14 years. The highway trust fund is expected to generate less income than planned spending by 2009, a deficit which would cause sharp reductions in funding to states. New approaches for charging drivers, such as by miles driven, may be more effective in the 10-20 year period, but for now AASHTO is calling for a 10-cent increase in the federal gas tax to restore its buying power.

Horsley pointed out that meeting the needs of a growing population will require more federal funding as well as higher state and local contributions, a pattern which has succeeded in the past. David Dean, a Texas attorney who has been active in focusing on transportation used the example of Irving Texas , a fast growth community outside Dallas. Recognizing the $7 billion cost of projects needed to serve growth, Irving realized that it was necessary to expand the dialogue bring neighbors together and show them that your problem is theirs as well. Irving developed an annual Transportation Conference, bringing together a wide variety of elected official and business leaders, including a growing constituency outside Texas. The conference, now in its 10^th year, has helped expand funding for local needs.

The easy fix to extra funding is congressional earmarks, including the famed "road to nowhere" which gave the last federal transportation bill such a bad name. In addition, "DOTs (Departments of Transportation) hate earmarks," according to Robert Flanagan, who served as Maryland's prior transportation secretary. It would be much preferable for developers or businesses needing a transportation improvement to contact the DOT directly -- the project may already be in their plan.

In a nod to the need for collaboration between real estate interests and transportation officials, a link he recognized as a Washington State county official, Horsley welcomed the opportunity for ULI and DOTs to work together to obtain transportation funding needed to serve growth, and to create development patterns more efficient than those of the last 50 years.

Accommodating Growth and Reducing Congestion; Not Building Out of It

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

Sunne Wright McPeak, who served as Secretary of California Business, Transportation and Housing under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a keynote speaker to the ULI Infrastructure and Western Growth Patterns Forum in Los Angeles about "smart choices" for ULI to promote to ensure that future new infrastructure is built intelligently. Her five principles were:

1. Begin with Land Use.
2. Make All Infrastructure Investments Performance-Based and Outcomes Oriented.
3. Integrate Strategies and Investments.
4. Incorporate an Ethic of Stewardship for the Environment.
5. Reform the Way in Which Infrastructure is Designed, Financed and Constructed.

Pointing out that "Our usual discussions on infrastructure focus on what we are spending, not what we are getting," Ms. McPeak said that Governor Schwarzenegger asked her, along with other cabinet members what it would take to improve conditions in California, without concern for funding. The goal was not "to build our way out of congestion," as discussed by my colleague in the post below –- an impossible and probably undesirable outcome. The performance measure was to drive congestion below today's levels and accommodate growth, which was estimated to cost over $100 billion. While the state bonds approved by California voters in December are substantially below that amount, another ballot is planned. They may not actually reduce congestion, but at least California has a road map (sorry) to tell the voters that it is actually possible to make things better, not simply allow roads, transit and other infrastructure to deteriorate.

Can We Build Our Way Out of Congestion?

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bill Hudnut.

Our country cannot expect to build its way out of congestion, any more than loosening a belt will solve the problem of obesity.

Some disagree. Says Jerry Amante, Mayor pro tem of Tustin (CA) and a director of the Orange County (CA) Transportation Authority: "In Orange County, we're proud to build lanes, not trains. While buses, trains, monorails and subways seem like enticing transportation solutions in theory, they simply don’t pencil out. Not in terms of true traffic relief for the vast majority of commuters and certainly not from a fiscal standpoint. Nationwide, spending on public transit has increased seven-fold since 1960. And what have those billions of dollars done for commuters? Not much. During that same period, the number of public transit users has dropped by 63 percent and today less than five percent of all Americans use public transportation.(But) Orange County transportation leaders have a clear-eyed understanding that freeway widenings and arterial improvements provide real traffic relief."

To the contrary, a new ULI study suggests highway investments are not so much a response to growth and development as a cause of them. Highway expansion induces more congestion and more development than previously was the case. Unless government coordinates infrastructure investments, particularly in transportation, with local land use plans, and unless we harness new technology and impose stiffer user charges, we will not alleviate congestion. The strategy of building and widening roads to chase development does not work, if widening I-270 coming into Washington, DC, from Frederick, MD, is any indication. The additional capacity has induced more traffic and more congestion. An 1999 article in the Washington Post declared that the widening in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a failure because the induced (extra) traffic effectively used up the added capacity. The problem is not just lack of money; it is lack of vision and political will to stop throwing good money after bad.

Who is right? Jerry Amante or ULI? I'll side with -- no surprise--ULI!

Traffic Congestion Is Getting Worse: Does Anybody Care?

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

Summer is over, people are back to work, kids are back to school, and the Texas Transportation Institute has released their widely anticipated 2007 Urban Mobility Report, documenting the state of traffic congestion on America's roadways. The results show -- drum roll -- "congestion is getting worse, and it is getting worse in cities of all sizes," according to the report's co author and research engineer, Tim Lomax. The TTI study estimates congestion costs 4.2 billion lost hours and 2.9 billion gallons for an estimated $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy. That's a $5 billion jump from the 2004 study. Is anybody surprised? With the country spending less than is necessary simply to maintain the nation's highways and public transportation systems, we are on a path to worsening congestion. Federal Highway Administration staff acknowledge that funding levels are such that the federal government's policy is for congestion to continue to get worse more slowly.

Handicapping the regions is more interesting. The L.A. Times Bottleneck Blog proudly proclaimed that L.A. retained its title as the region with the worst traffic delays, but the Inland Empire is catching up: In Riverside and San Bernardino counties, drivers wasted an average of 49 hours stuck in peak-period congestion during 2005. But the increase in delays since 1985 -- a stunning 40 extra hours -- is twice what Los Angeles motorists experienced. "L.A. is still the king of congestion [and] needs to do a lot of work," said David Schrank, coauthor of the Urban Mobility Report. "But if you just look at the measures over the last 10 years or so," Schrank said, "L.A. has been doing a pretty good job of adding enough capacity, adding operational improvements and adding public transportation to somehow hold the line."

Tied for second place in the congestion dishonors was Atlanta, with an average of 60 hours wasted annually sitting in traffic, although this was actually an improvement from 70 hours in 1995. Jane Hayse, chief of transportation planning at the Atlanta Regional Commission, says congestion is exacting less of a toll on Atlantans because planners have figured out how relieve some of the traffic problems. "We've put a lot of effort into what we call getting the biggest bang for the buck in terms of operational improvements: the ramp metering, the variable message signs, the HERO Units." But Hayse says that ultimately the Atlanta area needs new infrastructure transit, roadways, HOV lanes to make a big dent in congestion. She says that for years, inadequate funding has kept any major projects from being built. Also tied for second were San Francisco and Washington, D.C., followed by three quickly clogging regions. Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston both added 24 hours of delay annually between 1995 and 2005.

Maybe We Should Have Democratic and Republican Highways

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta famously said, "There are no Democratic or Republican highways, no such thing as Republican or Democratic traffic congestion," expressing his belief in the fundamental importance of mobility to all Americans, the traditional nonpartisan nature of much transportation legislation -- and perhaps the fact that he was the only Democrat in a Republican cabinet.

This collegial, nonpartisan approach to transportation issues seems increasingly at risk, if political responses to the collapse of the I-35 West bridge collapse in Minnesota are any indicator. Congressman James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota, proposed a repair program for bridges on the National Highway System, and floated the idea of a 5 cent gas tax increase as one option to pay for it. Norm Coleman, a Senate Republican from Minnesota, responded "I'm not yet prepared to accept a gas tax increase as a solution." Even Senator Amy Klobuchar failed to support her fellow Democrat, demurring on a gas tax, and using the opportunity instead to fire a shot at the Administration to "roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, before adding another burden on the middle class." We should note that Oberstar, besides representing the area most affected, also carries serious national credentials as chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and said the idea was well received in the House.

Thinking Outside the Land Use Box

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bill Hudnut.

How about some thinking outside the box...about how to solve some of our serious land use problems? Here are a few suggestions:

• To create more funds for affordable housing, and enable millions of Americans to claim a tax benefit for home mortgage interest for the first time, which would make owning a home more affordable, follow the advice of President Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, reporting in the fall of 2005, and replace the mortgage interest deductibility on first homes with a "home credit" in the amount of 15 percent of the interest paid on mortgage debt for that home (no credit or interest deductions would be allowed for second homes or home equity loans);
• To fund infrastructure improvements and new construction at the local and state levels, employ more user fees on the assumption that those who use should pay; and at the national level, establish an infrastructure improvement bank backed by a stable revenue source, i.e., an excise tax on automobiles, a national lottery, or government bonds;
• To do a better job with planning for land use and transportation in a metropolitan area, either sunset Metropolitan Planning Organizations and let the states develop new regional authorities, such as Georgia’s Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) for the 14 counties around Atlanta, or give the states more responsibility for land use planning and more teeth to enforce their plans, even though "all zoning is local;
• To re-use dead retail space, convert obsolete malls into urban villages;
• To curtail sprawl and address escalating energy costs, create higher density development, especially around transit
• To promote sustainable development, find a market for rehabbing and retrofitting buildings with higher energy efficiency, and create "green" infrastructure, particularly on the fringe; and
• To move beyond outmoded Euclidian (single use) zoning toward more flexible regulations, utilize performance based zoning.

Just some ideas. Some may fly, others may not, but we need to begin thinking creatively about the impact of the changing metropolitan form on the way we develop the land and respond to challenges surfacing today.

Railroaded: O’Toole Does Transit

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

This week, Randall O'Toole does rail transit, which sounds like a wonk version of Debbie doing Dallas. O'Toole, a frequent critic of transit, smart growth, and planning, is devoting this week to an evaluation of light rail. The findings will probably not be a surprise, given his track record (sorry) on transit and link off the Thoreau Institute site to the Antiplanner. The Thoreau Institute invokes Henry David Thoreau as the nation’s first environmentalist, and embraces his belief that government is best which governs least. They then go a little off road with their promotion of the repeal of federal and state planning laws and the closure of state and local planning departments.

For this week, the line up is: Monday, set up the problem and looked at sources; Tuesday, look at energy consumption data and CO₂ emissions; Wednesday, compare construction costs; and finally offer policy options to save more energy at a lower cost.

Engineers or elected officials: Who would you rather be in charge of infrastructure?

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bob Dunphy.

A bridge collapse such as that in Minnesota at the height of Wednesday's rush hour is a worst case scenario, both for travelers who trust that the many bridges they depend on daily are safe, and for engineers who need to make the case for maintenance to an often skeptical public and elected officials. It is not that we are not aware of the magnitude of our nation's infrastructure needs. The American Society for Civil Engineers issued a report card for 2005 that found most of the U.S. critical infrastructure did not rate higher than a D. Bridges were actually the highest ranked, with a grade of C, despite the finding that one out of four were deficient. Why is it that such a clarion call for attention has gone unnoticed? Even in Minnesota, a state with a reputation for good government, "for half a dozen years, the motto of state government and particularly that of Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been No New Taxes." So much so that Pawlenty vetoed a 5-cent gas tax increase -- the first in 20 years -- last spring and millions were lost that might have gone to road repair. (Nick Coleman: "Public anger will follow our sorrow," Minneapolis Star Tribune).

At the federal level, the deteriorating finances of the Highway Trust fund indicate it will run out of money before the next federal transportation bill is approved. Perhaps there is a public perception that engineers care about bridges and not people, while for elected officials it tends to be the other way around. How to get the point across that such arcane terms as infrastructure and state of good repair should mean to both sides a willingness to take care of public services so they help people meet the needs of their daily lives efficiently, as well as sustaining the economy. It was the same lesson after the levees in New Orleans failed, flooding a major city, and an ancient steam line in New York exploded, disrupting lives and raising fears of terrorism. ULI’s report, Infrastructure 2007: A Global Perspective (PDF file), asked prophetically "can anyone calculate the consequences of putting off repairs?" It may take a while to determine the true cause of this catastrophe, but let us acknowledge the Star Tribune’s Nick Coleman: "When it comes to the replacement of infrastructure, that everyone but wingnuts in coonskin caps agree is one of the basic duties of government."

Charging to Drive: U-Turn in L.A., Backing Up in NYC, and a detour in PA

The last month has seen three significant initiatives for making drivers pay more of the cost. In Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, traditionally cool to toll roads, which are prevalent in nearby Orange County, reversed their previous direction and ordered transportation officials to develop plans for congestion pricing. Local transportation experts were surprised that L.A.'s resistance dropped so quickly, ascribing it to rejection of a federal congestion pricing grant on the grounds that the L.A. proposal did not include such congestion pricing.

Meanwhile, New York Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to reduce traffic and air congestion by charging $8 a day for drivers entering Manhattan foundered in the state legislature, a victim of political complexity and possibly inadequate stroking by Bloomberg. Senator Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat said, according to the New York Times, "If the mayor came in with one vote, he left with none." It did not help that Gov. Elliot Spitzer, a supporter, was also trying to steer a campaign finance bill through at the end of session. Part of the brinkmanship game played by the Mayor was to get a vote in time to qualify for a $500 million grant -- the same program that L.A. is bidding on. On Friday, four days after the federal deadline, an agreement was announced that will authorize a commission to review congestion problems and report back, while there were signals from the federal government that this would be enough to keep New York in the hunt. Maybe this is a key breakthrough on such a complex issue, or Albany's way of saying to fughetaboutit.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell backed off from a plan to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private co