Inner-City Bus

I was going through my news feed (like I always do) and I saw a posting on MegaBus and how it undermines High Speed Rail. Of course, this statement hits so out of the ballpark for me (as a Louisianian), that the claim is isolated in my head to a far off world. Yet I can relate. When I left the Midwest, MegaBus had just created a hub in Chicago; and my friends on the East Coast have definitely been using MegaBus for a while... not to mention everyone in Europe.

So what's the problem? MegaBus is still a regional transportation option, and if you live on the East Coast with limited financial means, MegaBus is a great alternative to high speed rail if you have the extra time. Maybe from an East Coast perspective, it does take away ridership numbers on the Acela line... But coming from the Midwest MegaBus was just the next step to strengthen regional transportation. We (my generation ) is pulling teeth to get any kind of regional transit because the 40/50/60-somethings don't think efficient (i.e. attracts low income people). MegaBus is changing the perspective... and might I say fast. I left Indiana five years ago with no MegaBus. Now Chicago hubs lines to all the major cities. The more regional transportation options, the more people will diversify their transportation. Not only is the Midwest expanding MegaBus, they are also upgrading their Amtrak lines, including the nation's second high speed rail line to St. Louis. More options beget more options.

Heck, after seeing the article I didn't look for more articles supporting this theory... I did a Google search to see if MegaBus was looking to expand outside the East and Midwest. A Houston/Dallas/New Orleans hub? Please? While I appreciate Greyhound. I'm a 20-somethings (almost thirty) and totally fall for the more mainstream version of MegaBus. I mean, common. They look cool. They have wireless and TV. AND it's so European (company gone American). Brings me back to my backpacking days.

Urban Highways

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0302/Downtown-need-a-makeover-More-cities-are-razing-urban-highways

Just an interesting article concerning urban highways. A lot of cities in the past decade have been rethinking urban highways. Boston with the Big Dig and San Francisco with the Embarcadero Expressway (way back in the 80s I think). Now New Orleans wants to remove I-10 through downtown.

Interstate Highways are not the best way to provoke urban development. People can claim it's for traffic efficiency, but my personal anecdotal experience cries foul on that theory. I've seen many urban boulevards that carry a high traffic volume at high speeds. Yet they still provide road frontage for development that don't divide neighborhoods. Take Spanish Town: one side of  I-110 is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city, while on the other side is vacant land, hugely separated by the remaining of the Spanish Town subdivision. The highway concept stopped development abruptly from crossing the interstate.

Yet, the fast moving traffic only cuts a few minutes off a trip because most people aren't traveling a great distance. But when there is an accident, traffic is stuck on the interstate with a lack of connectivity. No alternative choices, except at the interchanges that are a mess because hundreds of cars are exiting in one place.

Sometimes you can get interesting spaces like the Perkins Overpass, or down by the Mississippi River Bridge. But those are far and few between. Even so, they are not good public spaces to say the least. It is only interesting because, well, it's kinda shady. No matter how hard cities have tried, you can't make these places "attractive". It's too loud, harsh, and just creepy. But it does provide wonderful parking areas.

So, in my opinion, the urban highway is a traffic efficiency myth.

Transit... again. Last time. Promise

With all the talk about CATS, the “situation” will either begat a positive outcome or bring a dismal downfall of the transportation situation in East Baton Rouge. I say dismal because the Parish has a poverty rate of 30%, and includes two major universities. Both of these populations find it difficult to own a car (especially in a state with the highest insurance premiums).

You have the negative view of transit, especially in the baby boomer generation. This was the generation of the automobile: the suburbs, drive thru, etc. All while urbanization was seen as a bad thing, as crime was an urban thing. and the suburbs a dream land (with a little white flight thrown in). At least this is what sitcoms and car commercials portrayed in the 70s and 80s

Then the baby-boomer had kids, they bore Seinfeld and Friends. So while transit was (and still is) a necessity to the lower income, the new generations isn't linking transit to crime and poverty like our parents. Because not only are major urban areas reemerging, but their theories of functionality are trickling down to small and midsized cities. I won't bring up Portland, Charlotte, Austin, and Denver, because we obviously aren’t these places (as people will point out). However, there’s a reason why these places prospered over the last decade. Even in the economic downfall. Specific principals were incorporated into the functionality of life… one of which was the amount of choices that people had. This didn’t include just transportation choices, it included shopping, housing, and entertainment choices. So most places are realizing that all these choices are important when it comes to the prosperity of their place (regardless of city, suburban, or rural). If places don’t start providing consumer choices now, they will lose the next generation of people.

Of course we can all cry foul on the “socialistic” side of transit. It’s the only form of transportation that seems to have a huge amount of attention spent on the tax payers’ subsidy. Of course every form of transportation is subsidized in this country. And while studies show that each is form of transportation is incredibly subsided by local, state, and federal taxes, I can’t find a simplistic study which ranks these subsides. Obviously because this isn’t a simplistic study. So at the end of the day, when people cry socialism on transit, I discard the claim  because our entire transportation system is socialized. And until I see comprehensive numbers backing up the fact that the transit system is more socialized than automobile and air travel, the socialist cry isn't warranted.

But at the end of the day we view the road system as “our right”, and the transit industry as “subsidized”, and air flight as an “economic generator”. So when the recent Baton Rouge Comprehensive Land Use Plan emphasizes transit, it’s hard for the masses to buy into.

What’s the solution? Stop focusing on transit only, auto only, rail only, flight only, bike only, walking only plans. Put them all together into one transportation plan. The Capital Region Planning Commission produces these plans. The problem with these plans is they are separate from one-another, and follow the status quo by stating how many people currently use each system, and use historical patterns to project growth. The plans aren't comprehensive, and do not try to change the status quo to avoid the ultimate outcome of over building. In their defense, they are currently keeping up. I mean when it takes five years to add a lane to a three mile interstate stretch (when it would take most place two years top), it’s gonna take a while just to keep to pace with just the interstate system. So how can we ever catch up with the entire system?

So those are the flaws to our transportation system. Our commercial and residential market has been solid compared to the rest of the country. Thus, a lot of Baton Rouge’s development inefficiencies come down to their transportation infrastructure (well after crime, but that’s another post). That’s what makes me envious to my hometown’s IndyConnects plan. The city has spent the last decade upgrading their interstate system. The system was gravely inefficient, and for the most part every stretch of interstate has been upgraded. So the next step is to reduce trips (which is the only other way to improve traffic congestion issues). However, the plan is suggesting that a tax package be brought to the local municipality as an all or nothing deal – sidewalks, roads, busses, and rail. (I do view it as a little hypocritical because they just spent hundreds of millions of federal dollars adding eight and ten lanes to their interstates, but apparently the local municipalities have to fund alternative methods, but whatever).

So if Baton Rouge really wants a transportation system, make it all inclusive. The Green Light Project sales tax passed. So why not include a more comprehensive look so everyone’s interest is included. At first the Green Light Plan angered me because it only included signalization and widening intersections. But now they are using the funding for all transportation projects. The only problem is the plans run on a yearly schedule. Why not broaden the vision, instead of doing it project by project based on numbers?

Transit Socialist?

Not to dwell on a pet peeve of mine, but the roadway system does not pay itself. Believe it or not, but the forty-some cents per gallon we pay in "gas tax" does not pay for our road way system. I only bring this up because of recent comments on newspaper user boards. I mean, people really think they pay for the multi-billion dollar infrastructure they drive on everyday through their gas tax. The system runs on a growing $600 billion dollar deficit. While I'm not well read on the actual cost per trip for transit, I am not going to sit around and classify the automobile infrastructure as "sustainable". At least I'm paying a user fee to use a transit system.

So I really wish people would stop rationalizing an auto-centric transportation system. Because not only is the infrastructure being subsidized extremely, so is the gas harvest. And yet, with all those subsidies, I still have $300/month set aside for gas, maintenance, and insurance. Fortunately that is $200 less in the recent months because I paid my note.

The short story, I don't understand why the government is subsidizing the least efficient form of transportation... well, next to the airline industry. But I'm willing to pay a luxury to be shoved in a small, camped, tube, that may or may not be on time.

Parking lots. What gives?

The average retail business has discovered  consumers will pay more for an 'experience'. Even Walmart and the traditional suburban mall have figured that out. Walmart is renovating their stores as to follow the trend Target set several years ago; and the suburban mall is no more (1, 2). They now develop like the traditional downtown.

Yet, what hasn’t change? The parking lot. The most ridiculous development decision in the world, and it looks the same as it did twenty years ago. But retails swear by the design. Save money by buying cheaper facade, or installing low grade flooring. But the extra land for parking is a MUST. Not only do we need an abundance of asphalt, but we need to make it ugly; and completely unfriendly to not only the person, but the car. Let’s spend millions on a multi-laned, overly signed intersection to get people in the parking lot. But when they come in, we’ll throw them into complete chaos. Ensure a confusing situation that requires them to drive in front of the store, where the insecure pedestrians wonder across their path.

And ugly. We’ll fight local ordinances to ensure the entire place is under landscaped. Assuming the car reaches its space (after backing into an angled spot) they still have a change to do the pedestrian in on the walk to the door. Because, of course, the pedestrian will have to wander across the scorching hot asphalt in the same lanes their car had just meticulously maneuvered seconds ago. 

Not to worry. These people will be confronted with faux wood and sleekly designed way-finding signs once in the store.

What gives? Why aren't stores concerned with the parking lot? Do they have so little faith in their clienteles’ skills at “finding” the parking lot?  They would rather fight zoning boards so they can have a massive parking lot, huge setbacks, and large signs (because, obviously you can’t see the store from the highway if its hidden behind the parking lot). All so the parking lot is “easy to find”. Because that’s their excuse. The ONLY excuse for the parking lot concept.

Enter Government Street. An urban place trying so hard to be suburban. The majority of Government Street buildings are built on the property line (maybe a few feet to spare). So instead of worrying about streetside appeal, they turn this space (usually in the public right of way) into a shear genius of car-backing up, suicide attempts. Onto a state highway, with a maximum speed of forty miles an hour. Against (city) law itself. Now, any new business (which expands forty percent or more) can’t do this. But I can think of a lots of examples in the past two years where this hasn't happened. The new businesses should have been required to put their parking behind the store (or at least out of the right of way). Yet they don’t. They conform to the suburban mindset where they assume people NEED to park in front of their store.

And it doesn’t make sense. Government Street was an urban place upon conception, and current development should be encouraging circulation other than the automobile. If not, than the thousands of people locating within a block of Government Street would move to the suburbs. I moved here because I’m within walking distance of three grocery stores, countless bars, and restaurants. Yet every business orients their transportation method around the car, making my walk not only uncomfortable, but dangerous in watching for cars backing up over me. The parking situation at the College Drive Walmart is heaven compared to the parking situation on Government Street.

There is a doable solution, and it would be worth the effort and cost to increase the attractiveness of Government Street. Most the stores along Government Street can sacrifice the “front” portion of parking, with a better redesign of the space in the back/side portion. It would be an easy reconfiguration. The parking lot itself doesn't have to be 'pretty'. This coupled with better street parking relations on side streets (maybe some shared parking) and reduced trips because of walking, we can accomplish a more attractive street. It would be a small step, but it would begin giving people pride in their store fronts. Which is something Government Street needs. Bad. A lot of businesses have already done amazing jobs with improving their street side appeal. If more businesses did, it would increase commerce along the entire street.

And, for those people that still don’t feel safe walking, they can at least feel safe pulling out of their parking spot.

Planning for Government Street Corridor as a Whole

The new proposal for DPW projects, is again a complete emphasis on traffic flow. Specifically, the city wants to spend $1.6 million on traffic flow in Mid City. Presumably (I can't find the actual proposal) they will replace a good portion of traffic lights with updated camera operated lights. The idea in general isn't a horrible idea (assuming they will keep their trend of installing pedestrian signals), because we all know the signals in Mid City are in sad shape. But I just see it as another focus on traffic flow and not the entire picture. The more we move traffic, the more traffic will want to move. This shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to minimize trips needed, which saves money on infrastructure, reduces traffic, and keeps shopping local. And yet again, I can reduce the cost of my automobile. While I support the projects downtown (although the proposal spends $3 million on a park that was just recently built), it would be nice to have non-exclusive traffic infrastructure projects taking place inside the neighborhoods.

There are lots of Federal grant opportunities out there. Combining this buying power with the local monies found for traffic flow improvement would create an awesome plan for Government Street.

CATS Funding

Article from The Advocate: CATS Considers Tax

CATS is again seeking a dedicated tax revenue to sustain the bus system. Public transit in our country has been underfunded for half a century, and the consequences has lead to a system that literally kills itself. If the bus system can not provide a "service", people won't use the service. Since, the majority of CATS is currently funded on ridership numbers (federal grants, box-fares), funding keeps falling. Thus leading to to even less service. Basically killing itself.

So how do you improve transit? Improve service. Transit will work. It works in lots of cities the size of Baton Rouge. Even if a car is necessary at some points in life, it wouldn't require a 2, 3, 4 car household. Most mid-sized cities use property taxes for funding transit. Heck, transit can substantially increase property values. So it makes sense. Why not use property tax as a funding source?

Well, the main reason is (of course) the inherent knee-jerk reaction about any tax increase in Baton Rouge. Never mind the fact that the bus system currently relies on other people's tax dollars (national and state), and very little of our own tax dollars (general fund). We just don't want to pay anymore taxes, regardless of what it is. Which I guess we can blame this mindset on the inefficiencies people can find in our government.

These same people would be the ones to say they wouldn't use the system anyway. Thus saying they shouldn't pay for the system (while I dish out my money to pay for their highway system). I don't buy this argument either. A complete system would be set up around all kinds of groups: the commuter, the elderly, the low income person, the high school student, and the college student. (Oh and the drinkers; or the bicyclist who doesn't want to ride both way; and the out of town visitor; along with the person that gets impatient and wants to leave a party before their ride, etc, etc, etc). These groups of people wouldn't use a system all the time. But their use will benefit the people that wouldn't use the system anytime. (This only includes the commuter who has an irregular commute pattern; the adult without children; the adults without older parents to bus around; and the people who never drive after 11:00 PM when enforcement of drunk driving sucks). All while increasing property value Parishwide. So when people say they won't use the transit system, it is a very short-sighted view point.

PS.
I can't find how much they are proposing for a tax levy, but I doubt it is anything over 2% (probably more within the 0.1%) range. I don't know about anyone else, but that would increase my property taxes less than $5/year. (That's about 1/8 a fill up or 0.01% of my yearly transportation budget).