Eric Goldwyn on the Limits of BRT

Bus Rapid Transit is great, and I largely support BRT efforts around the globe. But as Columbia University Urban Planning PhD candidate (and my co-author on other work) Eric Goldwyn argues at The Atlantic Cities, BRT is subject to technological fetishism just like other transport modes. Drawing on research he did in Cape Town he concludes:

BRT has great potential to revolutionize the image and efficacy of public transport in the 21st century, but officials need to show greater sensitivity to city-specific context rather than chasing a technological ideal. What worked in Bogota is not working in Cape Town. Public transportation riders will be better served when their public servants continuously monitor, revisit, and tweak these new systems.

In other BRT news, Streetsblog Chicago interviewed Walter Hook of ITDP about ITDP's BRT scoring system to hopefully correct some of the problems discussed by Eric Goldwyn.

Chinatown Bus Folk Song

Lisa Schweitzer on Decentralized Transport Funding

Eric Jaffe at the Atlantic Cities wrote a great piece on the opportunities and challenges of decentralizing transport finance. I am quoted:

"I'd expect under a decentralized system we'd see more variation across metropolitan areas," says planner David King of Columbia University. "We don't necessarily have shared needs, or homogenous needs across the country, when it comes to what we need for transportation."
King and others in the decentralization camp note that the federal government frequently gets transport policy wrong. Financial and housing incentives used during the interstate construction era led, in large part, to the sprawl that's crippling metropolitan areas today. There's widespread feeling that federal involvement in transportation has resulted in more roads and rails than America needs, with the prospect of free federal money encouraging questionable projects — such as the Detroit People Mover years ago, and some streetcar lines more recently — that might not have been built with local funding alone.
....
"Decentralization of transport finance is happening, and we shouldn't fear it," says King. "It may or may not be better than what we have, but the current system is not sufficiently wonderful that we should fight to make sure it remains."

One of the people who has influenced my thinking on decentralized transport finance is USC's Lisa Schweitzer, who wrote a nice piece in Planners Network a couple of years ago.  From her piece:

For those who would like to see U.S. transit systems expand, the push towards devolving infrastructure finance entirely to states and regions puts the battle for transit funding into familiar territory: the states already provide about $12 billion to transit in U.S. cities, and transit agencies currently spend quite a bit on lobbyists in state houses across the country. Nonetheless, states are in no better budgetary condition than the federal government. 

Such devolution to states and regions may radically alter urban transit funding in significant ways, not all negative. As it is, federal transit spending has been concentrated among a handful of states as transit is primarily an urban service. Given the nature of gas taxes, the federal gas tax could go away and the states where transit is an important issue could (in theory) immediately pass an increase in their state gas tax commensurate to the federal tax, and consumers would pay the exact same amount at the pump. Gasoline buyers in places like California and New York are net donors to other states due to the large amount taxpayers in these states chip in to the federal funds, which then go to pay for roads in other locations. If California or New York or the if the federal gas tax went away, states could increase their state gas tax commensurate to the federal tax, and consumers would pay the same at the pump. If California or New York or other donor states made up for the loss of federal support with higher state taxes, they might actually be better off  loss of federal support with higher state taxes and kept their receipts, their transit operators might actually be better off with devolution.

She then explains that this isn't a certainty--or even likely--and discusses implications for transit.

Local Priorities and Decentralized Transport Investment

If current US trends towards decentralized transportation finance and investment continue then we will also see a shift in spending priorities. For instance, cities are more likely to spend on quality of life improvements than the federal government will. This is because of local complaints to reduce externalities from noise, speeding and crashes on local streets. Yet a shift in spending priorities may or may not result in a more optimal transport system.

Bruno De Borger and Stef Proost just published a paper in Journal of Urban Economics where they examine social welfare effects of various local strategies. Here is the abstract:

This paper considers various policy measures that governments can use to reduce traffic externalities in cities. Unlike much of the available literature that emphasized congestion, we focus on measures that reduce pollution, noise and some accident risks. These measures include noise barriers, speed bumps, traffic lights, tolls, emission standards, low emission zones, and bypass capacity to guide traffic around the city center. Using a simple model that distinguishes local and through traffic, we study the optimal use of these instruments by an urban government that cares for the welfare of its residents, and we compare the results with those preferred by a federal authority that also takes into account the welfare of road users from outside the city. Our results include the following. First, compared to the federal social optimum, we show that the city government will over-invest in externality-reducing infrastructure whenever this infrastructure increases the generalized cost of through traffic. We can therefore expect an excessive number of speed bumps and traffic lights, but the right investment in noise barriers. Second, when implementing low emission zones, the urban government will set both the fee for non-compliance and the emission standard at a more stringent level than the federal government. Moreover, at sufficiently high levels of through traffic the urban government will prefer imposing a toll instead of implementing a low emission zone. Third, whatever the tolling instruments in place, the city will always underinvest in bypass capacity. Finally, if it can toll all roads but is forced to invest all bypass toll revenue in the bypass, it will never invest in bypass capacity. Although the paper focuses on non-congestion externalities, most insights also hold in the presence of congestion.

So the authors expect that cities will raise the cost of driving through capacity reduction, charge higher fees than the federal government would, discourage through travel and avoid investing in road expansion (in part to keep fees and tolls high). These are interesting claims, and I hope we are able to test these through natural experiments over the next few years. This model should be extended to include land uses, as well, which can help mitigate some of the increased cost of travel.

Hipsturbia: The Colocation of Consumption and Housing

The New York Times offered up a new trend piece about "Creating Hipsturbia." The thrust of the piece is that traditionally unhip suburbs such as Hastings-on-Hudson, New York are attracting young families away from traditionally hip places in Brooklyn. As this is a trend piece in the New York Times the entirety of evidence is quite likely a few of the author's friends who have made such a move. But the trend (as it is) described does offer some interesting bits about urban economics and the spatial distributions of activities.

As a bit of background, for all of the interest and cheerleading that cities are revitalizing because people want to live downtown, what is actually happening to metropolitan economies is more complex. Here is one example from this morning's Detroit Free Press about downtown Detroit's revitalization. The DFP story highlights that downtowns across the US are growing (or not) and generating lots of economic activity. Yet there are two distinct forces affecting city regions, which is why downtown areas can be doing seemingly okay while our regions continue to sprawl and any benefits from growth are inequitably distributed. What is happening is that within metropolitan economies forces of production continue to disperse while forces of consumption are concentrating in the center of regions. Production is decentralizing away from urban centers to elsewhere in the region or world to places where firms can minimize land and transportation costs while maintaining access to an adequate labor pool. This is happening with firms, as well, which is known as firm fragmentation. As an example, Amazon.com has been praised as a market leader for moving its headquarters to downtown Seattle, but most of Amazon.com's employment and real estate growth is actually through fulfillment centers and warehouses located on the urban fringe (like this in Texas, more here on distribution centers generally).

Consumption, on the other hand, is concentrating. People of means want certain types of retail, recreation, dining and other discretionary activity bundles. Households value such activity bundles as part of their location decisions along with commuting costs, housing size, schools and other things. What the "Hipsturbia" article highlights, however, is that many of the people who value a "hip" consumption bundle are the same people who produce the hip places. From the story:

“I don’t think we need to be in Brooklyn,” said Marie Labropoulos, who recently moved to Westchester County and opened a shop, Kalliste, selling artisanal vegan soap in Dobbs Ferry. “We’re bringing Brooklyn with us.”

I have no idea how big the market is for artisanal vegan soap, even in Brooklyn. But by bringing Brooklyn with them these migrants are creating new consumption bundles. There are two important aspects of this. First, there are positive externalities associated with opening a artisanal vegan soap store beyond clean people. The store creates a hip vibe that makes other hipsters more willing to move to these places. Perhaps someone will be more willing to open a store that sells only things made of tofu nearby. A virtuous cycle of hipness is created. Second, consumption preferences are valued as part of an overall household budget. A bigger house and better public schools are a trade off for less access to your optimal consumption bundle, but if you bring your store with you commuting costs may not change.

None of these are new observations, and again, no one is claiming that a New York Times trend piece is any evidence of an actual trend. What these anecdotes represent are a confirmation of fairly conventional understandings of household location decisions but with the key differences that consumption preferences and colocation of households and consumption amenities are under considered by planners, economists and researchers. Consumption activities are also quite local in scale (such as retail and dining, though things like museums require a larger market), so individual neighborhoods can become quite desirable while nearby areas remain unloved. More interesting is the potential colocation of households and consumption as many households are also providers of the consumption activities. If what you value is vegan soap or gluten-free muffins or craft beer and it happens that you are in the business of providing those things, then you can pretty much locate anywhere there is a market, including commuter towns on the outskirts of the city. When producers and consumers are one in the same we don't really know (yet) if the decentralization of production or the centralization of consumption will be dominant for location decisions. It may be that the suburbanization of consumption will follow the suburbanization of production.

Privacy Concerns About Black Boxes in Cars are Overblown

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is very concerned about drivers' privacy. The group is strongly opposed to any type of "black box" device in cars according to this story in the LA Times. From the story:

Nate Cardozo, staff attorney for Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that the black boxes track such information as accelerator pedal position, brake pedal position, engine rpms, vehicle speed and acceleration, whether seat belts are connected, whether air bags deployed, and a lot more.
The foundation's concerns include the fact that there is currently no cap on the amount of data collected and there are no limits on the kind of data that will be gathered, Cardozo said.
"The car manufacturers can use that data at will, including location, which has significant privacy implications," Cardozo said, which led to the scenario of a speed jaunt finding its way into the hands of an auto insurance company.

This argument is largely nonsense. Why should drivers be entitled to privacy? Are people who drive special, or do they just engage in enough questionable behavior that they need protection? After all, air travelers and rail passengers have to have al of their movements recorded and logged. Even transit users who use monthly (or season, if you are in Europe) passes have their activity recorded. What does the EFF say about transit? From their website (in full):

Who Controls Data About Public Transportation?

How should city transit authorities treat independent software developers who make use of public schedule data? What approach results in the best experience for their passengers and customers?
Two models appear to be emerging to answer this question. One, typified by New York City'sMTA and Washington, DC's WMATA, sees schedule and related data as valuable intellectual property, to be zealously protected, licensed and monetized. So far, the results of this approach appear to have been bad press, irate passengers, wasted money and stymied innovation.
The other model, typified by San Francisco's SFMTA and Portland's TriMet, holds that encouraging independent developers to make free use of schedule information can both save the city money and foster innovative applications. As SFMTA San Francisco BART's Timothy Moore told Streetsblog: "We've put BART in front of customers in so many places that we wouldn't be able to do on our own. We basically can't envision every beneficial use for this public data and frankly transit agencies in general don't have the vision. We don't have the time, we don't have the resources."
In 2009, we've seen interesting developments in each of these four cities:
In New York City, developer Chris Schoenfeld created StationStops, an iPhone app that provided schedule information for Metro North, NYC's largest commuter rail system. The app ran smoothly until earlier this summer, when NYMTA contacted Schoenfeld to claim ownership of the schedule data and demand $5,000 in advance "royalties" on Schoenfeld's revenue.
Schoenfeld wisely recognized this as nonsense: Copyright law simply does not apply to publicly-available factual information. But when he declined to pay the licensing fees, NYMTA sent a takedown notice to Apple, demanding that StationStops be banned from the iPhone. Apple, of course, complied.
NYMTA's extortionate actions censored a helpful and perfectly legal use of their data. The results have been bad for their reputation and bad for their passengers. Connecticut's Stamford Advocate put it well: the MTA "should just leave (Schoenfeld) alone and let him make an honest buck by providing a useful service."
In Washington, DC, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) seems to be working hard to learn exactly the wrong lessons from NYC's example. After an online petition drive by DC transit activists, WMATA reluctantly opened their data to developers earlier this year. But they also allocated $500,000 (yes, that's five hundred thousand dollars,) for a study which they say "will give us a firm idea as to the commercial value of intellectual property like scheduling information."
We'll save them the trouble: While it's possible they may be able to wrench some value from their trademarks (even though this tactic, too, has backfired embarassingly for NYMTA,) there is no economic value in their schedule information. Any attempt to restrict others' use of this data is baseless and counterproductive. They've already opened their schedule data — if they're smart, they'll keep it that way.
Here in San Francisco, the SF Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has made great strides towards a first-rate open transit data system, and is setting an example that other transit authorities should aspire to. Schedule data has long been available from the SFMTA in the excellent Google Transit Feed Specification format. And websites like SFMTA Labs and theBART Developer Center encourage and help developers to make use of the data.
However, this silver cloud does have a dark lining: While SFMTA itself has refrained from sending baseless takedown notices, a corporation called NextBus Information Services (NBIS)hasn't been so wise. In 2008, developer Steven Peterson created an iPhone application calledRoutesy, which provides passengers with real-time updates of bus and train locations and arrival times. Then, last month, NBIS contacted Peterson, claimed ownership of the real-time arrival data, and demanded that Routesy be discontinued. When Peterson refused, NBIS asked Apple to ban Routesy from the iTunes App Store. Apple, of course, complied.
NBIS, like the NYC MTA, appears guilty of copyfraud. They've been unable to produce any proof that they do, in fact, own the data in question. SFMTA, to their credit, quickly clarified the situation, telling SFAppeal.com that "Muni owns the data in question and that the public is, of course, entitled to access it." Thanks in part to that statement, Peterson's lawyer was finally able to persuade Apple to restore Routesy to the iTunes App Store. (Though similar skirmishes with NBIS appear to be occuring in other cities.)
Finally, in Portland, Oregon, TriMet was one of the earliest transit authorities in the US to adopt an open data program and encourage independent developers. The result is a healthy and competitive application market that speaks for itself: Over 25 different mobile applicationsfrom different developers make creative use of the data. And, the open data program enabled Portland Airport to display real-time train arrival information at their baggage claims — with no additional work required on TriMet's part. TriMet's Bibiana McHugh explains: "Before, we would have needed to work with a technical team for the airport to make this happen, but with developer.trimet.org, we just make the information available once and our work is done."
If other government data-sets are any indication, the transit apps we've seen so far are just the beginning of what's possible. Just take a look at the impressive winners of Sunlight Foundation's Apps For America contest.
For reasons both legal and practical, transit authorities should follow the lead of SFMTA, TriMet and the Obama Administration's Data.gov, and allow independent developers to freely use their data. The results so far have been a better deal for passengers and taxpayers alike.

So public transit users will benefit from making data public, but drivers will be harmed. Sure, schedule data is different from vehicle data, but the data available from transit agencies is partly schedule data but also aggregated rider data, some of which can be traced to individual riders. EFF is right that transit riders deserve better service through innovative use of data. So do drivers! Marginal cost insurance is a good thing, not a bad thing. In addition, black boxes in cars can help assign blame in crashes more accurately so we can stop with the nonsense that a driver killing a pedestrian or cyclist was not the result of criminal driving. More data about usage can--no guarantee here as details matter--improve transport for everybody, including: marginal cost pricing, enhanced safety, lower cost travel for those who impose the least stress on transport systems, better routing and scheduling, stronger commitment to the user pays principle, punitive charges to lunkheads who shouldn't be driving, etc. Lastly, there is scant evidence that people (Americans, anyway) give a hoot about privacy in nearly all cases. How many actually use cash to pay for their EZPass? Put in the black boxes, I say, and make the data public while hiding the user ID. We will all be better off. And it will give researchers like me a lot to do.

The Kansas City Experiment on Transport Infrastructure Investment

Kansas City (the Missouri one) presents an interesting natural experiment on the effect of transportation infrastructure investment and economic performance. There are two main investments occurring with each investment focused on a very different technology. First, the city is aggressively pursuing a streetcar system with the hope of encouraging downtown development. Second, Google is installing Google Fiber, an ultra high speed Internet service. These two strategies represent two very different approaches to economic development, and figuring out which approach has a greater (if any) effect on the local or regional economy can help guide future public and private investment decisions.

The streetcar project is a two mile, $102 million rail line mostly along Main Street. Last December voters of a special downtown streetcar district approved a 25 year property and sales tax increase to help fund the project:

Voters approved, 351 to 198, a 1-cent sales tax increase, and 344 to 206 property tax increases to help pay for a $100 million, two-mile streetcar system. It will run from River Market to Union Station, primarily on Main Street.
The tax increases, authorized for 25 years, will apply only within the defined boundaries of a downtown streetcar district. That covers roughly River Market, the Central Business District, the Crossroads and Crown Center.
Yet already, Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders is floating the possibility of a broader countywide transit tax that might alleviate some of the burden on downtown.
Wednesday’s results occurred in an unusual mail-in election and involved only registered voters living within the streetcar district.
The city hopes to begin construction next year and start running the streetcars in 2015.

 Local officials are extremely optimistic about the outcome:

“This is going to be a game changer for our city, especially our downtown,” City Councilwoman Jan Marcason said.
“It will be historic,” Mayor Sly James said. “This is only a beginning.”
Supporters emphasized that just running streetcars through two miles of downtown was never the goal. They hope Wednesday’s results springboard a more extensive system of streetcars running to the Plaza and the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and along east-west corridors such as 12th Street or 18th Street.

To place downtown Kansas City in a bit of context, here is Strongtowns' Charles Marohn explaining current traffic and pedestrian conditions in Kansas City:


Looking at the Google project, here is a description of the service:

Google Fiber is a project to build an experimental broadband internet network infrastructure using fiber-optic communication[1] in Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri; the location was chosen following a competitive selection process.[2] Over 1,100 communities applied to be the first recipient of the technology.[3] On March 30, 2011, Google announced that Kansas City, Kansas will be the first community where the new network would be deployed.[4]
After building an infrastructure of the network, in July 2012, Google announced pricing for Google Fiber. The service will offer three options. These include a free broadband internet option, a 1 Gbps internet option for $70 per month and a version that includes television service for $120 per month. The internet service includes 1 terabyte of Google Drive service and the television service includes a 2 terabyte DVR recorder in addition to the Google Drive service. The DVR will record up to eight live television shows simultaneously. The television options also includes a Nexus 7 tablet that will act as a remote control for the system. In addition, television service will also stream live program content on iPad and Android tablet computers. Neighborhoods that receive the service will be selected through demand from Kansas City area residents and Google has set up a website to pre-register for the service.[5]

Early anecdotes and media stories suggest that the Google Fiber service is already having an impact on the local economy. Here is one article, and here is another. From the latter:

Soon no one will snicker when Kansas City residents proudly refer to their city as the “Silicon Prairie.” As the Associated Press reports, the presence of Google’s (GOOG) high-speed fiber network has turned Kansas City into a major attraction for tech startups that want to take advantage of the fastest Internet connectivity in the United States. According to the AP, “several startup-friendly locations… have sprouted up in Kansas City in recent months” in residential buildings that give entrepreneurs room for “working on their ideas for the next high-tech startup.”

These news stories should not be treated as rigorous evidence any more than stories promoting streetcars. Yet it is the case that these two transportation infrastructure investments are both expected to be transformative for the local and regional economy. I have my own ideas about which one is more likely to prove a successful investment, but the Kansas City experiment should be closely followed to help inform what types of investment in new transport networks should be made in the upcoming decades.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/12/3962799/kc-streetcar-taxes-pass-overwhelmingly.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/12/3962799/kc-streetcar-taxes-pass-overwhelmingly.html#storylink=cpy