German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseJeff Kentworthy Talk On Urban Rail Was Totally Worth It
Confession. I bought a Nintendo Wii. There are already too few hours in the day to do what I need and want to do (as evidenced by the sporadic posting around here lately), and yet, I bought a Nintendo Wii. As if writing a Metro blog wasn’t enough of a distraction from trying to make my freelance graphic design business the kind of venture that pays my bills, I had to go and buy a Nintendo Wii.
So here’s how my Wednesday was shaping up. I had a plate full of work, a lack of sleep from the previous night, a Nintendo Wii cooing my name in the other room, and on top of all that, some dude was supposed to talk about urban rail over at Metro Headquarters. Talk about a dilemma. Do I do the responsible thing and work through lunch, ensuring (at least temporarily) my financial future? Do I abuse my home office and take a nap? Do I falter to the Wii’s incessant pleading and waste the rest of my day playing fake doubles tennis against a bunch of virtual Weebles? Or do I put blog before work and go check out Jeff Kentworthy, co-author of Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence, over at Metro HQ.
Yes loyal readers, I sacrificed work (easy), napping (harder), and the Wii (damn near impossible), to learn about the advantages of urban rail. The following is a record of what I learned as to ensure my choice was not in vain.
Jeff came all the way from Australia to share his findings and thoughts on urban rail with moderately sized group of eager Angelenos, mostly Metro employees and transit advocates, in the Metro Board Room. Confession #2. This marked the first time I had been in the Metro Board Room and Metro Headquarters. Nice space they are working with there, worthy of the Taj Mahal moniker, in my opinion.
On of the first fun facts Jeff shared, and that I took note of, was that, contrary to popular belief, the Los Angeles area is actually quite dense. In fact, it’s the densest in all of the United States, more so than even the New York/New Jersey region in the east. With 24 people per hectare, the L.A. region is four times denser than sprawling Atlanta, which has a mere 6 people per hectare. Thus, Jeff reasons, there is no excuse for Los Angeles to lack for a strong rail system.
But why rail? Why not buses, or the growing interest in BRT? Jeff notes that rail has many environmental and system advantages over bus and BRT that make the cost difference worth it for cities. Many of these are common sense, but include: comfort; ease of scheduling; ease of transfers; lower pollution; route reliability; positive economic impacts; potential for transit oriented development; and greater potential to encourage modal shift.
According to Jeff, in Europe, over a period of 10 years, Light Rail Transit (LRT) patronage rose 20.3% while bus patronage fell 5.6%. His implication is that people, the masses, simply and unequivocally prefer rail over bus. And surprisingly, it’s actually what are commonly considered the disadvantages of rail that turn out to be it’s advantages over bus transit in encouraging use. The high cost and inflexibility of rail creates a permanence that people prefer over the impermanent and unreliable nature of bus transit.
In his research Jeff divides cities into three categories: strong rail cities, weak rail cities, and no rail cities. A strong rail city is one where 50% or more of the transit is rail, no less than 40% of transit boardings are rail, and the speed of rail is comparable to the car. The speed issue means that reserved rights of way are a critical element of strong rail cities. In cities with rail on reserved ROWs, speeds are competitive with the automobile, in cites with no rail, transit speeds are half that of the automobile.
One point I thought Jeff hammered home particularly well was the fact that cities of sizable population and density will always have congestion. Congestion, Jeff says, is used as a “boogey man” to encourage further road and freeway construction, when in fact all that does is increase auto dependency and thus auto congestion. Congestion, in Jeff’s eyes, is a good thing because it discourages auto use and encourages alternatives. The “predict and provide” school of transportation planning that chases after the congestion boogey man is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Jeff amusingly likens it to DDT in that it has spread to other countries without thought of the negative effects.
Jeff also exposes another fallacy in common transportation planning: the equating of traffic to liquid. Traffic actually behaves more like a gas Jeff states, citing Nuremberg as an example. Nuremberg pedestrianized its core and while 29% of traffic was transferred to other streets, a whopping 71% simply up and disappeared. The traffic didn’t flow into every available nook and cranny like water would, instead much of it evaporated like gas.
Another polished gem Jeff provided us with was the idea that rail systems “focus” a city and development while bus systems simply “follow” development. So buses, because of their impermanence and reliance on auto roads, must heed to the “predict and provide” game and attempt to follow wherever development may randomly occur. Rail on the other hand spurs and centralizes development, creating a sense of permanence not found in no rail cities. Rail and streets renaissances go hand in hand.
Jeff’s ideas and statistics sent a powerful message, a message that says high quality rail is a necessity for a high quality of life in a big city. And Los Angeles, a city which recently turned 4 million (people) and a metro with over 10 million, is clearly a big city. Jeff brought up the example of Vancouver, a city of 600,000 and a metro of 2.6 million, with no freeways (they were prohibited in the 1980s). Vancouver is routinely considered one of the most livable cities in the world, #3 in quality of life according to Business Week. Where is Los Angeles on that list, with its 27 freeways? Number 55.
While I may seem cynical, Jeff gave off a sense of hope and optimism. He noted the massive improvements in Los Angeles’ transit system in the last 20 years and said that although it takes time, he feels change will come. Seeing Jeff talk may have taken some time out of my schedule, but his informative and positive lecture sure made it worth it.
Now I must go, for the Wii beckons me.
Discussion
You can leave a response, or trackback. You can also subscribe to the comments feed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
It would be so cool if his talk was to be offered up online in some way.
Thanks for writing this report, Fred.
Sounds like a wonderful lecture.
nice. does he have a book?
jeremy:
Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence
(Link goes to Powell’s Books, a independent Portland bookstore with whom I have an affiliate account with. Meaning, if you happen to buy that book from the link, I get a tiny percentage of the sale. Unfortunately no independent Los Angeles booksellers were interested in partnering)
Great recap — thanks, Fred!
He’ll be providing a PDF of his PowerPoint; I’ll pass it on when it’s available.
ha. well.. i guess my short-term memory is crap. thanks for restating it fred!
I don’t entirely agree with the statement “Rail on the other hand spurs and centralizes development, creating a sense of permanence not found in no rail cities. Rail and streets renaissances go hand in hand.” I’ve ridden VTA Light Rail in Santa Clara County and their light rail system is so underused. Their trains traverse First Street’s wide swaths of land and corporate parks with sprawling car lots. Along the Mountain View-Winchester line, for example, there are few, if any, walkable destinations.
Steven,
It is generally acknowledged, in the transit industry, that VTA did an incredibly poor job in creating transit-oriented development around their light rail system.
One system’s failure, however, does not condemn the concept, which does work in countless other areas.
According to Wiki, ridership on the whole VTA Rail system is less than our Metro Green Line. They’ve had rail for 3 years longer than us, and have 42 miles of rail vs our 73, plus it’s got connections to the SF bound Caltrain and Stockton bound ACE commuter trains. So what did they do wrong?
BTW, I keep hearing on the news that The Americana On Brand just opened, it’s a development by the same people as The Grove, sadly, it’s a nice place in the boondocks of Glendale, sure there is the 780 passing by it, but no rail (and I’m not counting the trolley in it).
They built it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theoverheadwire/2041109205/sizes/o/
Here is what office sprawl looks like in San Jose. Think about if all of these high tech companies with all of these parking lots had come together to build real places around the light rail lines in San Jose.
The boondocks of Glendale?
Americana and the Galleria are the center of Glendale’s civilization. This area is Glendale’s busiest ridership generator, for both Metro and Beeline buses.
There are lots of things wrong with VTA’s light rail. Among other things, no effort was made to really encourage growth to concentrate around it. Also, it’s routes are just laid out stupidly.
But downtown San Jose really has livened *a lot* during the last 20 years or so, basically since light rail was built. Despite the overall system’s pretty miserable ridership figures, I think that core downtown bit has works OK as a circulator–in a sense it’s succeeded (a little) as a stimulus to urban life, even if not as a regional transportation system.
What are the key ridership corridors in VTA? Obviously, it’s not the light rail. I see busy bus service along El Camino, Alum Rock and Stevens Creek.
If light rail emulated those routes, would it have done better?
The VTA’s 22/522 Rapid is their busiest line. It runs along El Camino, then heads through downtown SJ to East SJ (where a lot of transit-dependent folks live).
http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html (rapid project + map)
The 522 Rapid is a recent improvement. True BRT with dedicated lanes would be even better.
Lately the Bay Area tends to invest in rail in politically chosen corridors, then put BRT where passengers actually want to go, as an afterthought!
I meant that Glendale was in the boondocks in reference to our Metro Rail system. They have a nice downtown no doubt, but it’s one destination I won’t frequent much since it’s not near a rail station. From my vantage point in the north SFV, it’s much easier for me to go to Hollywood and downtown LA than Glendale. As we are on the topic of rail spurring developement, it’s sad to see a nice place like the Americana being built far from a rail station and would guarantee that it’s going to attract the automobile crowd.
The lack of a good or service does not justify its need.
Rick Caruso and the city of Glendale knew that there was no rail service to the Americana (and the Galleria). Glendale developed a suburban downtown strip with no train service. All of these developments succeeded without rail service.
Since developments can survive without rail service, it’s obvious rail is not needed.
“Not needed” implies lacking a cause-effect relationship. It does not mean rail service is not warranted. Glendale warrants a rail line, but it certainly doesn’t need it.
It needs a more compelling reason to warrant a rail line.
Is it my imagination or does Wad’s post sound a little like Jabberwocky? Strange semantics and worse history. Brand Boulevard and the downtown Glendale shopping corridor owes its very existence to one of the earliest Pacific Electric Red Car lines. With the completion of the Hollywood Subway in 1925 and the subsequent addition of PCC cars in 1940, the Glendale Line became one of the best showcases for what a modern rapid transit line could be. Then Metropolitan Coast Lines killed service in 1955 and one could argue that the region spent decades trying to readjust, with mixed success.
When Jeff talked about STRONG RAIL CITIES, he had 3 criteria. A STRONG RAIL CITY is not just a city with rail, or even extensive rail. A STRONG RAIL CITY, according to Jeff, meets the following criteria:
>> 50% or more of transit is rail
>> no less than 40% of boardings are on rail
>> rail speed is comparable to the car
I have a feeling VTA Light Rail fails to meet any of these criteria, and thus the positive aspects of a STRONG RAIL CITY, like development, are not achieved, for it is a WEAK RAIL CITY.
Basically, if I am to understand Jeff correctly, to truly reap the benefits of rail a city must become a STRONG RAIL CITY, meaning it must meet those criteria in order to be successful. Ridership is everything.
Mr. Stanwood, you have insulted my honor. Prepare to duel. :>
I know of the history of Brand Boulevard. I know it used to have streetcar service. It’s history has little to do with its future.
The city of Glendale never insisted on replacing the streetcar track, and it had a good 50 years to do so. Even when the streetcars were gone, Glendale still managed to develop the street with the Galleria and mid-rise office buildings while offering nothing more than bus service.
It’s obvious Glendale did not need rail service to develop a robust commercial and retail corridor.
Is rail warranted along Brand?
I would think so. The land use and bus passenger density would lend itself favorably to a light rail service.
I suggested a San Fernando line for Metro’s long range plan. It would convert the Metrolink Antelope Valley line between Sylmar and downtown L.A. into light rail service. It would run from Union Station to the Lincoln Heights Gold Line station, then run alongside the L.A. River to Brand Boulevard, then up Brand and Glenoaks Boulevard to the Burbank Metrolink station, then run along the present Metrolink right of way to Sylmar. An end-to-end trip would take 45-60 minutes, but it would get about 25,000-40,000 boardings a day.
I’ve outlined a corridor and gave a realistic frame of ridership. I would like to see this line built. However, I do not dangle the carrot of development to justify building the line, especially when Glendale is happy with Brand Boulevard without having to build rail.
Bart Reed will hate you, Wad. He loves the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line.
And said conversion will alienate both the Metrolink passengers from Lancaster/Palmdale/Santa Clarita and those coming from the West SFV and Ventura County, which uses that same alignment between Burbank and downtown L.A.
Finally, when the LRTP was discussed at the special SFV governance council meeting last week, Burbank Mayor Marsha Ramos said her city would be opposed to any kind of “conversion” of Metrolink service.
You just redefined the concept of pushing a rope uphill. Better you should find a LRT route that doesn’t use the Metrolink corridor.
Is there room to squeeze in a few more tracks along the river?
It would be fun to study reopening the PE subway. No reason in principle trains can’t run through the basement of a skyscraper.
The only corridor I would find of use would be Brand/Glendale Blvd from Glendale Galleria through Atwater Village, Silver Lake, Echo Park and Belmont/Crown Hill under the First Street Bridge to Second and then run as a subway to connect to the upcoming Regional Connector.
Now using the railroad right of way would only need to come into play if there’s plans for the current Orange Line busway to be upgraded to LRT and then continues east towards Burbank and Glendale.
The Burbank/Glendale corridor is a combination new project with TSM by
adding more service to the existing Metrolink with new infill stations at Taylor Yard and Fletcher Drive and coordinate bus routes to run more frequnetly to end at the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park or Chinatown Gold Line station, once the Regional Connector is built.
Bart Reed will take the San Fernando line and will like it.
Yet in their infinite wisdom, the North County bus systems maintain wasteful duplicative commuter bus routes that ape the Metrolink service.
There is another reason why I proposed a San Fernando Line. Fortuitously, you set it up.
This is the set-up.
Burbank should not be worried about my San Fernando line proposal as it should be this November, if the high speed rail bond passes.
The HSRA has designs on the Antelope Valley Line for its passage into the Central Valley. Guess where there’s an existing right of way that can be converted to HSR service. Yup.
With $10 billion of a projected $40 billion on the line, is Burbank going to bully the HSRA to build around the most logical right of way for the nation’s first bona fide high speed rail line? We need to know so we can vote against the bond in November, in case Burbank does.
I could have the same line but truncate the northern terminal to Burbank Airport. Happy now? ;>
To “Wad”: No dueling is necessary. We transit folks should be peaceable, cohesive types, yes? Still, I must take exception to the notion that Glendale’s history as a classsic “streetcar suburb” development had little to do with its future. I also think it’s disengenuous to suggest that the city had any real way to resurrect the Red Cars. The Southern Pacific sold the passenger operation to Metropolitan Coach Lines, which was ferociously anti-rail. Control eventually passed to the first MTA, predecessor to the present enlightened organization, which was hellbent on ending all rail service. Against such historical momentum, any grass root movement for transit in Glendale would have been moot.
You’re quite right, the future seemed to belong to the automobile. And freeways such as the 210 Foothill had the power to intoxicate. Glendale to Pasadena in a matter of minutes! Then again, no one had the vision of the 210 crawling toward gridlock on a typical weeknight.
Of course, the Galleria and other Edge City projects were successful. But as with all such development decisions, there are winners and losers. Which side you’re on in 2008 depends, in part, on what portion of your life is spent stuck in traffic.
A personal note. In July 1955, my grandfather took my cousin and me on the Glendale Line into Downtown L.A. via the Hollywood Subway on the last weekend that it operated. I remember that experience and the feeling the following day, seeing the system immediately being put into mothballs. My instincts told me a terrible mistake was being made. My feelings–although more resigned and philosophical–have not changed.
Yes.
This does absolve the parties who had an even greater hand in dismantling our streetcar system: us, our family members and our friends.
Look, there was no “Roger Rabbit” conspiracy. We can’t blame an alphabet soup of acronyms that are no longer around to flog. To paraphrase WWE’s Vince McMahon, L.A. screwed L.A.
L.A. had no shortage of opportunities to save its streetcars. Residents repeatedly smothered efforts to do so. Why? Because the thinking was at the time that the streetcars were just getting in the way of the automobiles. More reasons?
1. Los Angeles was a major magnet for rural residents from the Midwest and the South. Los Angeles had been designed as an anti-city, conscious of its loathing of urban hellholes like New York or Chicago. The thinking at the time was to make it sort of South Africa of the Prairie and the Backwoods. Take the people out of the environment, but bring the environment back to the people. You had the combination of ruralism and postwar triumphalism. Both camps hated cities, one because of its values system, the other because of its scholarly hubris.
2. Buses were the streetcars’ technological successor. Running buses was in the streetcar companies’ financial self-interest. The buses maintained the same or better speeds than the streetcars, and they didn’t require tracks. That was one of their best features. As transit ridership began to decline, it did not make much sense to invest in the diminishing returns of maintaining streetcar service.
3. The salvaging of transit service was more successful in L.A.’s smaller suburbs. Culver City, Torrance and Gardena started municipal bus systems because their residents resented the private ownership of the streetcars. The city of Santa Monica started a municipal carrier that in a few decades bought its private competitor to form today’s Big Blue Bus. An Eastside jitney association was consolidated into what is today’s Montebello Bus Lines. L.A., on the other hand, voted down several attempts to rebuild its rail system until 1980.
I might add, L.A.’s experience was the norm throughout the country. The United States had urbanized during the era of the automobile. Big pre-automobile cities were few in number, and all but a few of these cities still bought in to motorization.
The Bay Area had something of the right idea, but not the greatest execution. Before BART was the Key System in the East Bay. Alameda County tried very hard to preserve the Key routes into San Francisco, yet ultimately failed. However, the time between the last Key streetcar and the first BART service was considerably shorter than L.A.’s 1963-to-1990 period without rail.
Should I point out that Marsha’s comments were about coverting Metrolink to light rail, and had nothing to do with HSR?
No, because (as I originally said) the Ventura County Line of Metrolink still uses the ROW between there and downtown Los Angeles, and most of its ridership is to/from Union Station. Those are the riders who would be hanging you in effigy from the overhead catenary if your proposal got through.
I’ll come visit you in the hospital after they attack you, though.
You speak the truth here, my friend …
Just as we now see subways and LRT as the newest, best technology, back when the streetcar lines were converted to bus lines, the bus was seen as a superior technology to streetcars.
Looking backwards wistfully does not change what the history of the era records. (And there are plenty of records to research, if anyone cares to.)
Kym, I know she was speaking about converting Metrolink to light rail. HSR will end up swallowing the Antelope Valley Line anyway, and many of Metrolink’s existing stops would disappear.
My logic behind a San Fernando light rail would be to complement what HSR is going to take away if it passes. Metrolink already maintains pretty high speeds, but an HSR cannot maintain much higher speeds because of the stop spacing.
The SF line would replace Metrolink service north of Burbank. Near the current Metrolink station, it would diverge to run along Glenoaks and Brand boulevards. It would rejoin the right of way in Glendale and run parallel to the river to Lincoln Heights, where it would use existing Gold Line tracks.
It may sound baffling at first, but this emulates the collector networks used in Germany and Spain. A tramway or commuter line would allow transfers for the true HSR services. Closer to home, think of San Diego’s Old Town Transit Center. Let’s say the HSR stations are in Burbank (CBD, airport) and Santa Clarita (theme park). The high-speed service emerges north of Burbank. However, Sun Valley and Sylmar/San Fernando would lose their stations. Instead, they’d get back light rail service, and for the quick connection into downtown, they’d transfer at Burbank to the HSR service.
Maybe it’s not totally impossible for light rail and commuter rail to share tracks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
There are obstacles to implementing this in the US, but they’re more political than technical.
By the way, the HSR Authority now has stops planned at Burbank and Sylmar. No stop is planned in Santa Clarita as they are studying taking the line via the 14 freeway corridor instead of through Newhall and Saugus.