Posted on Tuesday October 27th by Alex Lessard-Pilon | 452
- A video made two years ago depicting the collapse of Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct has finally been released. It’s pretty sensational–after an earthquake, cars are crushed, half of the city’s power goes out, soil liquifies and whole streets disappear. Some are crying foul: the release seems designed to influence the city’s upcoming mayoral election. (Seattle Times)
- The Obama administration will announce today $3.4 billion in funding for “smart grid” projects, which should create thousands of jobs and improve the “efficiency and reliability” of electricity consumption. Markets for wind and solar will expand, and consumers will get “smart meters” that indicate when rates are cheapest. (LATimes)
- That stimulus spending, however, puts emphasis on the thorny question of whether the federal government should subsidize the transmission of power from high-producing areas to big cities. Some say that system will stall development of renewables and outsource jobs from states that need to create and keep them at home. (Business Week)
- In response to a growing national interest in streetcars, the federal government will provide $75 million to Portland for 18 stations, six vehicles and a near-complete loop around Portland. The city expects the money to create 1,300 “high-wage” jobs and attract 2.4 million sq ft of development. (Green Inc)
- Chalk up another victory for Amtrak: a new study finds that average losses per passenger were $32, four times the operator’s original estimate. Apparently, they forgot to account for, you know, wear, tear and depreciation that first time around. (Reuters)
- Chicago, desperate to close a $520 million budget gap, is considering leasing its water system. Doing so could potentially triple water bills, and in the aftermath of the “firesale” of the city’s parking spaces earlier this year, public advocates are rightfully concerned. (CBS2)
- A German consortium hopes to build a 100 gigawatt solar thermal plant in the Sahara, and claims that it could meet 15% of Europe’s electricity demand by 2050. Some say it’s exploitative. Others ask if we should we build something that requires massive amounts of cooling water in the middle of the desert. (New Scientist)
- Bloomberg’s record on transportation isn’t that bad. Congestion pricing bombed, but bus service, as well as pedestrian and cycling spaces, have greatly improved. The trouble is the MTA. In recent years, its finances have collapsed; some blame Bloomberg, who substantially reduced the city’s contribution to its funds. (Gotham Gazette)
- The recently-revived debate about Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs brings to light the difficulty of accomplishing large-scale building projects these days. Trusting monolithic public figures to “get things done” and watching ambitious projects stagger and fall are both lousy deals. What to do? (The Avenue)
- And finally, Chicago is proposing an Adopt-A-Station program for its subway. Looks like Apple might become the first to sponsor a station in exchange for its advertising rights. (Second Avenue Sagas)
October 27th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
What’s interesting about the viaduct issue is that we had a public stakeholder process for replacing the structure, and the stakeholders voted strongly in favor of just replacing it with a surface street (rather than a new highway), citing our need to reduce greenhouse gases, make the city more livable, and encourage transit use.
Then the state turned around and said they want a highway tunnel.
The ironic part here? With the surface street, we’d be tearing down the viaduct by 2012. With the tunnel, it has to survive until 2016.
There’s a reason people think this is politically motivated. The contractor who’s likely to build the tunnel also made this video. They want to push this down our throats.
There are two lawsuits pending against the tunnel construction, as well - the state hasn’t completed its environmental impact statements (there’s not even a draft EIS yet for the tunnel option they want to move forward with), meaning it’s illegal under both state and federal law to move forward - and yet they’re already doing construction preparation work.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Oh, just in case some viaduct supporters start claiming the surface option wouldn’t serve enough traffic:
The tunnel removes the current viaduct entrances and exits downtown. It’s a bypass only. Most of the current viaduct traffic is to/from downtown, so it would be moved to surface streets with the tunnel option anyway.
The through traffic on the surface street wouldn’t be significantly impacted relative to those trips today. It’s estimated that the surface option would only add a few minutes to a cross-town trip (at a savings of a couple billion dollars).
October 27th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
What to do about development? That’s easy: Facilitate small projects. Adaptive reuse, infill, rehabbing, one building at a time, one shopfront at a time, one business at a time. It’s called “diversification,” and farmers, ecologists and financial advisors alike will tell you that it’s healthier and more resilient. Big projects often end as big flops.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Agreed Catbus. Ethanol, anyone?
One issue constantly missing from these debates is the question of the vast amounts of eminent domain land seizures that will have to take place for the ’superhighways’. It really is remarkable how the theft or devaluing of thousands of homes and other private properties can be swept under the rug as a mere breakage.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
The study of Amtrak seems to suggest that a large part of the subsidy is concentrated in a few very long routes that are lightly used. My guess is that the elimination of the worst of these routes coupled with some modest fair increases could cut the per-passenger cost substantially and free resources for improving routes that make sense.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The naming rights to a station might will be problematic for an established subway/LRT network. In Dubai for instance their authority is selling station naming rights to the new stations on their shiny new system. In that case I think its ok.
I don’t know why the Adopt-A-Station program hasn’t been done from the very beginning on all systems. It’s virtually free money for the Transit Authority. NYC for has 468 stations, theoretically taking the “Chicago Price” of $ 200 000 PY (should all of the stations be adopted) that gives a healthy $ 94 million and all they had to do was a few bits of paperwork. Of course you can up the price depending on station location.
Another Idea for added revenue, On the new Shanghai Subway they have LED Display advertising that moves in-sync with the train, so instead of sitting looking at the black outside the trains you have advertisements running on either side of the train between stations.
Why can’t these guys get creative, there’s a multitude of ways to get out of the hole?
October 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“The Northeast Corridor, which runs from Washington, D.C. to Boston, was
Amtrak’s least subsidized route in FY2008 and carried the highest passenger
volume, nearly 10.9 million passengers. The high-speed Acela Express, one of
only three Amtrak lines to turn a profit, made an average of $41 per
passenger. In comparison, the heavily utilized Northeast Regional — carrying
more than twice the volume of riders as the Acela Express — lost just under
$5 per passenger in FY2008. ”
Thats interesting that ‘High Speed alla Acela Express’ turned that profit with HALF the riders. So tickets cost more, it just proves the point, build it and they will ride it. AAAWWWWW SNAP! Now just think if there were a few more lines with that capability and the NEC was upgraded to where Acela could run full speed?
Amtrak loses money on 41 of its 44 routes. Now normal business sense would say “cut your losses” at least mine would say that. So take your list keep the top 3 that turn a profit and eliminate some of the others or cut down their services to where the subsidies become manageable. There aren’t enough Acela Express lines in the country to subsidize the other loss making services.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Deacon, I’m not certain, but I’d bet Amtrak has a mandate to keep at least some of those losing lines open. Does anyone know for sure? I’d bet at least some of their scheduling depends on the power of the congressmen that their lines pass through.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Um….. Edit that. While there are a few congressmen who would might be improved by a rail to the gut, that should have read “congressmen whose districts…”.