Category Archives: Uncategorized

Xcel Hiawatha DEIS released, public meeting scheduled

Posted on by
1

Rendering from Midtown Community Works Partnership of potential overhead lines

The Office of Energy Security has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Hiawatha Transmission Line Project, Xcel’s plan to run high-voltage lines along the Midtown Greenway (careful, the PDF is huge and will bog down even newer computers).  They have also announced a public meeting to take comments on the document on February 10th.

The DEIS does identify above-ground lines as having negative impacts on visual quality, being inconsistent with local urban design standards and potentially discouraging additional residential and commercial development nearby.

As I understand it, although the EIS has to identify mitigation strategies for the impacts of the project, it does not require that these mitigation measures be implemented if the project is approved.  From this TC Daily Planet article, it sounds as though the PUC may have the final say about mitigation, but I assume that the Department of Commerce is the responsible LGU, and would also have to approve a route and mitigation measures.

Either way, the public meeting is a chance for anyone to comment on potential additional impacts, whether the scale of impacts has been adequately measured, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures identified.  This is a good time to get involved.

New Year News – Trains, Plans, and Automobiles (miles traveled)

Posted on by
1

What with the holidays and all, Net Density has been on a bit of a hiatus.  Many pieces of news dropped while I was enjoying some relaxation, and in order to catch up I simply don’t have time to give them all the detail they deserve.  So, instead of skipping them altogether, I’ll try to cover them all, giving a few of my editorial comments for each.

A draft of the Minneapolis North Loop Small Area Plan was completed and put out for public comment, with a twist.  You can edit the document directly using a wiki, which the city and the neighborhood hope will encourage more participation.  Put me in the skeptical camp. Wikis work best when with a small audience who is very knowledgeable about the topic, or a really large audience (see Wikipedia) where the size of the audience enables content to be vetted and inaccurate information to be weeded out.  The North Loop plan wiki may see a small audience, which will mean little peer review, and they will also likely be unaware of the requirements for plan content.

TransForm, a transportation policy advocacy group from the Bay area, has released its GreenTRIP rating system to fill the gaps in LEED ND and rank developments based on their ability to reduce VMT.  I say hoorah for the premise, we need to tackle VMT to address climate change and other issues, but do we need another rating system?  How about some regulation?

Saint Paul adopted a requirement that all new buildings projects which receive $200,000 or more in city funding must meet the standards of one of seven ratings systems such as LEED. Projects must meet Minnesota Sustainble Buildings 2030 energy standards.  Saint Paul is a model.  Any development that receives public dollars should at least meet these basic energy requirements when the payoffs (and paybacks) are so obvious and available.

Last, but certainly not least, MNDOT released its statewide Passenger and Freight Rail Plan.  The plan lays out near and long-term corridor priorities and shockingly (or maybe not shockingly) does not clearly pick the river route as a winner for high-speed rail to Chicago.  The alignment saga will continue, but if MNDOT’s cost-effectiveness figures are correct, building a link to Chicago makes good sense (and not just because of the lack of full-body scanners).

Welcome to 2010!  I hope your best laid plans all reach the implementation stage this year!

Are You A Member of the Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition?

Posted on by
Reply

Minneapolis is the #2 bicycling city in America. But up until a few months ago, there was no organized group to lobby for the rights and interests of bicyclists in the city.  Sure, there are some related groups like the Midtown Greenway Coalition and forums like Minneapolis Bike Love, but no group that was organizing cyclists to lobby the city for better infrastructure and promote cycling-related events.

Well, since they have a Facebook page, I’m calling it official.  The 4th meeting is January 9th and the Central Library.  I know that one of their top priorities will be bringing a ciclovia, or car-free day to Minneapolis in the spring to coincide with World Health Day.  This would mean opening up one of our cities major roads to pedestrians and bikes, and closing it to cars for a whole day.  Think of it as a big party in the road for a whole day. Another issue will be advocating for improvements to bike infrastructure in downtown.

Watch the video below for more information on World Health Day and check out the Facebook page.

Hybrid Power for Bikes – The Copenhagen Wheel

Posted on by
Reply

A disc-shaped addition to your bike’s rear wheel which helps you up hills with an electric assist.  Also connects to your smartphone to do many other amazing things I don’t quite understand. I question why they chose to show this on a fixed-gear bicycle. Everyone knows people who ride fixed-gear bicycles would never admit they needed an electric motor to help them up hills.

Creating Real Transity Improvements in Uptown Part 2: The Potential of Arterial BRT

Posted on by
7
Kansas City MAX Station. That's a nice bus stop.

Kansas City MAX Station. That's a nice bus stop.

In a previous post, I promised some insight into creating substantial transit improvements in the Uptown/LynLake areas of Minneapolis now that LRT is basically off the table.  In what is hopefully the first in a series of guest posts by different transit experts, I’ve asked a Metro Transit planner who is involved in transitway planning throughout the region to give his (or her) insight.  As our guest will reiterate, the opinions seen here are personal (although professionally informed) and do not represent the opinions of Metro Transit.

As a reminder, I’ve asked our guest to limit the response to improvements that could really be implemented, and are not wildly expensive or politically infeasible. And, of course, ideally these improvements should have the potential to significantly increase ridership and make the overall transit experience in the area better.


First I’ll thank Brendon for the opportunity to contribute to this excellent blog. Net Density does a great job offering posts that are understandable and approachable, but also of sound technical merit and well-reasoned professional planning. I will aspire to match these qualities in my post.

Second, I will note that the information contained in this post is meant only to advance the transportation planning professional discourse. It is my own work, and does not necessarily reflect the policies of my employer.

Introduction

Many residents of Minneapolis neighborhoods, and those in the planning community were frustrated by the HCRRA decision to pursue Southwest LRT on route 3A, via Kenilworth corridor. Given the current greater density and increased transit usage along Lake Street, Hennepin, and Nicollet, many came away with a desire for rapid, high quality transit improvements. This post does not revisit the many, justified reasons for 3A. Instead, it focuses on the many, justified reasons for transit improvements in several additional corridors in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

High quality improvements are warranted in south Minneapolis. In this post, I will respond to Brendon’s request to detail planned improvements. I’ll also point to other regions’ experiences with realistic, implementable investments in transit speed and quality.

Continue reading →

US Road Funding From Non-Users At All Time High

Posted on by
4

According to a new report by Subsidy Scope from the Pew Charitable Trusts, user fees for the construction and maintenance of US highways were at an all time low in 2007.  In other words, fees from non-users are at an all time high ($70 billion).  In 2007, 51% of funds for construction and maintenance was generated from user fees, down from 71 percent 40 years ago.  User fees include the gas tax, while non-user fees are things like bonds from local governments and sales and property taxes.

The main causes of this change according to Subsidy Scope?  No increase in the federal gas tax since 1993 and an increasing reliance on state and local governments to pay for roads.  People also drive less as fuel prices increase.  No mention of increasing use of alternative fuel vehicles, but surely that will play an increasing role in revenue declines in the future.

In contrast, I think 25% of transit’s costs are paid through user fees, although please correct me if I’m wrong.  Here is some data to wade through if you’re interested.  It should also be noted that both of these percentages include only internalized costs of roads and transit, not externalized (non-monetized) societal costs (pollution, congestion, etc).

US-China Electric Car Project Kind of Misses the Point

Posted on by
1
The BYD E6 Electric Car

The BYD E6 Electric Car

Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth has a good discussion with Lee Schipper about the problems with the US-China deal on producing electric cars.  Without repeating the post, the essence is that zero-emissions cars don’t solve the traditional problems that planners have been struggling with for a long time.

“Creating a zero-carbon car for China tomorrow won’t solve the much bigger problems of urban congestion, traffic fatalities and the paving over of once-beautiful cities to make room for more cars,” Dr. Schipper said. “The discussions should back up. Energy is only a means to an end. What are the ends, urban access and mobility, or cars for a small minority?”

This isn’t to say that China and the US shouldn’t be building electric vehicles.  Only that a carbon-free car is just that, a car, with all its other attendant issues and urban design challenges/drawbacks.

Creating Real Transit Improvements in Uptown: Part 1

Posted on by
7
The future? photo by flickr user: Mulad

The future? photo by flickr user: Mulad

The routing decision for the Southwest LRT is basically done.  I’ve previously bemoaned what seemed like the inevitable choice of Route 3A by the County because I (and others) had unanswered questions about ridership and the long-term logic of bypassing Uptown.  Critics of 3C suggested that a more appropriate transit solution for Uptown would be a Greenway streetcar, and that transit advocates in Uptown should really wait their turn for what was surely a better alternative.  However, this argument doesn’t make sense, because the major destinations LRT would connect are the U of M and Downtown with Uptown, not Hiawatha Avenue with Uptown.

After some disparaging for the future, I decided that I should try to be positive and proactive, rather than gloomy and snide.  So Uptown and south Minneapolis are not going to benefit from the new LRT line.  So what would it take to get substantial improvements to the transit system in the Hennepin/Lyndale/Nicollet corridors?  Is there a cost-effective way to overcome, or at least minimize, the limitations now faced by the bus system (traffic congestion, inclement weather and slow fare collection)?  Can we create a bus corridor that would rival LRT for speed and desirability?

I have some ideas, but I don’t pretend to be an expert.  So, in a Net Density first, I’ll be asking a few very knowledgeable (and gracious) individuals to describe how they would improve the existing system in the Uptown/LynLake area.  I will ask that they restrain themselves to improvements that could really be implemented, and are not wildly expensive (no subways). And, of course these improvements should have the potential to significantly increase ridership and make the overall transit experience in the area better.

The first guest post comes from a Metro Transit planner who has been involved in transitway planning throughout the region.  From the conversations we’ve had so far, his post promises to be intriguing and give clear strategies for greater ridership and better service.  He’ll also have some good real world examples of how improvements he is suggesting have been implemented in other cities.  Stay tuned.

Dutch Cabinet Approves Kilometer Tax

Posted on by
1

The Dutch Cabinet approved legislation Friday that would tax drivers per kilometer driven.  Parliament still needs to pass it before it can become law.  Ownership and sales taxes on autos would be abolished.  The cost per kilometer will vary depending on the size of the car and the engine.  By 2018, the average cost will be 6.7 Euro-cents per kilometer.  Gas tax will still be collected.

Mileage will be calculated by a GPS system made mandatory in each car, initially paid for by the government.  The Transport Ministry says this move could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent, and reduce congestion.

This system is similar to something being tested in Oregon with a small group of volunteers.  According to ODOT’s report, the system is largely successful, despite privacy concerns.

From Autopia, The Truth About Cars.

Road Trains: The Best of Both Worlds?

Posted on by
1

The idea of “road trains”, a group of cars using advanced technology to form a caravan of cars driven semi-autonomously, arose from two different sources this week.

The (in)famous Antiplanner, Randall O’Toole, touts road trains as a congestion-relief solution superior to rail building in his new book, Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It.  He says building new roads is “politically difficult” and that new passenger rail construction “rarely makes economic sense”.  Enter road trains.  They can increase the capacity of existing road networks, according to O’Toole.  He claims this technology can increase highway lane capacity by 200% to 400%.

The second source is the EU’s Safe Roads and Trains for the Environment initiative, which is actually implementing the road train concept.  Cars signal their destination wirelessly to road trains already on the road, and then technology takes over to group the cars and control steering, braking and navigation.  The lead vehicle, perhaps a bus or truck driven by a more experienced driver, monitors the status of the road train.  When you approach your exit, your car leaves the train and you resume manual control.  The EU work suggests fuel consumption for the vehicles behind the lead vehicle can be cut by 20%.

This approach avoids the large costs associated with embedding sensors in roadways to guide vehicles, and instead relies on technology within each vehicle (collision avoidance, navigation system, automated braking and steering).  O’Toole puts the cost of this technology at between $1,000 and $10,000 per vehicle.  I’m interested to see if his book includes a calculation of how much transit, bike lanes or other alternatives you could buy for the cost of installing this technology in all vehicles.

The benefits of this technology are numerous if it can be implemented:

  • A reduction in fuel consumption.
  • Providing the comfort and independence of an SOV with some of the efficiencies of transit.
  • Not having to drive.  Giving car passengers back their driving time, for leisure or productivity, would be a huge gain.

I see some downsides though:

  • Increasing capacity on highways doesn’t equal increased capacity on city streets.  This technology is perfect if every destination is adjacent to a freeway off-ramp.  However, greatly increasing the capacity of highways while keeping the city streets (where drivers still have to use their puny human brains to drive) the same seems like it would equal chaos.
  • Equity.  This “solution” to congestion puts all of the costs onto the car owner.  If you think everyone should have equal access to the transportation system (and you plan your land use so that a car is almost essential), you should think about how to make this technology (which probably means a new car) affordable to everyone.  O’Toole suggests “transportation vouchers”, an idea based on people making personal choices about the best transportation mode (although he really thinks there shouldn’t be any choice, the car is king).  Not a bad idea necessarily, but I would suggest combining it with a true mileage tax to raise the necessary revenue.  I assume O’Toole supports this idea since he says in his book review that he does not support any government subsidy to transportation.
  • Different cars and maintenance regimes = crashes?  In all the articles about road trains, I haven’t seen any discussion about how to handle the different capabilities of individual cars.  Some cars have much better brakes than others.  Some cars can accelerate more quickly.  People maintain their cars differently (meaning they do less maintenance).  Can the technology compensate for the different capabilities of each car?  Does each car “know” the distance required to stop based on its components and the condition of its parts?  Bringing this technology to the real world means accommodating all kinds of cars, of varying ages, types and capabilities.  Unless of course this advantage is made available only to those who are able to afford the newest and best vehicles, or we move to a uniform, government-regulated and maintained pod-car.