It's one of the central concepts of transit wonks: every transit agency (in fact, pretty much every government agency, and most corporations as well) has two sections to its budget. Operating budgets pay for short-term expenses like salaries, fuel, electricity and the printing of schedules. Generally, once they're consumed, there's nothing left of any value. Capital budgets pay for large durable items that can sometimes be resold, like train cars, buses, station platforms, signals and railroad ties. On this division depends a significant amount of politicking, such as the neverending bickering about profitability and farebox recovery. A company or agency can sometimes be called "profitable" if its revenues cover all its operating expenses, even while it gets capital subsidies.
On many a blog I've seen transit wonks shake their sympathetic heads at passengers who don't understand why the agency is laying off drivers and building a new rail line at the same time. These poor people don't know that driver salaries and rail construction come from two different budgets, they say. Of course, that's a non-explanation on a par with "the computer won't let me do it."
The fact is that these two neat categories mask a continuum of expenses, from the very durable and valuable (concrete roadbeds) to the completely ephemeral (lobbyist fees, perhaps). There are lots of things in the middle that don't quite fit. One of the biggest is debt service - the interest and principal on the loans that were taken out to pay for the capital budget. And don't get me started on these shady lease-back deals where transit agencies "sold" their assets to financial firms (for capital money) and "rented" them from the same firms (using operating money).
The other big area in the middle is capital maintenance, which covers things like replacement parts for vehicles and new signals. It's in the capital budget, but it affects operations. If agencies "defer maintenance" to cut capital costs, they wind up with more breakdowns and "accidents," and thus an overall lower quality of service.
The current dichotomy between capital and operating costs obscures the issue for many people. You could be forgiven for thinking that the capital budget only covered things like system expansion and service upgrades and concluding, "why not cut it this year, when we're short on cash?" The capital/operating dichotomy doesn't make it clear that cutting a million dollars from capital maintenance can be as disastrous for transit service as cutting a million dollars from the operating budget. It'd be a lot easier if there were a different set of two buckets: one for the budget where cuts would disrupt service, and another where cuts would just defer system expansion.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I think that some people out there like it this way. They can cry "You can't defund the capital budget or else we won't be able to fix the seats on the buses!" and then use the money to dig new tunnels. Well, that's a bait-and-switch, and we don't like it when our friends do it any more than when our enemies do it.
This bait-and-switch is aided by another intermediate category: "modernization." It's true that old parts tend to be harder to maintain and to find parts for, so in the long run it can save money and cut down on service disruptions to replace them with newer models. And these newer models, coincidentally, sometimes come with new features that the agency didn't mention when asking for money to modernize. Are they capital, maintenance or operations?
My apologies to the bait-and-switchers, but I think we should be clearer about these things, and separate system expansion, upgrades, modernization and maintenance in the capital budget, so people know where their money is going.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Strange Doings on the Atlanta Beltline
Thanks to RailNews.net, I came across this blog entry at Creative Loafing. Apparently there's a plan to connect several old train rights-of-way around Atlanta - some idle, some in heavy use - and put in a light-rail line and a multi-use trail. After some real-estate shenanigans, the public-private partnership managing the project has gotten Norfolk Southern to file for abandonment of the Northeast section, but this is currently being blocked by Amtrak and the Georgia DOT.
The Fresh Loaf blog entry and an open letter it quotes from Mayor Franklin are full of outrage, but a few things bother me about this whole deal. First of all, any time I hear the words "file for abandonment" I get suspicious. Second, I always worry about all-or-nothing deals, public-private partnerships and unaccountable authorities. Third, while Amtrak's filing is fairly straightforward and dwells on the merits of the proposal, the response from the Beltline lawyers is smug and rests on legal technicalities. Fourth, tax-increment financing is a risky proposition.
I've never been to Atlanta, unless you count changing planes, so take this with a grain of salt. But after going through the Amtrak filing and perusing some maps, I've figured out what it is they're saying: the current route of the Crescent skirts the northern edge of Atlanta (to the extent it has an edge) and stops at a station four miles from downtown. The current proposal for high-speed rail along the Crescent corridor would instead use the northeast beltline segment to get onto an east-west corridor that goes right through the middle of downtown, stopping at a new "Multimodal Station." If the corridor is abandoned, trains from the northeast to the multimodal station would have to take the "trunk line" around and approach the station from the northwest, then presumably back out to continue on southwest to Alabama.
The beltline people are asking to condemn the northeast segment because they want to run light rail on it. Due to FRA rules, you can't run light and heavy rail on the same tracks at the same time. From Google's satellite pictures, it looks like the right-of-way is wide enough for two tracks and not much else. You might be able to squeeze a trail in there alongside the tracks, but you wouldn't get four tracks plus a trail. The beltline people want light rail and a trail, so no heavy rail.
I can kind of see the beltline reasoning, but overall I think that Amtrak and GDOT have the better position. The bottom line is that it's really hard to get good rail corridors, and high-speed rail is much more important than local light rail. This is an existing heavy rail corridor, which is very valuable. It should only be abandoned if the beltline advocates can come up with an alternative right-of-way for the high-speed rail. Say, converting two of I-85's fourteen lanes to rail?
The Fresh Loaf blog entry and an open letter it quotes from Mayor Franklin are full of outrage, but a few things bother me about this whole deal. First of all, any time I hear the words "file for abandonment" I get suspicious. Second, I always worry about all-or-nothing deals, public-private partnerships and unaccountable authorities. Third, while Amtrak's filing is fairly straightforward and dwells on the merits of the proposal, the response from the Beltline lawyers is smug and rests on legal technicalities. Fourth, tax-increment financing is a risky proposition.
I've never been to Atlanta, unless you count changing planes, so take this with a grain of salt. But after going through the Amtrak filing and perusing some maps, I've figured out what it is they're saying: the current route of the Crescent skirts the northern edge of Atlanta (to the extent it has an edge) and stops at a station four miles from downtown. The current proposal for high-speed rail along the Crescent corridor would instead use the northeast beltline segment to get onto an east-west corridor that goes right through the middle of downtown, stopping at a new "Multimodal Station." If the corridor is abandoned, trains from the northeast to the multimodal station would have to take the "trunk line" around and approach the station from the northwest, then presumably back out to continue on southwest to Alabama.
The beltline people are asking to condemn the northeast segment because they want to run light rail on it. Due to FRA rules, you can't run light and heavy rail on the same tracks at the same time. From Google's satellite pictures, it looks like the right-of-way is wide enough for two tracks and not much else. You might be able to squeeze a trail in there alongside the tracks, but you wouldn't get four tracks plus a trail. The beltline people want light rail and a trail, so no heavy rail.
I can kind of see the beltline reasoning, but overall I think that Amtrak and GDOT have the better position. The bottom line is that it's really hard to get good rail corridors, and high-speed rail is much more important than local light rail. This is an existing heavy rail corridor, which is very valuable. It should only be abandoned if the beltline advocates can come up with an alternative right-of-way for the high-speed rail. Say, converting two of I-85's fourteen lanes to rail?
Teachers Take Over Maria Baez's District
The Bronx district of Councilmember Maria Baez is pretty poor, with 72% of households earning less than $40,000 a year. Most of it is well-served by transit: the number 4 and letter D trains run through it, and it also has the University Heights Metro-North station and the BxM3 and 4 express buses. Not surprising, then, that it's in the green quintile, with 75.8% of all households being car-free and less than 30% of workers commuting in carrs.
What is surprising is that Councilmember Baez is sponsoring a bill to provide parking permits to all teachers employed by the Department of Education. A recent Gotham Gazette article notes that this comes at a time when advocates for fairness and sustainable transportation are succeeding in reducing the number of parking permits issued to government employees. If her bill passes, it's likely that the police, firemen and every other category of government employee will want their entitlements entrenched in law.
I'm sure there are plenty of teachers living in Baez's district, but most of them probably take the excellent public transit to work. On the other hand, I'm guessing that most of the teachers who work in Baez's district are convinced that the streets and subway platforms are crawling with thugs ready to pounce on any unsuspecting middle-class person who dares show their face outside of a school or a car. And it seems that Baez herself is ready to identify with these teachers - she told the Daily News that she drove to the Congestion Pricing hearing in July, even though it's a one-seat, 40-minute ride to City Hall on the 4 train.
Sadly, parking permits for teachers would be a very bad thing for the residents of Baez's district. The streets are already crowded with too many cars, because even though it has one of the lowest car-ownership rates in the country, available parking is also low. It has one of the highest asthma rates, due mostly to its proximity to two of the busiest highways in the country, but the teachers' cars don't help anything. City resources are wasted serving the driving minority while the walking majority puts up with crumbling sidewalks and rat-infested empty lots.
The worst part about Baez's bill is that it would enshrine in law the idea that being middle-class means that you drive everywhere, that it's not safe for teachers to walk the streets of the Bronx, and that some people are too good to take the subway. It would reinforce the separation between teachers and taught instead of breaking it down by having them share the sidewalks and subways.
Maria Baez should be ashamed of herself for sponsoring a bill that would benefit hardly any of her constituents, and penalize the vast majority of them. So should Alan Gerson for being a co-sponsor.
What is surprising is that Councilmember Baez is sponsoring a bill to provide parking permits to all teachers employed by the Department of Education. A recent Gotham Gazette article notes that this comes at a time when advocates for fairness and sustainable transportation are succeeding in reducing the number of parking permits issued to government employees. If her bill passes, it's likely that the police, firemen and every other category of government employee will want their entitlements entrenched in law.
I'm sure there are plenty of teachers living in Baez's district, but most of them probably take the excellent public transit to work. On the other hand, I'm guessing that most of the teachers who work in Baez's district are convinced that the streets and subway platforms are crawling with thugs ready to pounce on any unsuspecting middle-class person who dares show their face outside of a school or a car. And it seems that Baez herself is ready to identify with these teachers - she told the Daily News that she drove to the Congestion Pricing hearing in July, even though it's a one-seat, 40-minute ride to City Hall on the 4 train.
Sadly, parking permits for teachers would be a very bad thing for the residents of Baez's district. The streets are already crowded with too many cars, because even though it has one of the lowest car-ownership rates in the country, available parking is also low. It has one of the highest asthma rates, due mostly to its proximity to two of the busiest highways in the country, but the teachers' cars don't help anything. City resources are wasted serving the driving minority while the walking majority puts up with crumbling sidewalks and rat-infested empty lots.
The worst part about Baez's bill is that it would enshrine in law the idea that being middle-class means that you drive everywhere, that it's not safe for teachers to walk the streets of the Bronx, and that some people are too good to take the subway. It would reinforce the separation between teachers and taught instead of breaking it down by having them share the sidewalks and subways.
Maria Baez should be ashamed of herself for sponsoring a bill that would benefit hardly any of her constituents, and penalize the vast majority of them. So should Alan Gerson for being a co-sponsor.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Senator Gillibrand endorses high-speed rail
The Observer reports:
When asked about her meeting with the state leaders, Gillibrand said, "We talked a lot about the economy" and that "one area we all agreed on was that we really want high-speed rail."
She said it was unclear whether they could secure funding for it in the latest economic stimulus package coming out of Washington, but said it was pivotal. "Because if you want to get economic development in this state, and around this state, if you can have a high-speed rail straight up the 87 corridor all the way to Montreal and then straight across to Buffalo and ultimately back down in a triangle, what you’re going to do is create an economic development engine for decades."
Friday, January 23, 2009
Loading Zone Dishonesty Kills Children
You've probably heard about the horrific crash that killed two young children in Chinatown yesterday. Police are currently saying that the driver, Chao Fu, intended to double-park his van in the bike lane while he got out to make a delivery. Instead, he left the van in reverse and the wheels turned, so that after he got out it backed up onto the sidewalk and into a daisy-chain of pre-schoolers.
We already knew that double-parking was inconvenient in many ways. We also knew it was dangerous: it blocks the view of other drivers so that they can't see people and vehicles. It forces bicyclists into the main roadway, where they can be hit by speeding motorists. It can block emergency vehicles from getting down the street. Now we have a new way: double-parked vehicles are less constrained by other cars around them, so if they get out of control they can easily kill.
Last month I discussed vehicle loading zones in the context of the Grand Street cycle track controversy. The fact of the matter is that people need places to load and unload things from cars and trucks, especially in a busy commercial corridor like East Broadway. When the DOT fails to set up dedicated loading zones and underprices curbside parking, all the spots get taken up by residents and shopkeepers who feed the meters. In the past, the DOT didn't want to go up against the residents and shopkeepers, so they let people double-park for loading and unloading, leading us to the current situation where delivery drivers are given the choice between waiting hours for a free spot or breaking the law.
There were clearly other improvements that could prevent future carnage. Bollards could have helped. Increased parking enforcement could have helped - but there's no sense ticketing double-parkers without giving them a workable alternative. What East Broadway - and the rest of the city - needs is well-designed, enforced loading zones. Let's do it before more people get killed.
We already knew that double-parking was inconvenient in many ways. We also knew it was dangerous: it blocks the view of other drivers so that they can't see people and vehicles. It forces bicyclists into the main roadway, where they can be hit by speeding motorists. It can block emergency vehicles from getting down the street. Now we have a new way: double-parked vehicles are less constrained by other cars around them, so if they get out of control they can easily kill.
Last month I discussed vehicle loading zones in the context of the Grand Street cycle track controversy. The fact of the matter is that people need places to load and unload things from cars and trucks, especially in a busy commercial corridor like East Broadway. When the DOT fails to set up dedicated loading zones and underprices curbside parking, all the spots get taken up by residents and shopkeepers who feed the meters. In the past, the DOT didn't want to go up against the residents and shopkeepers, so they let people double-park for loading and unloading, leading us to the current situation where delivery drivers are given the choice between waiting hours for a free spot or breaking the law.
There were clearly other improvements that could prevent future carnage. Bollards could have helped. Increased parking enforcement could have helped - but there's no sense ticketing double-parkers without giving them a workable alternative. What East Broadway - and the rest of the city - needs is well-designed, enforced loading zones. Let's do it before more people get killed.
Subway Commuter and Light Rail Advocate Chosen for Senate
The Times is reporting that Governor Paterson has chosen Representative Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Secretary Clinton in the Senate. I've discussed Gillibrand's record before, but I think it's a good time to go over the most salient points.
Although Gillibrand's house has a Walk Score of 3, she's an hour's walk from downtown Hudson, which has a Walk Score of 86. More importantly, when she's in Washington she takes the Metro to work. She even brought her son to daycare on the train, and then got back on the Metro one stop to her office. That may have changed now that she has two sons - or it may not.
Gillibrand's commitment to transit and rail may not go very deep: the Ethan Allen Express, one of the two trains a day that run through the northern part of her district, is threatened by Vermont budget cuts. Last week over 200 people rallied in Rutland (which by Vermont standards counts as a mass demonstration), but no one from the New York section of the route was to be seen. There is no indication that Gillibrand has even noticed that part of her district could lose half its train service.
As I wrote before, Gillibrand has called for light rail in the Capital District, but deferred to the Governor for action. Did this come up in any of their conversations? It would be a really good thing for that area, but if Gillibrand's transit advocacy is limited to campaign promises with no follow-up, this could be a big disappointment for New York.
It'd be interesting to hear from advocates for transit and livable streets in Gillibrand's district. One well-known critic of "Happy Motoring," James Howard Kunstler, has so far been silent on Gillibrand and any of his elected officials. Incidentally, his house has a Walk Score of 0. WTF JHK?
Although Gillibrand's house has a Walk Score of 3, she's an hour's walk from downtown Hudson, which has a Walk Score of 86. More importantly, when she's in Washington she takes the Metro to work. She even brought her son to daycare on the train, and then got back on the Metro one stop to her office. That may have changed now that she has two sons - or it may not.
Gillibrand's commitment to transit and rail may not go very deep: the Ethan Allen Express, one of the two trains a day that run through the northern part of her district, is threatened by Vermont budget cuts. Last week over 200 people rallied in Rutland (which by Vermont standards counts as a mass demonstration), but no one from the New York section of the route was to be seen. There is no indication that Gillibrand has even noticed that part of her district could lose half its train service.
As I wrote before, Gillibrand has called for light rail in the Capital District, but deferred to the Governor for action. Did this come up in any of their conversations? It would be a really good thing for that area, but if Gillibrand's transit advocacy is limited to campaign promises with no follow-up, this could be a big disappointment for New York.
It'd be interesting to hear from advocates for transit and livable streets in Gillibrand's district. One well-known critic of "Happy Motoring," James Howard Kunstler, has so far been silent on Gillibrand and any of his elected officials. Incidentally, his house has a Walk Score of 0. WTF JHK?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Austin's Sidewalk Master Plan
The technical aspect of this just really impresses me. We've got pretty good sidewalks within the New York City limits, but I'd like to see one of these plans for Nassau.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)