2 articles on planning for rail

Article 1

Why not rail? | Planetizen

Why not rail?
Diana DeRubertis
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 13:03

When faced with the costs and logistics of rail, planners and city officials increasingly seem to favor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a trend likely to continue through the current recession. But even with the many persuasive arguments for BRT, the nagging question remains: why not rail?

To be successful, a rapid transit system needs to be comprehensive. Either a city is going to invest in comprehensive BRT (like Brisbane or Bogota), a comprehensive rail network (like Toronto, New York, or European metropolitan rail systems), or a mix of rail and BRT. The halfway approach doesn’t do the job.

The limited experiments with BRT in the United States have so far amounted to “light rail lite”: single corridor bus lines that attempt to mimic light rail. Transportation experts Alan Hoffman and Alasdair Cain argue that significant infrastructure investments — in the form of separated guideways called ‘Quickways’ — are needed before American cities can achieve the ridership and efficiency of the world’s best BRT.

Similarly, light rail ridership suffers because established networks do not yet cover enough ground. In southern California, the Los Angeles Metro and the San Diego Trolley do not reach most residential neighborhoods, tourist destinations or satellite cities, let alone suburban job centers. (The good news is that these systems are expanding, albeit slowly). Rail stops can also be located in disconnected, unwalkable areas.

If a city is serious about mass transit, it will require substantial capital and a fairly bold vision to implement either BRT or rail (light rail or the uber-expensive heavy rail subway). The most persuasive argument for Bus Rapid Transit is that it can be established more quickly and at lower cost. BRT can also use existing automobile infrastructure like wide roads and freeways. Furthermore, because buses are more flexible than fixed rail, they can leave the busway to access out-of-the way housing developments and office parks. In other words, BRT better serves sprawl, which after all is what shapes most American metropolitan areas.

Still, for riders, skepticism about BRT persists. Will it be as sleek and comfortable as a train? Can one read on a bus, even a modern one? Is the experience a vast improvement over a bumpy city bus? Will it be slowed by car traffic? Given the infrastructure required for true BRT, why not simply pursue rail? Elevated busways can look a lot like freeways – how will they affect neighborhoods?

If a modern rail system seems impossible, Toronto presents a good case for investment in higher quality rail, even if that means diverting funds from other modes (i.e., roads and highways). The city opened its first subway in 1954, added two more lines, integrated subways with retained streetcar lines, and more recently supplemented with above-ground light rail. It is not a coincidence that subways were expanded as several freeway projects were canceled.

So, transit riders and planners, for your city would you choose rail, BRT or a combination of both?
Diana DeRubertis is an environmental writer focusing on the urban planning field.

Article 2

What’s the Problem With a National Infrastructure Bank? Capitalism (And Politics) » INFRASTRUCTURIST

What’s the Problem With a National Infrastructure Bank? Capitalism (And Politics)

Posted on Monday February 8th by Melissa Lafsky | 330
The idea of a National Infrastructure Bank has plenty going for it: It could streamline and facilitate necessary projects, secure credit at low rates, and help leverage private funds to create the long-term investment that’s needed to see big projects through to completion.

Still, the concept isn’t without its problems. And the biggest problem, in fact, is right there in the name: Bank. If it’s a bank, then it needs to generate revenue, and therefore make investments that repay themselves. And of course, not all infrastructure projects worth funding are ones that will be rolling in profits. Ken Orski sums up the issue thusly:

[A]s [a recent]press conference and most NIB proposals have urged, the Bank would fund a broad range of public infrastructure projects, some of which, such as schools, public housing and mass transit facilities do not generate a revenue stream that could be used to repay the bank loans. Hence, the NIB would require periodic federal appropriations to cover grants for non-revenue producing projects. And indeed, in its FY 2011 budget request, the White House proposed to launch the bank with a small $4 billion appropriation. Of that amount, $2.2 billion would be for grants, which prompted one former member of the National Infrastructure Financing Commission to observe, that “institutions that give away money without requiring repayment are properly called ‘foundations’ not ‘banks.’” That could be the reason why the White House renamed the NIB in its FY 2011 budget request as the “National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund” (NIIFF) — a clumsy but more accurate designation.

So basically what we’re talking about is a federal organization that injects large amounts of capital on an as-yet-to-be-determined basis, while still trying to convince investors that their money will be reserved for projects that could turn a profit. As Pa. Gov. Ed Rendell told us in a recent interview, there could be safeguards written into the legislation creating the bank to avoid a Fannie/Freddie repeat, and care could be taken with the type of people appointed to it — I.E. make sure every appointee has substantial experience in infrastructure development, such as state secretaries or former DOT employees. Still, the plan leaves plenty in the air as to how and whether necessary but non-profitable projects will be financed.
DiggSubmit

Then there’s the small matter of political power. As Orski puts it:

What is the likelihood that Congress would be willing to turn the power of decision over large-scale capital projects to a bureaucratic organization lodged in the Executive Branch? Probably not very great. Many lawmakers, including the powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), believe that Congress must not abdicate its authority to decide how public capital should be spent. As one Senate aide remarked to us, one cannot “depoliticize” the project selection process, as NIB advocates would urge, because major public infrastructure investment decisions are inherently and fundamentally political in nature.

In other words, as it does with so many potentially good ideas, can Congress kill the National Infrastructure Bank even before it’s born?