^ At least their Republican governor is actually talking about public transit

 

Hogan only doing this as a defense posture following wide Baltimore-area condemnation after scuttling 10 years, and $200M+ in planning and spending for the Red Line LRT subway/surface plan that had won federal approval.  Trust me, if John Kasich was Maryland guv, he'd have done the same thing.  Like most Republican govs these days, Big John has a major transit kill on his mantlepiece: the 3-C's Amtrak rail plan that had won federal approval (money which is now funding Cali's very-worthy HSR development.  These Republicans are absolutely horrible on urban and transit initiatives... I'll give Hogan this much: it took some serious gonads to punk a major transit initiative like the Red Line in Baltimore which is THE metropolitan city in a considerably state smaller-than-Ohio ... unlike in Ohio where Cleveland is only one of 3 major state metro areas and is in the far northern corner and generally irrelevant to downstaters like Kasich.

 

I know, I know. Was more a tongue in cheek comment.

Hogan only doing this as a defense posture following wide Baltimore-area condemnation after scuttling 10 years, and $200M+ in planning and spending for the Red Line LRT subway/surface plan that had won federal approval.  Trust me, if John Kasich was Maryland guv, he'd have done the same thing.  Like most Republican govs these days, Big John has a major transit kill on his mantlepiece: the 3-C's Amtrak rail plan that had won federal approval (money which is now funding Cali's very-worthy HSR development.  These Republicans are absolutely horrible on urban and transit initiatives... I'll give Hogan this much: it took some serious gonads to punk a major transit initiative like the Red Line in Baltimore which is THE metropolitan city in a considerably state smaller-than-Ohio ... unlike in Ohio where Cleveland is only one of 3 major state metro areas and is in the far northern corner and generally irrelevant to downstaters like Kasich.

 

Kasich has three "kills" on his mantle: 3C, the Uptown extension of the Cincy Streetcar (his TRAC ignored Strickland's TRAC project review criteria that rated the streetcar extension the highest-scoring project in the state), and Florida Overland Express (FOX). An airline (don't remember which one), complained that FOX, which would have built a TGV-type system linking Tampa, Orlando and Miami, would have wrecked one of its best markets. In the late 1990s, FOX needed a federal loan for the project, so the airline went to Kasich who was then chairman of the House Budget Committee and got him to kill the loan. Another effort to fund high-speed rail in Florida was attempted five years later and the legislature had approved funding for it, only to have Jeb Bush veto it. And in 2010 another attempt at high-speed rail in Florida was thwarted when Gov. Scott returned $2.4 billion in federal funds. Yet All Aboard Florida is moving forward, including using $200 million in state funds for a rail terminal at Orlando Airport. So did Tri-Rail (West Palm-Miami) on a route the state bought from CSX in the 1990s. So did Sun Rail, using local, state and federal funds to develop regional rail in Central Florida/Orlando.

^ At least their Republican governor is actually talking about public transit

 

Hogan only doing this as a defense posture following wide Baltimore-area condemnation after scuttling 10 years, and $200M+ in planning and spending for the Red Line LRT subway/surface plan that had won federal approval.  Trust me, if John Kasich was Maryland guv, he'd have done the same thing.  Like most Republican govs these days, Big John has a major transit kill on his mantlepiece: the 3-C's Amtrak rail plan that had won federal approval (money which is now funding Cali's very-worthy HSR development.  These Republicans are absolutely horrible on urban and transit initiatives... I'll give Hogan this much: it took some serious gonads to punk a major transit initiative like the Red Line in Baltimore which is THE metropolitan city in a considerably state smaller-than-Ohio ... unlike in Ohio where Cleveland is only one of 3 major state metro areas and is in the far northern corner and generally irrelevant to downstaters like Kasich.

 

I know, I know. Was more a tongue in cheek comment.

 

Gotcha...

Hogan's torpedoing the Red Line was very painful, but I'll at least give Baltimoreans credit for getting the bat off their collective shoulders and taking a cut at the ball... They had a federal green-lighted rail project that was shovel ready... Unfortunately they didn't finish the job in that they stayed home in record numbers for last year's gubernatorial election, so they let a Republican slip in (that's how Republicans win in urban areas) and it ended up costing the locals bigtime... So really they only have themselves to blame...

 

Here in Cleveland, we can talk about lack of a budget to support day-to-day operations as the excuse du jour, but the fact is, Cleveland never even gets rail extension up for federal consideration ... at least, not for the last 50 years.  Our "ideas" for rail expansion always die when officials lapse into their usual paralysis-by-analysis mode.  So nothing concrete even gets to the feds... Baltimore at least has us beat in this light.

TN transit officials outlined a few routes for potential light rail service to serve an ever-growing Nashville

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2015/10/officials-heres-where-nashville-could-build-light.html

I didn't realize that Seattle had so many streetcar extensions already planned. Should compliment their Link Light Rail, BRT, and commuter rail lines nicely.

 

Those will be the longest new streetcar lines in the U.S. if they are built. 

 

Meanwhile, the tunnel boring machines continue to dig what will be a tunnel that is around 7-8 miles long from DT Seattle up to the Northgate neighborhood.  The Capitol Hill streetcar line was designed and built to "make up" for Sound Transit nixing a Capitol Hill light rail station.  That single station was estimated to cost something like $200 million because of the difficult conditions.  So they were able to build that entire streetcar line for about the same cost of that single station.   

I'm going to buck the popular trend of West Coast boomtowns and say Seattle is making a mistake investing exclusively in light rail. The Central and Capitol Hill lines should be heavy rail, not light rail. Seattle is not Portland, which is still mostly a low population density city. Population density in Seattle is already near Oakland's level, and there is certainly a contiguous string of dense urban core neighborhoods all exploding in population that can support heavy rail.

 

Considering the incredible growth of Seattle's core and its existing density, light rail will be strained. They need to take some cues from the Bay and LA, and look at key corridors where heavy rail makes the most sense while having light rail on secondary corridors. I've long suspected they're using Portland too much as a model, and I think it's short-sighted. Seattle is growing much bigger, much denser, and has the second-strongest economy in the nation after San Francisco. I don't think there is any limit to the population growth potential in Seattle, while Portland's less stable economy could lead to a slowdown after all the SFO/OAK transplants stop moving in. Light rail may work in today's Seattle, but ten years from now? Seattle could be well over a million people at an overall density of 10,000 people per square mile as quickly as the 2030 census. Once you get that big with that kind of density, the capacity limitations of light rail become apparent. And I could easily see the metro area ballooning to six million people. People may forget Vancouver and Portland even exist...

 

*If Seattle is not careful, it could end up with the Pacific Northwest version of SF Muni Metro...an underbuilt system with no room for population growth.

The light rail system they're building has 400-foot platforms, which is double what Portland has.  So these are much bigger trains, although not the 600-foot heavy rail trains in Washington, DC or the 700-foot BART trains.

 

Also the line north from downtown that is currently under construction will be completely grade-separated for 10 miles or more with long 1-2 mile runs between some stations.  Unfortunately Seattle's unusual layout means major engineering work is necessary to build a line in almost any direction.  When per-mile costs are driven so high, it decreases the potential reach of the system.     

^Good point about the 400-foot trains. That will make a huge difference compared to the other featherweight light rail systems being built around the country right now. Any idea on crush load capacity at rush hour?

 

Grade seperation is key, and I think all political willpower should push for it on as many lines as possible. Seattle's traffic is getting biblical- not California level, but it's getting there...

 

*Also, I'd rather see service beefed up in dense core neighborhoods while axing some of these far flung stations. One mistake seen all over the West Coast is not building enough transit at the urban core while spending tons of money to build lines out to suburban areas. Of course this is because so much sprawl already exists, but when funding is limited, I'd rather see it spent closer to downtown. I know suburban commuters push hard for these long rail extensions, but it lowers the financial viability of the system. :|

 

**Seattle's layout is unusual, but no more troublesome than the Bay. I've always looked at it as a smaller Bay Area, and I'm worried they're making the same mistakes spending so much money to service suburban commuters while not beefing up enough at the core.

 

I've seen some projections that put downtown Seattle at up to 300,000 workers within a decade (though this assumes a stronger shift of venture capital to Seattle). That's nearly the size of present-day downtown San Francisco. Even if it doesn't reach such SF heights, the downtown is going to explode. The push of Gen Y is there in spades. If Seattle is smart, they will build as much transit-oriented housing as possible near downtown for these workers. They already have high transit ridership to downtown, so I think the political support is there. I also sense a lot of the leftist NIMBYism is waning. Seattle is quite a bit more progressive than the Bay and even Portland.

A 2-track line can't both be local and express.  No city *in the world* has built a 4-track express line since NYC in the 1930s.  Even the new Second Ave. line is a 2-track local line (despite having been planned as a 4-track line in the 1920s).  The 4-track Market St. subway in DT San Francisco is perhaps the only 4-track subway of any length built since WWII anywhere in the world, and of course those tracks are split between two completely separate and incompatible services. 

 

Part of the problem with new start systems is that if they accept state money, there is automatically pressure to build out to suburbs in neighboring counties, even if those counties don't opt-in to a multi-county system like BART or DART.  Getting to those outlying areas sucks up a lot of capital dollars that could otherwise build more or better routes in the area of the metro where people are more likely to walk to and from the stations. 

 

In Cincinnati we have had some conversations about this exact strategy.  Currently the city pays for all buses in the county (yes, it's an insane situation) through a city earnings tax.  If that cost can be shifted to the county, then the city could in theory replace the current .3% earnings tax for the bus system with a .3% tax that supports extra bus service in the city and rail transit.  Combined with federal grants the streetcar system could be expanded and the old subway brought to life.   

 

 

 

 

 

...I'm just impressed George Benson has his own streetcar!

 

Like Jake said, since Seattle's light rail will be almost entirely grade-separated, I don't think it really matters that it's not heavy rail. In downtown, it uses the shared light rail and bus tunnel, and they plan to remove bus routes (moving them to the surface streets) as light rail service increases. So there is plenty of capacity for adding more frequency. Additionally, the Center City Connector portion of the streetcar will have dedicated transit lanes. On top of that, they're building a huge number of BRT and express bus routes, some of which could be converted to light rail or streetcar in the future if capacity becomes an issue.

 

 

A lot of the express buses in the tunnel come over the I-90 floating bridge on HOV/bus lanes from Mercer Island and Everett.  The HOV lanes are going to become light rail tracks.  Some buses might still use those lanes with the tracks in them, but I assume that they will no longer be HOV lanes and so cars won't use them mixed with trains. 

 

That said, I echo c-dawg's thought that all of this focus on getting light rail to distant suburbs (including neighboring Tacoma, south of SEATAC) comes at the expense of building subway lines in the city proper, namely the core city neighborhoods between the sound and Lake Washington.  But therein again lies the problem in forming multi-county transit agencies that also accept state money.  The transit system must serve many masters, to the detriment of many core city neighborhoods. 

 

But the counter-argument is that if a real subway network were built in only a confined 5-mile radius of a downtown, it would tend to attract the wealthy even more intensely and push the poor out.  For example, if a subway were built in Nashville following the now-dead AMP BRT route, hardly any old bus riders would be living in the corridor in 10 years as the whole place came to be lined by midrise condos. 

 

 

 

But the counter-argument is that if a real subway network were built in only a confined 5-mile radius of a downtown, it would tend to attract the wealthy even more intensely and push the poor out

 

That's exactly what happened in San Francisco and Oakland (the poor, middle class, and upper middle class getting displaced around every urban station). But I don't think it was BART as much as it was Google busses that offered parallel service along BART lines that led to this rental crisis. Median rents follow Google bus routes much more closely than they follow BART lines. Mass transit is for the middle class, not the 1%. Toronto and Montreal both built extensive subway systems concentrating service mostly in urban core neighborhoods while neglecting most of the suburban areas. Canada did their transit systems right, and it's only today that they're seriously talking about suburban expansions, with a huge focus on dense TOD. Both Toronto and Montreal have far more class diversity than anywhere in San Francisco and Oakland.

 

If anything, the evidence is clear that suburban-focused systems like BART lead to far more intense evictions and rent hikes at the urban core. By focusing so much on suburban areas, it limits the number of neighborhoods young people want to move to in the urban core. It also creates "transit ghettos" or "transit deserts" like deep East Oakland where poverty and crime concentrates because neighborhoods are undesirable. Then the hipsters go to those neighborhoods to buy coke and get shot. Few native Oaklanders feel bad for them, but it's not remotely what a healthy city should look like, no matter how radical or leftist or obsessed with Burning Man. "Oh man, East Oakland is nothing like the Playa!"

 

This map makes me fear Seattle is creating its own Bay Area rental crisis by not fully understanding the generational shift underway. All West Coast cities still seem to believe suburbs are viable ("once those kids grow up and have kids, they'll leave the city!"). There is zero evidence this is the case. And what if Gen Y never has kids? I'm getting into my 30's and I don't know a single person with a kid (and can't imagine anyone I know getting married or having kids in the future, and I go months between baby sightings). What I'm seeing is none of my friends leave the city voluntarily. Everyone wants to live in the city unless they have a couple of dogs. Then they get rid of those dogs and try to move back to the city. Seattle has a clear warning signal in San Francisco and Oakland with an example of how not to build a mass transit system. They'd be dumb to ignore what spending so much money on low density stations creates...

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-gentrification-in-san-francisco-by-childlesstech-workers-2014-1#ixzz2yVjnX7yQ

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-google-bus-stop-evictions-2014-4

http://www.wired.com/2013/09/mapping-silicon-valleys-corporate-shuttle-problem/

 

Truly wealthy people don't take public transit if they have other options. Pretty much all of the Bay's 1% is private transport or corporate shuttles (except for governor Jerry Brown who randomly rides BART sometimes). You rarely see them on BART. Seattle has similar corporate shuttles and private luxury transport, and I think that's where you'll find the wealthiest riders. This proposal looks like a light rail version of BART, and that is a scary prospect...Seattle is where people move for cheap rents.

 

When looking at class and racial stratification, Seattle is already a less intense version of the Bay. I can see it getting much, much worse as more Amazon and Microsoft busses fill in the transit holes...there really is a mini Bay Area situation up there, and the same ugly, class-driven politics could take over. The relationship between these two markets is very tight and Seattle already has a "Go Back to the Bay!" movement. People from San Francisco and Oakland are moving up there after they get evicted or lose rent control, displacing Seattle residents. So in a weird way, the Bay's underbuilt environment is already leading to serious class issues in Seattle. Keep in mind a poor person in the Bay who can't even afford a kale juice cleanse could be the richest person on the block in Seattle or Portland. And you can be damn sure they're focusing on neighborhoods with mass transit. This is bigger than Seattle. The reason we're seeing evictions and rent hikes in any neighborhood in America with mass transit is because there is so little mass transit in America.

 

*And what does that say about the country? We made our cities so undesirable that as soon as any sort of half-assed transit system is built, people flood back? It's our fault for letting transit get so bad in the United States in the first place. Of course more people want to live in areas with mass transit, and that will lead to housing competition. As long as adequate housing is built, it's not that big of an issue. And we've seen that without mass transit, private transport will step into the market. Now that is only for rich people...so are cars.

 

**The issue you bring up can happen anywhere. In ten years, you'll see mass evictions in Cincinnati and Detroit as neighborhoods along the streetcars fill up. The reason? There is hardly any transit in Detroit and Cincinnati...

 

That's motivation to double-down and build a five-line radial system in Detroit and a two or three-line system in Cincinnati's core. Urban demand is insatiable on the West Coast, and will spread to all other American markets. This is at least a two-generation trend (Gen Y and Gen Z). There isn't a limit to this until the declining birth rate leads to national population decline. We've got at least 20 years of explosive urban growth ahead of us.

 

The reason Ohio is not seeing as much urban pressure or widespread gentrification is because so many in Gen Y left. With proper transit, they're far more likely to stick around...

 

***The beauty of the Rust Belt is that by showing up to the party late and six beers deep, it can look at the hot West Coast millennial markets to learn about what kind of mistakes they made. History does not have to repeat itself in the Rust Belt. The historic community focus and less classist political sphere in the major Rust Belt cities could lead to a type of gentrification that includes multiple classes and multiple races of people.

Well Buffalo certainly hasn't seen a land rush along its subway line, which has now been in service for about 35 years.  But that's much more a reflection on the miserable fortunes of that city combined with typical suburbanization enabled by a typical interstate highway layout.  Similarly Pittsburgh has not experienced a bonanza in the south hills along the "T" despite it leading to a very convenient subway under DT Pittsburgh.  Again, that reflects Pittsburgh's overall mediocrity over the past 40-50 years and the fact that there aren't many major employers or other reasons to live in that area.  If the exact same system had been built due east beneath Oakland, it would be very busy and would have propelled land values. 

 

^Give Buffalo and Pittsburgh ten years. They've only recently attracted young people in mass, but I bet data will show areas near the light rail stations have seen rent spikes and property value growth post-recession. Up until recently, Buffalo and Pittsburgh were all just marketing hype similar to the "Cleveland Renaissance" of the 90's or the Toledo "Riverfront Revival" of the 80's. Rust Belt cities are notorious for jumping the gun when stating their "recovery." Cleveland lost 80,000 more people since its "recovery". Toledo lost 50,000 more people since its "recovery". The exact same thing happened in Buffalo and Pittsburgh, but they were even more shameless with their hype. The drain of young people and high-paying jobs continued in those cities just like it did in Toledo and Cleveland, but for some reason the New York Times was doing puff pieces on them. When it comes to being guilty of hype and misleading marketing, no cities are worse than Pittsburgh and Buffalo (though they are fantastic cities). They tried to throw themselves in with actual millennial boomtowns like Portland and Seattle. It was crazy...but it put them on the map. The fact they have some light rail will ensure growth in the future.

 

Detroit was the only Rust Belt city that was actually realistic and didn't succumb to marketing hype prematurely. It was all doom and gloom up until a few years ago. That's part of the reason it's so popular now. There are all the those "Move to Detroit" billboards in Brooklyn right now because hipsters fetishize authentic culture. Detroit has it.

 

Cincinnati is fascinating because we don't hear anything about it, yet its housing stock is so cheap and so awesome (better and cheaper than Pittsburgh). It completely flies under the radar. I have yet to see any marketing ads in California about Cincinnati. I see stuff on Detroit and Pittsburgh all the time. :|

 

The population boom in Pittsburgh and Buffalo won't hit any sooner than it will in Cincinnati and Detroit, but it's coming. If Louisville can boom (no offense to Louisville), certainly Cincinnati can boom (and it will boom most within a mile of that streetcar). In other words, now is the time to invest in passive income generating housing in Cincinnati. Any deals left near that streetcar will be gone soon...I'm trying to save up money fast and get an investment property there before the big housing spike. As soon as Cincinnati is "cool," it's too late for middle class investors. I've learned this the hard way with Portland and Seattle. I'm permanently priced out of Portland and Seattle property now since all my damn trust fund neighbors in the Bay keep overbidding and paying all-cash for property up there. Now I've looked to the Rust Belt, and am seeing early signs of a Portland transformation.

 

*I actually think Cincinnati has the most potential for growth of any Rust Belt city because its historic housing is a remarkable deal on bang-for-buck, and its local economy is "strong" by Ohio standards. Historic housing is Cincinnati's ace in the bag, and it's arguably on the architectural level of much larger and more cosmopolitan cities like Chicago. There is a large corporate base in Cincinnati too that could transition to Gen Y markets with new products. Cincinnati is a blue blood, old school business market like all Rust Belt cities, but with the right marketing, companies like P&G could survive the organic and locally-grown movement. Fifth Third could be screwed though like many regional banks (many big banks will be in trouble too), and beloved American icon Macy's is sadly as good as dead too. Lots of Macy's layoffs are coming soon. It sucks, but it's the reality of losing the youth market. Kroger is as good as dead too as much higher-end brick and mortar and grocery delivery takes over. Actually, Cincinnati is probably going to be knee-deep in economic doodoo. It's a 20th century economy there.

 

But even if Cincinnati experiences a Detroit-level economic collapse due to it being a town of aging brands not transitioning to the next generation of consumers very well...it won't matter...it won't matter at all. Jobs are going to become less of a thing in the future as America turns into a contracting economy. In ten years, college students will consider full-time jobs passe.

 

Portland and Oakland prove you don't need a lot of high-paying jobs to have a population boom. How many Portland or Oakland 20-somethings work in traditional jobs? You just need to be considered cool and have the right urban environment to become a boomtown for young people. With streetcars, could Cincinnati be the next Portland? Yes, absolutely. I think without a doubt Cincinnati will turn into the Midwestern version of Portland, even moreso than Pittsburgh does.

 

Seattle is a different story since it's a globally-dominant economic powerhouse. It's a first tier economic power masquerading as a second tier city. Look at the TOD in Seattle, but don't look at the venture capital-driven economic development since the Midwest lacks this money.

 

**The takeaway is that a lot of urban trends seen in light rail cities of the Pacific Northwest like Seattle and Portland foretell the future of cities like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc. I see a lot of Portland (before it boomed) in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. The goal is to be ahead of this curve instead of behind it, or you end up financially screwed in the long run like myself. :wink:

 

Cities that invest in rail transit are only going to get hotter...again, I don't think this is a short trend, and what happened in Buffalo and Pittsburgh (and Cleveland) was far from the norm. Like any rule, there will be exceptions. Maybe not 100% of cities that invest in mass transit will see growth, but 90% will. The extreme ghetto collapse of Buffalo and Pittsburgh may look "normal" in the Rust Belt, but it is not the national or global norm by any means. Cities rarely shrink that fast barring war or natural disaster. The collapse of the steel industry did something that even a hurricane or earthquake can't do! Only a handful of cities in modern history have lost that many jobs and that many people (both are less than half the size they used to be and are much poorer today). As younger generations rediscover urban American, they'll come back.

 

American suburbia was an historic aberration in how humans have lived. I guess mass transit is a modern invention too, but it leads to servicing dense pedestrian nodes more in line with how we always lived in the past.

There aren't any deals left on or within about 5 blocks of the streetcar line.  Here is a 3-family about 5 blocks away:

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1473530/459-Dayton-St-City-OH-45214

 

Here's an example of the crap people are trying to pull in OTR these days:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1470333/12-Green-St-City-OH-45202

 

You won't see a return for 10 years on this thing at this price since it's going to take $500k more to get it rentable.  Many of these buildings are in *much* worse condition than they look. 

 

 

 

^That first one looks like a steal, though the second one should be cheaper given its condition. I think it should be closer to 200k. It is unfortunate how bad so many buildings have gotten in Over-the-Rhine. You're right they will need serious renovation money to get up to code.

 

West Oakland probably has ten times the overall crime rate of Over-the-Rhine, and it has far fewer amenities. This link is an example of what 600k (starting bid) will get you for a standard 1300-square foot OAK duplex within walking distance of BART. It will probably sell for $1,000,000 next year after the bid war (assuming the standard 30-40% over asking price offers on Bay Area housing). The owner is likely refusing offers and messing with prices until the spring rush. I bet they'll cut this down to 575k before they can get an eviction, and then hold an open house in April getting 20 offers. My guess is they're waiting to kick out existing tenants (existing tenants greatly reduce sale prices). Duplexes in Oakland are not covered by rent control like larger historic buildings are, so income potential is unlimited, but it still takes time to evict and people in West Oakland don't leave without a fight. $1,000 per square foot is becoming standard for vacant properties in useable condition with copper in Oakland (double these numbers for San Francisco city). You can occasionally see prices as low as $500 per square foot, but there is always a reason for it (neighbor is a coke dealer, gang nearby, long, sketchy walk from BART, etc.). People regularly get robbed, assaulted, stabbed, shot, raped, and killed in this area. Public schools are abysmal compared to any big city district in Ohio (but people with kids aren't the market here). This is a prime spot to market to millennial Burners since all the big Burning Man studio spaces are near here. Just look at the crime stats over the last few days within walking distance in this extremely low density area of Oakland. Almost all of West Oakland is dumpy Victorians like this with little to no police service. These sold for 1/3 the price five years ago:

 

http://www.trulia.com/property/3212951854-542-Henry-St-Oakland-CA-94607#photo-24

 

The median sales price for homes in South Prescott for Aug 15 to Nov 15 was $1,045,000. This represents an increase of 145.9%, or $620,000, compared to the prior quarter and an increase of 163.9% compared to the prior year. Sales prices have appreciated 216.7% over the last 5 years in South Prescott, Oakland.  The median sales price of $1,045,000 for South Prescott is 90.35% higher than the median sales price for Oakland CA. Average price per square foot for homes in South Prescott was $949 in the most recent quarter, which is 110.89% higher than the average price per square foot for homes in Oakland.

 

What I'd do to go back in time and have the money to buy one of these places in West Oakland...this is historically one of the highest crime neighborhoods in the United States, and the sky is the limit on its housing prices. The only area of Oakland markedly more dangerous than West Oakland is deep East Oakland, which is quite a bit cheaper since it has worse transit service (East Oakland's prices are what's driving down the median). The trend I'm seeing is that anything within walking distance of mass transit appreciates much more quickly than properties beyond the 1-mile radius. Most of East Oakland is not within a mile of BART, which is why it isn't experiencing the same level of gentrification. By building so much transit in the suburbs, the Bay forced a level of gentrification in San Francisco and Oakland that has never been seen before in the United States. Sure, Brooklyn had some dicey areas back in the 80's, but it was nothing compared to coke-importing, gang-banging West Oakland. Five years ago, nobody was predicting this level of gentrification would be seen in West Oakland since the crime was getting worse, not better. It didn't matter. It had BART access and Google busses, so millennials flooded the market.

 

Now parts of Portland and Seattle are seeing the same thing, with refugees from Oakland and San Francisco working remotely up there. The mistake of building so much transit in suburban areas is that it forces a level of gentrification around existing urban stations that is ruthless to the point that no one but the 1% can live there. The reason you're not seeing people in New York City rioting in the streets like in Oakland is because they still have tons of neighborhoods with transit access for young people. Brooklyn isn't even half gentrified, and Queens and the Bronx are a hell of a deal. That's to say nothing of hella cheap Newark (the Oakland of the East Coast). New York City focussed its transit on urban areas before anywhere else. It will always have an urban middle class because of this. What's left of Oakland's middle class is going to all end up in Sacramento, Stockton, LA, or the Pacific Northwest. I used to think this problem was localized to the Bay, but after seeing recent trends in Seattle and Portland, I know that's not the case anymore. As a nation, we're grossly underestimating urban demand. We're still trying to prop up the suburbs even though the market for suburbia is shrinking.

 

OTR is expensive by Ohio standards, but still a steal by national standards. That second building needs a lot of work, but it has a lot of potential to make its investor some solid income. Is anything above $1,000 per square foot in Cincinnati within proximity of the streetcar?

 

Are investors in Cincinnati already driving up prices on buildings within walking distance of the streetcar route? I hope it's not too late...

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1470333/12-Green-St-City-OH-45202

 

Still, I really like this second building you posted. $300k for 6,000 square feet in a safe neighborhood in Cincinnati is a much better deal than $600k for 1300 square feet in a dangerous neighborhood in Oakland. Plus with that Cincinnati building, you've got real potential for retail on the first floor. There is little to no existing potential for retail in West Oakland due to crime and low population density.

 

*I really do want to learn more about Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine development. I've just got this feeling about it...I'm old enough to remember its ghetto days, but even then, I remember being floored by the architecture.

These buildings often have very advanced structural issues.  Many were vacant and had roof leaks for more than 20 years so the joists are rotted out and there are freeze/thaw cracks in the basements and up the sides of the exterior.  So after $100k in this sort of work,  they need all-new plumbing connections to water and sewer.  They need utility hookups for each planned unit.  So for a 3,000-5,000+ sq foot multi-family you're going to need a new roof ($20-40k), 30-50 new windows ($20k-50k), 2-6 new kitchens ($20k each),  2-6 furnaces, 2-6 hot water heaters, 2-6 washers/dryers, 2-6 AC units, and 4-12 bathrooms at $10k-20k each.  Painting the exterior costs over $10k. 

 

What people don't get about OTR is that there were very few single families or even duplexes.  Almost every building was at least four units, with most 8-12 units.  Renovating all 12 units of a 12 unit building is horrendously expensive for a first-time rehabber.  It will easily be the first and last project you undertake, and it could easily set back your personal finances and retirement planning by a decade. 

 

I giggled a bit looking at that Oakland listing.  What a dump! Looks like a student rental! That sort of place *maybe* commands $85k in Cincinnati.  The train noise is probably pretty annoying, although the "futuristic" BART train is now retro-cool, maybe.  The interiors look okay in the photo, but those floors probably aren't level. 

Partners primed for coming Lone Tree light rail extension

Work to begin in spring on project that could change face of south metro area

By Joe Rubino

YourHub Reporter

POSTED:  11/25/2015 08:44:42 AM MST6 COMMENTS|

 

Mayor Jim Gunning is excited about the Southeast Rail Extension expected to break ground in Lone Tree this spring.

 

He spoke passionately about what the three-stop extension of the Regional Transportation District's light-rail system will mean to the entire south metro region at a local realtor summit this summer.

 

..."It's going to be like a new Colorado gold rush on the east side of the highway. That's kind of how I feel about it," Gunning said. "We're going to have an opportunity there that I think could end up as sort of a national model for what transit-oriented development can look like when you start it from the ground up."

 

...For Gunning, the greatest promise the project brings is that of making Lone Tree more attractive to top-tier employers. He said Charles Schwab and Kaiser Permanente both cited proximity to light rail as part of the reason they opened large campuses there.

 

"We're incredibly excited about it," Brian McDonald, a Schwab senior vice president said of the extension project, noting the Sky Ridge stop will be closer to the company's now year-old Lone Tree campus. "For us, it's about putting ourselves in a place where we give our employees access to great public transportation solutions, light rail being the most popular of those. I think it's going to serve the community incredibly well, not only bringing in employees but also visitors."

 

MORE:

http://www.denverpost.com/dougco/ci_29161718/partners-primed-coming-lone-tree-light-rail-extension

DC's streetcar story is really an amazing saga (amazing in a bad way). It's too bad that the project has been so botched as the political appetite for expanding it into a comprehensive system has been dwindling. It has also become a poster child for the conservative think tanks in DC as to why building streetcars is a waste of money

 

 

How D.C. spent $200 million over a decade on a streetcar you still can’t ride

 

By Michael Laris December 5

 

The District is spending three or four times what other cities have to build a maintenance facility for its fledging streetcar system, a reflection of the flawed planning and execution that have dragged down the transit start-up for more than a decade.

 

The “Car Barn” project was originally designed as a simple garage and rail yard for light repairs and storage, with some offices for staff. But it has ballooned in ambition and nearly tripled in cost — to $48.8 million. It will now include a number of pricey and unusual features, including grass tracks for parking the fleet of six streetcars and a cistern for washing them with rainwater.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/how-dc-spent-200-million-over-a-decade-on-a-streetcar-you-still-cant-ride/2015/12/05/3c8a51c6-8d48-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html

I'm surprised DC is investing in a streetcar when the existing heavy rail system is so great. Is this mostly along the same route as Washington Metro or does it serve areas the metro rail doesn't hit?

I'm surprised DC is investing in a streetcar when the existing heavy rail system is so great. Is this mostly along the same route as Washington Metro or does it serve areas the metro rail doesn't hit?

 

That's right. The streetcar will run down H St, NE and Benning Ave, NE, an area that does not have very good Metro access. I drew a red line on the map below to indicate the route of the streetcar and put red circles around the three closest Metro stations. I'll be curious to see what ridership is like after it finally opens (if it ever does!). It very much looks like a stub of a system right now, and I don't think it makes sense until it becomes part of a larger network that would extend down K St all the way to Georgetown. The connectivity to Union Station is also pretty poor at the moment.

 

Obviously there are some very powerful forces acting behind the scenes to keep the DC streetcar system from being brought to life. 

 

That said there were some huge lessons to be learned from this.  They built the tracks on some streets just because the street was being rebuilt.  They thought they were saving money, but now it looks like it might end up costing them more in the end.  Also, they ended up with segments of streetcar tracks in scattered areas..."tracks to nowhere".  That gives obstructionists a visual to keep slamming home over and over again. 

I'm surprised DC is investing in a streetcar when the existing heavy rail system is so great. Is this mostly along the same route as Washington Metro or does it serve areas the metro rail doesn't hit?

 

That's right. The streetcar will run down H St, NE and Benning Ave, NE, an area that does not have very good Metro access. I drew a red line on the map below to indicate the route of the streetcar and put red circles around the three closest Metro stations. I'll be curious to see what ridership is like after it finally opens (if it ever does!). It very much looks like a stub of a system right now, and I don't think it makes sense until it becomes part of a larger network that would extend down K St all the way to Georgetown. The connectivity to Union Station is also pretty poor at the moment.

 

 

Thanks for sharing this map! It does look like the streetcar compliments the Metro rather than competes with it. Is there a shared light rail/heavy rail station at that Union Station? Will you be able to get off the streetcar and just walk downstairs to a subway like how the streetcars integrate in Toronto (stops right by station entrances)? Can you get to every mode of transit at DC Union Station?

^ Union Station has a Red Line Metro stop on the western edge of the station. The streetcar ends on top of the H St bridge which goes over the station rail yard, so it does not directly connect with the station. DC originally wanted to cut the streetcar path under the bridge to allow to to enter closer to the station, but Amtrak wouldn't allow it. So now you would have to walk from the top of the bridge down quite a ways to get into the station. That will eventually change, but won't be for a while: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/919/171/Washington-Union-Station-Master-Plan-201207.pdf

 

Edit: I see you added another question. Union Station is great in that pretty much every mode of transit connects there: Metro, Amtrak, MARC, VRE, intercity buses (Megabus, Bolt, Greyhound, etc), taxis, Metro buses, DC Circulator buses, and bikeshare

I'm surprised DC is investing in a streetcar when the existing heavy rail system is so great. Is this mostly along the same route as Washington Metro or does it serve areas the metro rail doesn't hit?

 

When the existing heavy rail system is so great!?!  LMAO! WMATA is without question the worst run large system in the country. The only agency with a worse record is TAPS in north Texas.

I'm surprised DC is investing in a streetcar when the existing heavy rail system is so great. Is this mostly along the same route as Washington Metro or does it serve areas the metro rail doesn't hit?

 

When the existing heavy rail system is so great!?!  LMAO! WMATA is without question the worst run large system in the country. The only agency with a worse record is TAPS in north Texas.

 

Really?  How so?  Yes the Metro has had a few horrific, fatal train accidents in recent years, but for the 2nd busiest rapid transit system in America unfortunately stuff happens.  But I've always found Metro to be clean, fast, efficient and safe, at least in terms of their stations and trains from a crime aspect.  And of course, it's extremely comprehensive even though it doesn't (yet) serve Georgetown (and there are historical reasons for that which were beyond WMATA's control).  So I'm rather surprised by your comments.

 

That said, I'm interested in riding the new DC streetcar system. It'll reach the previously under-served gentrifying areas of NE D.C.

^ As a former DC resident, I can echo ProkNo5[/member]'s sentiment, albeit not as harshly. Yes, the system is extensive, has good ridership, and is clean. To the infrequent user, it is great. However they were faced with years and years of maintenance neglect, so over the last few years or so they've had to do massive construction upgrades to the system, which has caused a lot of frustration for commuters. Beyond that though, there seems to have been a bit of incompetence from WMATA leadership over the last few years and their communication also left some to be desired.

 

Also, the issue with Metro not going through Georgetown doesn't really have anything to do with residents fighting it because of fear of "undesirables." That seems to be a common urban legend. It had more to do with the expense of infrastructure digging through Georgetown and making sure it wouldn't flood being so close to the Potomac. Also, Metro was built as a suburb to city commuter system, and Georgetown was not rife with office jobs at the time, so it was never really on WMATA's radar.

Also, Metro was built as a suburb to city commuter system, and Georgetown was not rife with office jobs at the time, so it was never really on WMATA's radar.

 

Actually it was in the 1970s. But Georgetown fought having a Metro line run through their rather insular community.

^ ^^ I've read, though, there are plans to finally construct a Metro station in Georgetown.  How far off that will be, I don't know.

I'm surprised DC is investing in a streetcar when the existing heavy rail system is so great. Is this mostly along the same route as Washington Metro or does it serve areas the metro rail doesn't hit?

 

When the existing heavy rail system is so great!?!  LMAO! WMATA is without question the worst run large system in the country. The only agency with a worse record is TAPS in north Texas.

 

Compared to BART, yes, it's much better. There are more urban stations, late-night service on weekends, and far less civil unrest leading to station closures/police-involved shootings/riots/etc., which are a regular thing in Oakland. BART is decent outside of rush hour and outside of riots/shootings in Oakland, but it's far less focused on urban areas. BART is a suburban commuter rail system, hence lower ridership than Washington DC Metrorail despite being in a much larger and denser urban core. DC Metro is way more usable for nightlife and in general is much more urban-focused than BART (way closer station spacings in DC). Stations are also much cleaner and safer. That's my outside perspective. It's BART's closest parallel, and they did a way better job there in DC.

 

Also, even the great NYC subway has tons of delays. :| American transit systems in general have not seen anywhere near enough investment. The situation in DC sounds similar to most other cities...BART has had to shut down the entire Transbay Tube for days. Meaning there have been times with zero commuting into San Francisco. This is the result of spending so much money on freeways while neglecting mass transit. It's also the result of NIMBY's fighting urban expansions and any sort of change in how the system is run.

 

I would say DC's Metro system is overall the third best heavy rail system in America after NYC and Chicago. It's the second busiest for a reason...

 

Personally, I'd rather see metrorail expansions, but considering DC is not a very high density city compared to NYC/SF, a streetcar should work without problems. The extensive streetcar system in Toronto integrates really well with the heavy rail subway system. Toronto is much larger and denser at the core, but that core is mostly heavy rail with streetcars feeding into it.

 

*Also, even though BART has serious issues and the lack of late-night service on weekends is horrible, I wouldn't call it a terrible transit system. Most cities are way worse...DC is very lucky to have so much urban rail, and it wipes the floor clean of most major American cities. It's amazing what they got built in Washington DC! It's not worthy of being called world class, but it's certainly among the top of the American class...

 

**It's important in America to have lowered expectations. The problem is people go to Toronto or Montreal, and expect that safety, cleanliness, and reliability in the United States. Or God forbid, they go to Europe, and expect that level of service in the states. That's not what America is about, and only recently have we invested in modern mass transit with much success. It's unrealistic to expect great transit service to be built unless you're in an above average density, wealthy city (hence why I'm upset with Seattle since I think their expectations are too low given wealth, growth, density).

 

NYC also gives us all serious transit envy, which isn't healthy for those of us who don't live in NYC. New York City really screws with our heads since it's so much better than every other American city.

The DC metro is a significantly larger rapid transit system than BART and DC doesn't have anything like Muni (but might if 30+ miles of streetcar tracks are built).  Right now Muni has a daily ridership of about 125,000.  BART is a little over 400,000. 

 

This link has a graphic showing how busy various sections of the BART system are.  It's fascinating to see how little BART is used within San Francisco.  Virtually all traffic is cross-bay and from two of the four East Bay branches.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-can-t-keep-pace-with-rising-crush-loads-6192950.php

 

Using this chart as a guide, it appears that the real way to improve BART would be to create a second transbay tube that serves the Fremont and Pittsburgh lines, bypasses Oakland almost completely (perhaps just one station), then somehow feeds into the current MUNI level of the Market St. subway.  I don't know if this is technically feasible or not.  Obviously, a new parallel subway would be built for MUNI nearby.

 

There is also the prospect of extending MUNI across the bay in its own tube.  I'm not sure what it would do once it gets over there, but I think it would be possible for SF Muni trains to keep running short trains as they do now, but then have much longer Oakland Muni trains that could share the Market St. subway but only run on the surface over in Oakland. 

 

 

^The genius of DC is that they didn't build Muni. They instead built more heavy rail knowing the city would be strained with light rail as its backbone. San Francisco is one of the world's densest cities that relies almost entirely on buses and light rail (mainly buses), and the city's residents pay dearly for it. It's also why there was so much pressure to create something like Uber. SF's lack of BART ridership is a clear warning signal of the disaster created when a hyper-dense, major city relies too much on light rail and buses. Dense, major cities should be heavy rail first, light rail second, and buses third. SF got it completely backwards since the vast majority of people take buses, a few take light rail, and not many take BART. :|

 

Thankfully, DC got it right, and streetcars can fill in the gaps. What is Washington DC Metro ridership within the city limits? What are the busiest stations? I think another big advantage DC has is that Union Station. When I lived in Toronto, their Union Station (which is incredible), contained every mode of transit. You had TTC subway, TTC streetcar, GO Train commuter rail, UP Express airport train, Via Rail, etc. You could walk outside and grab a 24-hour bus too. There is something to be said for a centralized transit hub like they have in Toronto, and it's something I really wish we had in the Bay. Amtrak is over in Oakland, Caltrain is in San Francisco, and BART doesn't connect with any of it (excluding the far flung, suburban Millbrae Caltrain/BART station). :| Big time fail in the Bay here. It sounds like DC got it right, and they're smart for building the streetcar to their Union Station transit hub. Truly great transit cities have centralized hubs like this. That's a big part of what makes New York City so great.

 

The only two cities where I've seen streetcars really work well are Toronto and Portland. Streetcars work in Toronto due to the vast majority of urban core transit being on the heavy rail subway. Streetcars work in Portland due to its small population, light traffic, and low density. It's fine to primarily rely on light rail in small and mid-size cities without large cores of high density, but cities in the big leagues need big league transit. I really like what DC did, which was the opposite of what San Francisco did. As long as that streetcar connects to their transit hub at Union Station, it should be really successful.

 

**Light rail in Oakland is feasible and the city has talked about the first spine of a streetcar being built on Broadway (I posted in the Bay Area thread). I guess this would be similar to what DC is trying to do. The problem with the Oakland streetcar plan is that the Broadway line will literally run right on top of the 3-track BART subway in downtown Oakland. Politically, it will obviously face protests/riots like any development in Oakland, but in this case, the rioters may have a point. Why build a streetcar above a heavy rail subway in a city with no tourists? Oakland's BART stations wouldn't be strained if there was a second Transbay Tube. The lopsided employment situation in the Bay is the most extreme of any multi-nodal metro area with such close proximity between its two largest office clusters. Over 325,000 people work in Downtown San Francisco offices. Only 80,000 people work in Downtown Oakland offices. There are a myriad of reasons for this (well, maybe just one- Oakland's violence), but part of it is likely because SF's downtown has the best of the Bay's transit service due to short headways under Market Street. SF's downtown subway stations have trains every few minutes, and it's the only part of the BART system with this level of service.

 

Originally, BART was planned as a four-track subway in Downtown Oakland, and it was going to include more trains, possibly even East Bay express trains (this would have likely led to much more development in Downtown Oakland than exists, and also taken some pressure off of Downtown San Francisco). Removing that fourth track in the Oakland subway was a mistake we're still paying for today in delays, longer headways, etc. It's also why there isn't any express service on any line in the system. With a fourth track under Broadway in Oakland, there could at least be express service on the Richmond-Fremont line.

 

Of course, Oakland running a streetcar above the BART subway would be almost exactly the same situation that currently exists in SF where two tracks of light rail and two tracks of heritage streetcars run above BART. SF is the only city I know of with a setup like this anywhere. It's only for a few miles, but it's 6 total tracks of rail stacked on top of each other and all serving different types of people. BART is mainly for East Bay commuters. Muni light rail is for SF commuters. Muni heritage streetcars are for tourists.

 

I like what DC is doing since the streetcar is servicing areas that the heavy rail is not servicing. It can't really fail, which is why I suspect there are some shady political dealings trying to stop it...

 

If streetcars succeed in the nation's capitol, it will be hard to argue against them on urban spines in other cities. It will be visible and in the national media.

Well damn it looks like somebody already figured it all out...this makes a ton of sense.  What we're looking at here with the second transbay tube, a DT Oakland bypass (for the Fremont Line), a new BART subway under DT SF and out almost to the Pacific Ocean, plus the branch that curves south and links back up with the existing BART tracks toward the airport is going to cost somewhere between $15-30B.  Yes, I'd brace for a $30 billion price estimate.  To do all of this would be a *huge* project. 

 

Even to do just *part* of it would be huge...a practical phase 1 would involve:

 

-approx 8 miles of new track on the Oakland side, almost all of it underground, at least one new subway station

-3 mile tube across the bay

-approx 2 miles of new subway under San Francisco, with one or two new stations

 

So just Phase 1 easily bolts past $10 billion and probably scoots past $15 billion. 

 

http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Executive/Meetings/pnp/2014/11/BART%20Vision%20-%202014%20Nov%2018%20SF%20PlansandPrograms%20Committee%20UPDATED%20FINAL.pdf

^The 2014 plan was awesome, but predictably, there was lots of pushback. I'd say the second Transbay Tube and Geary subway have a 50% chance of getting approved and funded within a decade. I'd put it at 75% chance within 20 years, possibly even major buildout by then.

 

The Sunset BART subway under 19th Avenue in San Francisco is extremely unlikely, and not as important since that route has much less ridership than the buses in the Richmond District. Muni's busiest route (by any mode of transit) is the 38 Geary bus, hence the political willpower to get the subway built under Geary. The 30th and Mission along with the Market and Van Ness infill stations in SF have been talked about for ages, but they're not as critical as the second underwater tube and Geary subway. One new 12-mile long BART line from Downtown Oakland to the Outer Richmond of San Francisco fixes most of our current BART crowding issues. That new transbay subway line would also really help alleviate crowding on Muni buses in the north side of San Francisco. Nothing else is more important than getting that second underwater tube and subway line built. The Bay's entire future relies on that.

 

The most important part of the plan in the East Bay are the infill stations. A Jack London Square station in Downtown Oakland would be a huge deal since it would connect with Amtrak and future HSR. A San Antonio station in East Oakland would also be a huge deal since that's an area with very high population density, and it's one of the Bay's fastest-growing neighborhoods. The Oakland streetcar plans won't be enough there. If crime is ever reduced, there is potential for the biggest population explosion in California history in East Oakland. East Oakland has the best weather in the Bay, and everything from Cleveland Heights/Eastlake to Fruitvale is pretty urban. Developers are salivating over that area right now...

 

*Streetcars would work best in West Oakland as a way to better connect those neglected neighborhoods to downtown Oakland BART stations. A better plan is to to add the new East Bay BART line under the existing Oakland Broadway subway, and finally build the fourth track. This will also require expansions at the aerial MacCarther BART station to build extra tracks. The whole MacCarthur area should be built up with skyscrapers to soften the impact of the freeway. West Oakland's lower density makes it a much better fit for streetcars than heavy rail. West Oakland BART station has always been a poorly-performing station, and there really isn't any reason for people to go to West Oakland. I think one BART station is enough there. West Oakland lacks attractions or any tourism/business potential. It's extremely sleepy and has less street life than almost any SF suburb. It's the most dead part of Oakland. I don't see West Oakland changing any time soon due to its anti-development politics. There is a strong desire by residents there to keep it low density. It sucks, but that's the part of Oakland least likely to change. :|

 

The whole Eastshore line doesn't make sense to me since there is little population on it. A better plan is to add another track to the existing East Bay alignment through Oakland and Berkeley. There is far more potential there. After building up the existing BART trunk in Oakland, then build streetcars in West Oakland and West Berkeley that connect to BART stations. The population density in that area argues for light rail, not heavy rail.

 

**Personally, I would not vote for BART building anything more in West Oakland. It would be fiscally reckless to build that Eastshore line. I would vote for AC Transit building streetcars there. Streetcars are cheaper than heavy rail, right? I'd also argue streetcars make more sense on the water. Heavy rail transit should have development on both sides of the tracks, so ridership potential is highest. Streetcars are perfect for waterfronts (like San Francisco's F-line, which the tourists love). Toronto also has a waterfront streetcar line, the 509 Harbourfront, which is awesome. When you're on a beautiful waterfront, a streetcar makes sense. I wish Chicago and New York City had waterfront streetcars. They tend to be good for tourism.

 

***$30 billion may sound like a lot of money, but in the Bay, it isn't. Keep in mind that's not even half of Uber's market value. $30 billion is a bargain compared to doing nothing...we just need to make sure not to waste it on bad routes. The core of the plan, the second transbay tube and Geary subway, has a damn near perfect alignment. It'd connect Jack London Square (Oakland's one area with real tourism potential) and Alameda to the system, which is much-needed. It would also add more service to SOMA, connect to Caltrain, and of course finally get the Geary subway built. If just that section of the plan is completed, it changes the Bay forever. Both San Francisco and Oakland would benefit immensely from that one new line. All the suburban crap on there should be pushed way down the timeline...San Jose BART should be pushed down the timeline too.

 

Oakland needs to get serious about streetcars to serve the parts of the city with no BART access. The BART situation in SF is arguably just as bad. Only maybe about 25% of San Francisco currently has BART access, but with a Geary subway, that zooms past 50%. So we're in a weird situation in the Bay where one major city needs to stop building light rail while the other major city needs to start building light rail.

 

We have the unique problem in the Bay of having many of our highest density neighborhoods on buses/light rail and many of our lowest density neighborhoods on heavy rail. :|

 

The 9 guidelines for the design of London Tube stations 

DEC 08 2015

 

Transport for London recently released a document called the London Underground Station Design Idiom, a guide to the design aesthetic of Tube stations. After an introductory chapter called "A manifesto for good design", the document offers nine main guidelines for how Underground stations should be designed:

 

http://kottke.org/15/12/the-9-guidelines-for-the-design-of-london-tube-stations

Also, Metro was built as a suburb to city commuter system, and Georgetown was not rife with office jobs at the time, so it was never really on WMATA's radar.

 

Actually it was in the 1970s. But Georgetown fought having a Metro line run through their rather insular community.

 

From Zachary Schrag's The Great Society Subway, "In fact, although Georgetown residents did oppose a transit station, their attitude was essentially irrelevant, for a Georgetown station was never seriously considered. While it would have been possible to build a subway line to Georgetown, it would have been difficult." Pg. 155

 

Atlanta approves Streetcar expansion plan

 

The Atlanta City Council has approved a new Streetcar System Plan, which includes five crosstown routes in addition to 22 miles of streetcar service along the Beltline.

 

All totaled, the plan consists of a 50-plus mile streetcar system throughout the city. The document will serve as a framework for a potential Fulton County referendum in 2016 seeking approval from voters to impose an additional penny or fractional penny sales tax to fund transportation projects. Having the plan in place also enables the city to apply for large scale federal transportation funding.

But the counter-argument is that if a real subway network were built in only a confined 5-mile radius of a downtown, it would tend to attract the wealthy even more intensely and push the poor out

 

That's exactly what happened in San Francisco and Oakland (the poor, middle class, and upper middle class getting displaced around every urban station). But I don't think it was BART as much as it was Google busses that offered parallel service along BART lines that led to this rental crisis. Median rents follow Google bus routes much more closely than they follow BART lines. Mass transit is for the middle class, not the 1%. Toronto and Montreal both built extensive subway systems concentrating service mostly in urban core neighborhoods while neglecting most of the suburban areas. Canada did their transit systems right, and it's only today that they're seriously talking about suburban expansions, with a huge focus on dense TOD. Both Toronto and Montreal have far more class diversity than anywhere in San Francisco and Oakland.

 

If anything, the evidence is clear that suburban-focused systems like BART lead to far more intense evictions and rent hikes at the urban core. By focusing so much on suburban areas, it limits the number of neighborhoods young people want to move to in the urban core. It also creates "transit ghettos" or "transit deserts" like deep East Oakland where poverty and crime concentrates because neighborhoods are undesirable. Then the hipsters go to those neighborhoods to buy coke and get shot. Few native Oaklanders feel bad for them, but it's not remotely what a healthy city should look like, no matter how radical or leftist or obsessed with Burning Man. "Oh man, East Oakland is nothing like the Playa!"

 

This map makes me fear Seattle is creating its own Bay Area rental crisis by not fully understanding the generational shift underway. All West Coast cities still seem to believe suburbs are viable ("once those kids grow up and have kids, they'll leave the city!"). There is zero evidence this is the case. And what if Gen Y never has kids? I'm getting into my 30's and I don't know a single person with a kid (and can't imagine anyone I know getting married or having kids in the future, and I go months between baby sightings). What I'm seeing is none of my friends leave the city voluntarily. Everyone wants to live in the city unless they have a couple of dogs. Then they get rid of those dogs and try to move back to the city. Seattle has a clear warning signal in San Francisco and Oakland with an example of how not to build a mass transit system. They'd be dumb to ignore what spending so much money on low density stations creates...

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-gentrification-in-san-francisco-by-childlesstech-workers-2014-1#ixzz2yVjnX7yQ

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-google-bus-stop-evictions-2014-4

http://www.wired.com/2013/09/mapping-silicon-valleys-corporate-shuttle-problem/

 

Truly wealthy people don't take public transit if they have other options. Pretty much all of the Bay's 1% is private transport or corporate shuttles (except for governor Jerry Brown who randomly rides BART sometimes). You rarely see them on BART. Seattle has similar corporate shuttles and private luxury transport, and I think that's where you'll find the wealthiest riders. This proposal looks like a light rail version of BART, and that is a scary prospect...Seattle is where people move for cheap rents.

 

When looking at class and racial stratification, Seattle is already a less intense version of the Bay. I can see it getting much, much worse as more Amazon and Microsoft busses fill in the transit holes...there really is a mini Bay Area situation up there, and the same ugly, class-driven politics could take over. The relationship between these two markets is very tight and Seattle already has a "Go Back to the Bay!" movement. People from San Francisco and Oakland are moving up there after they get evicted or lose rent control, displacing Seattle residents. So in a weird way, the Bay's underbuilt environment is already leading to serious class issues in Seattle. Keep in mind a poor person in the Bay who can't even afford a kale juice cleanse could be the richest person on the block in Seattle or Portland. And you can be damn sure they're focusing on neighborhoods with mass transit. This is bigger than Seattle. The reason we're seeing evictions and rent hikes in any neighborhood in America with mass transit is because there is so little mass transit in America.

 

*And what does that say about the country? We made our cities so undesirable that as soon as any sort of half-assed transit system is built, people flood back? It's our fault for letting transit get so bad in the United States in the first place. Of course more people want to live in areas with mass transit, and that will lead to housing competition. As long as adequate housing is built, it's not that big of an issue. And we've seen that without mass transit, private transport will step into the market. Now that is only for rich people...so are cars.

 

**The issue you bring up can happen anywhere. In ten years, you'll see mass evictions in Cincinnati and Detroit as neighborhoods along the streetcars fill up. The reason? There is hardly any transit in Detroit and Cincinnati...

 

That's motivation to double-down and build a five-line radial system in Detroit and a two or three-line system in Cincinnati's core. Urban demand is insatiable on the West Coast, and will spread to all other American markets. This is at least a two-generation trend (Gen Y and Gen Z). There isn't a limit to this until the declining birth rate leads to national population decline. We've got at least 20 years of explosive urban growth ahead of us.

 

The reason Ohio is not seeing as much urban pressure or widespread gentrification is because so many in Gen Y left. With proper transit, they're far more likely to stick around...

 

***The beauty of the Rust Belt is that by showing up to the party late and six beers deep, it can look at the hot West Coast millennial markets to learn about what kind of mistakes they made. History does not have to repeat itself in the Rust Belt. The historic community focus and less classist political sphere in the major Rust Belt cities could lead to a type of gentrification that includes multiple classes and multiple races of people.

 

Sure Seattle and San Francisco may have underdeveloped their rapid rail systems given their core area's density, wealth and traffic, but at least, they developed some form of rapid rail even if it is less impact-ful, lower capacity LRT.  At least the DID build rail.  But what about right down the road in Pittsburgh? -- through Shadyside and East Liberty, 2 of the City's hottest, densest and more upscale urban neighborhoods, Pittsburgh built the MLK busway; BRT ... buses!  And they built it along the narrow railroad ROW that Amtrak serves; the same busway that also goes through the heart of other dense, but poorer areas like Homewood and the suburbs of Wilkinsburg, Edgewood and Swissvale ... places that certainly could use the type of dense TOD development that a rapid transit line can bring.  Heck, this route could justify HRT, let alone LRT ... This poor planning is even made more significant given that a T subway LRT branch, now unused,  actually terminated at Penn Station which is the base of this BRT corridor.

^Fair point. I think BRT is throwing in the towel and I'm against it in 100% of the cases proposed in the Bay, but it's important to keep in mind Pittsburgh has much lower population density. There might not be enough density for light rail on that line. The big difference in the Rust Belt is the light rail is trying to promote development. In the Bay, I'm talking about areas that are already high density and fully built-out. Out the gate, any rail constructed in San Francisco or Oakland succeeds. The new light rail Central Subway in SF is expected to be crush-load over capacity the day it opens. It should have been heavy rail and connected to a second transbay BART tube. Big time fail in SF on that one. I'm talking about lines where the demand already greatly exceeds the capacity of buses or light rail. Increasingly, this is also the case in Seattle. The building boom up there is unprecedented, and its density is getting high. Overall, Seattle probably has ten times the new housing construction of San Francisco and Oakland combined. They are that progressive up there. That city is going to break 750,000 people and 10,000 people per square mile overall density within five years. The core is going to be extremely dense. By 2030, we're certainly talking about Seattle hitting 1 million people. It may even overtake San Francisco by then. If you look at housing approvals in Seattle and take stock of all the Bay Area companies planning on moving there, the growth will only accelerate during the next boom. It could become the third largest city on the West Coast.

 

*BRT we've seen proposed in the Bay is on Van Ness and Geary, two of the densest urban corridors in the United States. When one of those corridors calls for heavy rail subway being proposed by BART, you know BRT is not going to work...

 

**Oakland could use light rail feeding into BART, but in San Francisco, light rail is not enough...

 

***But overall, you'r'e right, Pittsburgh should be making that line light rail. When talking long-term investment and infill development potential, fixed transit makes it happen. It is a mistake for cities to think BRT can match the potential of a smooth, comfortable fixed transit system. Whether that transit is heavy rail, modern light rail, or historic street cars, they all are much better than buses. There is a lot to be said for comfort and stability.

^Fair point. I think BRT is throwing in the towel and I'm against it in 100% of the cases proposed in the Bay, but it's important to keep in mind Pittsburgh has much lower population density. There might not be enough density for light rail on that line. The big difference in the Rust Belt is the light rail is trying to promote development.

 

Overall, yes Pittsburgh lacks sufficient density and is nowhere near SF.  But as you know, it's the corridors that count in terms of rail transit's potential.  And the substantial combined core areas of East Liberty and Shadyside alone could justify rail transit building.  As you know, Pittsburgh's a very odd fish: those 2 aforementioned neighborhoods (along with places like Oakland, Squirrel Hill and South Side) are nearly as compact (lots of tight narrow streets, rowhomes, mixed-use buildings, etc), dense and vibrant as many SF, Boston and Seattle neighborhoods like the Haight, Back Bay or Capitol Hill, while wide swaths of Pittsburgh look like Tobacco Road -- neighborhoods the prior cities lack.  But I continue to believe that Pittsburgh's hilly, constricted (by the rivers), pocket density configuration make it strong candidate for the quality rail system that the City has yet to develop.

The density in Pittsburgh's ravines, hollows and valleys is what makes it unique. But I fear Pittsburgh will make the same mistake with a busway between downtown and its eds-n-meds center that Cleveland did with its downtown-to-cultural hub transit link. Both are shying away from rail because they don't think they can get it funded even though the data shows rail is justified. So you have rail in lesser corridors but a busway in its busiest corridor, and the busway is overwhelmed with riders that would be handled easily by light rail.

Pittsburgh's busways are actually pretty amazing in the capacity they handle.  They funnel all of their local service bus routes onto the busways for express service into downtown.  At peak there's a bus passing East Liberty Station every 34 seconds.  I do believe that the effectiveness is exacerbated by the topography there though.  On local streets it can take up to 20 minutes to travel one mile.  Comparing travel time on the Blue Line light rail and the South Busway, the busway is the clear winner. 

 

You should see the TOD being built around East Liberty Station right now.  From this station it's a one-seat ride to almost anywhere in the east metro which can't be said for most neighborhood rail stations, and those buildings off to the right are 100% there because of their proximity to the busway:

 

Check out the way these bus routes funnel into the South Busway.  This is a HUGE advantage that this system has over the rail system in the same corridor:

 

I also love the way the Neville Ramp allows the P3 to leave the busway and service Oakland as local service.  It's an incredibly effective system:

 

Check out the system map.  All of those purple lines are feeding into the East Busway.  At peak, the East and South busways handle greater capacity than either of their light rail lines: http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/Apps/maps/SystemMap.pdf

"At peak, the East and South busways handle greater capacity than either of their light rail lines"

 

I wouldn't doubt that, in their peak, the East busways handle more than the LRT simply because the neighborhoods the traverse (Shadyside (density: 16,000/sq. mi), East Liberty (10,000/sq. mi), Homewood (7,600/sq. mi) to name a few) are much denser, individually and as a group (as they are much closer together), than the South Hills portion of the City and the suburbs where the LRT's traverse.  To the contrary, I would bet if the LRTs served the East Busway territory they would attract even more riders and create even more TOD, ... although the East Busway's TOD growth has been exceptional for buses.

 

 

Philly is planning to spend $700 million over the next decade for new streetcar rolling stock and other upgrades to the system

 

Route to the Future

 

Jason Laughlin, Staff Writer

Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2015, 3:01 AM

 

One daughter under her arm, another by her side, Yashika McKnight struggled to carry a collapsed pink stroller up the trolley's steep steps before its doors closed.

 

She put her daughters, Faatimah, 5, and Saajidah, 20 months, in seats and caught her breath as the Route 34 trolley - a white Kawasaki streetcar that dates to the Reagan presidency three decades ago - pulled away from the underground stop in Center City. They were heading on a recent day to the dentist from home in Philadelphia's Olney neighborhood.

 

"They need a newer trolley system," a frustrated McKnight said. "They need one badly."

 

 

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20151213_Hed_W_Initial_Caps.html

Found this really interesting photo taken in June 2001 during a test run of the Portland Streetcar. The streets hadn't even been built yet, just the track.

 

10th & Northup. Pearl District, Portland, Oregon, USA by Erik Griswold, on Flickr

 

Here is the same view today: https://goo.gl/maps/ZZFSYNtp58F2

Residents along path of proposed Purple Line told to move fences, sheds

 

By Katherine Shaver January 6 at 8:00 AM

 

Some Maryland residents along the planned route for the light-rail Purple Line are being told that they have until April 30 to tear down fences, sheds and anything else built on publicly owned land preserved for the project.

 

About 80 property owners in the Washington suburbs of Bethesda and Chevy Chase have begun receiving letters from the Montgomery County Department of Transportation ordering them to remove structures that “encroach” on a county-owned trail behind their homes.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/residents-along-path-of-proposed-purple-line-told-to-move-fences-sheds/2016/01/05/a3df5f50-b3e1-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

Getting to U-District will get easier way sooner than expected

 

Not only does Sound Transit expect its major light rail extension to be more than $100 million under budget, it also says the project will be finished by March — six months ahead of schedule.

 

 

A great example of a well-run government transit project. Meanwhile, Washington State DOT's massive highway tunnel under Downtown Seattle is three years behind schedule and probably hundreds of millions over budget -- so far.