Coastal railroad system, wind turbines, and the Green New Deal...

Today's article in the Washington Post about the potential of the Chesapeake Bay region to become a primary player in wind turbine manufacturing and energy generation ("Dominion Energy is embracing offshore wind. It’ll be a break for the Chesapeake Bay region") by Dominion Energy's pivot to wind generation and away from fossil fuels, reminds me that I've forgotten to make the point that rail transit can be powered by such sources, making it even more sustainable.

From "Ørsted achieves offshore wind turbine milestone: Ørsted has installed its 1,500th offshore wind turbine," Offshore Magasine

In writing about how Massachusetts should develop a true state rail plan ("Massachusetts state rail plan," 2019) I thought I mentioned that they can make it incredibly sustainable by powering it through wind energy generated off the coast, in the Atlantic Ocean ("New report: New England has vast potential for offshore wind energy," Environment Massachusetts).

The report, Offshore Wind for America, examines U.S. offshore wind potential by both coastal region and by state, while documenting the status of existing projects and technological advances. New England could generate more than five times its projected 2050 electricity demand with offshore wind alone.

But I didn't.  

-- "Is high-speed rail the fast track to transport decarbonisation?," Railway Technology
-- "Electrification of U.S. Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal?," Environment and Energy Sustainability Institute

In the US, only Caltrain is really moving forward on systemic electrification.

The same goes for all of the states along the Atlantic, including Maryland, and I failed to mention the potential of offshore wind-generated electricity as the primary source of power for a statewide rail system in Maryland ("A "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for a statewide passenger railroad program in Maryland," 2019), and in the Maglev posts ("Transit "wokeness" in DC and Baltimore" and "DC, Transformational Projects Action Planning, and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project") among others. 

Plus states along the Gulf of Mexico.  And the Pacific states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

That's at least 20 states.

Earth Day, 50th anniversary

Wednesday April 22nd is Earth Day.

Before the stay at home orders, I had intended to do a series on Earth Day.  Today is the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day ("The ‘Profoundly Radical’ Message of Earth Day’s First Organizer," New York Times).  Now I'm not up to it.

These items catch my fancy:

1.  To move better environmental practices forward, the US should create a program comparable to the EU Green Capital program, where cities across Europe "compete" for the designation, as a way to model best practices.

One city is designated each year.  This year it's Lisbon.

In the US, I'd set it up for a large and small city both, as well as a rural community.

2.  New enzymes may allow for significantly expanded plastics recycling--in a few years as the technology is refined ("Scientists create mutant enzyme that recycles plastic bottles in hours," Guardian).

3.  Trump Administration rollback of environmental health regulations is bad ("Why Is Trump Gutting Regulations That Save Lives?," "U.S. to Announce Rollback of Auto Pollution Rules, a Key Effort to Fight Climate Change," New York Times).

4.  Recycling programs were set up by industry to "deflate" popular will in favor of recycling, by confusing things and making it look like the industry cared ("Plastics Industry Insiders Reveal the Truth About Recycling," PBS Frontline/National Public Radio).

5. Norway, an oil producer, has shifted its automobile "fleet" to electric cars, because its prime source of electricity is hydroelectric production, significantly reducing the negative environmental effect of automobiles ("Norway and the A-ha moment that made electric cars the answer," Guardian).

Because the US relies on coal and natural gas for electricity production, even as alternative energy sources are increasing, shifting to electric cars is less environmentally beneficial.

Especially when the focus ought to be shifting from an automobile-centric land use and transportation planning and operations paradigm more generally.

6.  But like Norway and hydroelectricity, coastal states in the US have the opportunity to generate significant proportions of its electricity demand from wind turbines ("Offshore Wind Energy Enough to Power the Atlantic Coastal States," Environment America) and waves ("
Why Hasn't Tidal Power Taken Off?," MIT Technology Review).

Although there can be opposition ("Offshore wind still looks to get a foothold in California," San Diego Union Tribune, "Offshore Wind Energy Looks More Promising for Oregon," Oregon Public Broadcasting).

7.  Which could power trains and an expanded passenger railroad system and electrification of existing diesel lines ("Electrification of US Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal?").

8. I haven't read much about the "Green New Deal" (NYT article) but I do think it should include materials productions requirements focused on more sustainable manufacturing practices, something that Europe has been doing for more than a decade.

There are many books published on the concept...

I will say the "green jobs" boom predicted as part of a refocusing on environmental outcomes in various government programs hasn't been forthcoming.

9.  Who knew that reduced ethanol production would lead to carbon dioxide shortages?  Including ethanol in gasoline is mostly a sop to corn producing states.  It doesn't have much beneficial impact for the environment and redirects agricultural land from food production, and can lead to higher food prices.

But apparently it's a major source of CO₂ which is a key element in food production ("Coronavirus-driven CO2 shortage threatens US food and water supply, officials say," Guardian).

10.  Drought ("Drought: Worst western megadrought in 1,200 years is here," USA Today).

Revisiting free transit in the wake of the decision in Kansas City ... and Lawrence, Massachusetts

Last month, Kansas City, Missouri announced that it is making transit free.

-- "Will KC become the first major city with free bus service," Kansas City Star
-- "Kansas City moves to make all bus travel free, Smart Cities World

There are many examples of free transit, but it is still relatively rare.

-- "No Fares" article series, The Tyee, 2007

The biggest example heretofore is Talinn, Estonia, which is a little smaller than Kansas City, Missouri, but definitely smaller than the metropolitan area there.

Many resort communities have free transit.

In 2018, Luxembourg announced it is moving to a free transit paradigm ("Luxembourg to become first country to make all public transport free," Guardian).

And some cities in Germany are considering it, as an air quality measure ("Germany considering free public transportation to take on air pollution," Die Welt).

Green New Deal/Climate Change.  From a "knock your socks off sense of urgency" a la the Green New Deal, making transit free so that people will choose transit instead of driving makes sense.

But is the impact significant?  But if your transit system isn't particularly robust in terms of where it goes and how frequently, does it matter if it's free?  The KC bus system has just under 50,000 daily riders, and about one third of that on weekends.  The Metrobus system in DC and the suburbs has 500,000 daily riders, and this is complemented by other jurisdictional bus services, subway and train service.

Yes, transit can't satisfy every possible trip, but many trips are well suited for transit, especially when complemented by walking, biking and concentrated land uses.

And the physics of transportation make it impossible for every trip to be satisfied by the use of a 100 s.f. box.  There isn't enough road space to handle all the trips.

WRT DC, I have written about the possibilities of free transit, in response to proposals for free transit as well as the tug of war between the Executive and Legislative branches over whether or not the Circulator buses should be free (the short line streetcar is free, but only travels a short distance on one street).

-- "Is making surface transit free the best transit investment DC can make?," 2016
-- "Revisiting "Should surface transit be free?" given DC's announcement the Circulator bus service will be free," 2019

Cost is an issue, but mostly for the poor.  Cost is an issue for people of limited means, but for others, cost isn't the primary reason most people don't use transit.  (Although Metrorail fares + parking costs from far distances are high, and can't compete against the cost of gas if free parking is provided, especially for multiple riders.)

I'm embarrassed that earlier transportation wish lists I'd written didn't include low income fares as a key issue.

With limited funds, how should transit monies be spent: is free transit the best choice?

At this point, rather than making all transit free, especially in communities with relatively minimal ridership, I'd rather focus on:

-- making transit great in breadth and depth so that it is the preferred choice
-- making transit free/low cost for low income households
-- providing free access mobility services at the neighborhood/transit station catchment area scale.

Transit breadth and depth

It's been a number of yeas since I've written one of my "master transportation wish list" pieces:

-- "Transportation Wish List: 2015 edition, part one, the original list"
-- "Transportation Wish List, 2015: part two, new ideas"

and I don't feel the need to do another one given newer pieces that are more focused on particular elements of the transit network such as:

-- "Revisiting the Purple Line (series) and a more complete program of complementary improvements to the transit network," 2019
-- "A "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for a statewide passenger railroad program in Maryland," 2019
-- "Reviving DC area bus service: and a counterpoint to the recent Washington City Paper article," 2019
-- "The answer is: Create a single multi-state/regional multi-modal transit planning, management, and operations authority association," 2017
-- " Using the Silver Line as the priming event, what would a transit network improvement program look like for NoVA?," 2015

But transit expansion and increased frequency is a big issue.

Lower cost transit for low income households 

That being said, reducing fares is a reasonable goal.  Metrorail fares are high.  Although in the last couple years, WMATA, forced to respond to a precipitous drop in ridership, has created a goodly number of cost competitive transit pass products.

Low income monthly passes.  Other communities, such as San Francisco and Seattle, have low priced monthly transit passes for low income riders.  NYC has recently introduced such a program.

In the DC area many jurisdictions, including DC and Montgomery and Arlington Counties, have discounted or free fare programs for youth, but not for low income residents.

-- Affordable Transit Pass Programs for Low Income Individuals: Options and Recommendations for the City of Winnipeg, Social Planning Council of WInnipeg

Lawrence, Massachusetts: free intra-city shuttles.  Lawrence is a distressed city that once had been an industrial powerhouse.  In the last decade it went through financial exigency but now is stabilizing.

A woman boards the Route 34 MVRTA bus in Lawrence.NIC ANTAYA FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE

Now that the city has some budget surplus money, they've put a bit of it into making intra-city shuttle bus service free ("'Just make it free': Lawrence paid all the fares for three bus routes, and ridership is up," Boston Globe).

It's not rocket science.  Tempe, Arizona has done this for decades.  And mostly for transportation demand management purposes, many resort communities, like Park City, Utah, have free transit.

Bus fare capping for low income riders.  The BG article on Lawrence makes the point that the regional transit system has a low price for the month, but because low income residents often don't have the full amount to buy a pass at the beginning of the month, they still pay on a per fare basis.  From the article:

But even though [a Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority] monthly pass is much less expensive than an MBTA pass — $30 compared to about $80 for a full fare — many here struggle to come up with enough money to pay for the pass at the beginning of the month and end up paying cash for each ride.

But "capping" processes can be built into the software behind transit fare card technology.  In such cases, it tracks and increment each payment, and once the cost of the pass has been reached (on a daily, weekly or monthly basis) additional per fare costs aren't charged ("Cities that have transit fare capping have fairer fares, Steven Vance).

London and Melbourne do this, but not necessarily for low income fare pass products.

Edmonton has discussed doing this for low income riders ("New smart cards for Edmonton Transit boast a 'social justice' edge," Edmonton Journal).  From the article:

People with steady jobs and good paycheques are the most likely to buy a monthly pass. They have cash on hand at the beginning of the month.

Those who might need their last nickel just to keep the lights on are the most likely to pay cash for every trip. It means they pay $3.25 per ride, more money for the same service.

That’s one reason Ken Koropeski is excited about Smart Fare.

With a card and an online account, the system can track how many times a person uses transit during a 30-day period, said Koropeski, director of special projects for Edmonton Transit. No one would have to commit to a monthly pass on Day 1. Instead, the system could automatically track use and once the rider hits that monthly maximum, all other rides are free.

“When you have capping, it has inherent benefits for people with low income,” said Koropeski.

Free fare zones, free shuttles and buses

Fareless square.  Portland was known widely for its "fareless square"--where transit service was free in the Downtown core.  This was done as a transportation demand management measure, but also was helpful for low income riders.  The service was discontinued after the 2008 recession.

Calgary, Pittsburgh, and Salt Lake City have free fare zones in the core still.

Shuttle systems.  Some cities have free bus systems that complement regional services that aren't free.  The example with which I am most familiar is Tempe, Arizona.  Other cities in the Phoenix area have created similar services.  Mentioned above is the new service in Lawrence ("Lawrence will pay to make 3 local bus routes free," Boston Globe).

There can be a problem with the creation of what I call free "political" bus services, shuttles and circulators serving particular areas,  But when these routes have relatively low ridership, it raises the question of whether money being spent on transit service can be better used ("Methodology for determining transit expansion")

Specific free services.  There are many examples, especially "circulators" usually in the core of a center city.  Circulators are fixed routes.

They are called circulators because the routes are usually circular.  Linear routes exist too, like the 16th Street Transit Mall in Denver or on the Nicolett Transit Mall in Minneapolis.

Smaller vehicles, including electric vehicles ("Revisiting stories: FRED Downtown shuttle in San Diego") are not fixed route.

UTA in Salt Lake City provides a free shuttle from the Downtown free transit zone to the nearby State Capitol.

Transit station catchment areas.  I've argued that services like these need to be developed to provide mobility access within transit station catchment areas too.

Some cities in the Metrolink commuter rail service area provide free or discounted shuttle service between train stations and major destinations.  Other train systems may have similar services such as in the Greater New York region.

I am not familiar with many such services within subway and light rail systems.  I think such a service should be developed in association with the forthcoming Purple Line light rail in Suburban Maryland.