Interesting Statistics about Transit Oriented Development in Los Angeles

I've been using some Census and Local Employment Dynamics statistics to do some analysis of transit station areas in Los Angeles.  My research center at UCLA is working on an expanded project to look at changes in transit station areas over time.  In my preliminary work, I've found some interesting bits of information for areas within 1/2 a mile of a Metrorail or Orange Line station:

• 21% of Los Angeles County jobs which pay over $3333/month are in these areas (for 2008)
• In 2000, 23% of those living within 1/2 mile of a transit station took transit to work. An additional 5% walked. 
• In 2000, 70% of Los Angeles County residents drove alone to work.  In the areas near transit stations, 51% drove alone to work.
• Under 5% of the county's population lived within 1/2 of a mile of a transit station in 2000.  Now, it's well over 8% (new figures will be out in December).
• Those living within 1/2 mile of a transit station in 2000 were 380% more likely to take transit to work than those not living near stations..
• Those living within 1/2 mile of a transit station in 2000 were 193% more likely to walk to work than those not living near stations.
• 17% of Los Angeles County Jobs (in 2008) were within 1/2 mile of a transit station.

And focused on the Westside Subway Extension

• There are 52,000 jobs within 1/2 mile of the proposed Westwood Stop.  
• There are 10,000 more jobs within 1/2 mile the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars stop than the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars stop
• If only the Century City and Westwood stations were open today, about 19% of all jobs in the county and 25% of jobs which pay $3333/month or more would be within 1/2 of a mile of a transit station.  (This analysis does not include the other purple line stops at the VA, Rodeo, La Cienega, Fairfax, or LaBrea)

The point I've seen so far is that the larger the transit network becomes, the more valuable access to that network is.  In 1990, before the Blue line opened, there were 0 jobs within 1/2 a mile of Metrorail.  In 2010, about 17% of jobs are now within 1/2 mile of Metrorail.  With the projects in Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan this figure will continue to grow.

Los Angeles County Jobs Heatmap (Data exported from US Census Bureau's LED on the Map)

Play with the data yourself at  Center for Neighborhood Technology's Transit Oriented Development Database and The US Census Bureau's LED on the Map

The Thin Red Line: A Review of Taylor, Kim, & Gahbauer

Brian Taylor, our esteemed professor of Urban Planning at UCLA and transportation finance expert, and John Gahbauer, our favorite transit geek and UCLA colleague, along with Eugene Kim, co-authored a paper on the history of transportation planning in the Wilshire Corridor in Los Angeles.  This is a review of their paper, which appears in the Journal of Planning Education and Research (requires subscription or library access).  I believe you can also visit the Metro Library to view a copy.

Taylor begins by discussing the tendency of politicians to pursue large capital projects in favor of incremental operational improvements.  The "monument" or "ribbon-cutting" effects of new capital projects have proven very attractive to politicians.  It's difficult to hold a photo-op in front of increased bus frequency, but much easier in front of a subway station:

Post-Measure R Victory Press Conference.

Most transit capital projects are subjected to cost-benefit analysis, but costs are often underestimated and benefits are almost universally overestimated.

These generalizations are present to varying degrees in the history of the Wilshire Subway.  Planning on what will eventually become the Wilshire Subway began in the 1970s, but encountered many hurdles along the way.  A giant hurdle was the 1980s prohibition of the use of federal funds to tunnel under Henry Waxman's district in Beverly Hills, which came after a methane deposit under a Ross store exploded and burned for several days.  Out of the political negotiations surrounding this ban came the present day Purple line stub at Wilshire & Western.  In order to circumvent this ban, planners proposed less cost-effective routes.  Taylor shows how these alternate routes, which were never seriously studied, were inferior to the proposed Wilshire route.

Proposed Southern route

Taylor argues that the Wilshire Route, along the "linear downtown," is one of the most transit-friendly corridors in the West.  With over 100,000 bus riders per day, traffic congestion, expensive parking, high residential density, high peak hour volumes, Wilshire Boulevard is likely the most cost-effective subway corridor in Southern California.  There are 7x more workers on the Wilshire foute than the southern alternative along San Vicente & Pico.  Later on, Taylor points out that just 3 of nearly a dozen lines which travel on Wilshire (18, 20, and 720) have a combined ridership of 90,033 per day, 1/3 more than the Gold, Green, and Orange lines combined (66,871 per day).

In 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was elected.  A strong proponent of the subway, he negotiated with Waxman to lift the ban on tunneling, and took implicit responsibility for any incidents that may arise from tunneling under Wilshire.  Villaraigosa and other politicians pushed for Measure R, the voter approved 1/2 cent sales tax which will provide the funding for the first two segments of the subway.  Federal loans and grants could build more subway quicker.

The proposed 2009 route isn't much different from the 1979 route.

Taylor, Gahbauer, and Kim offer a great overview of the history of the Wilshire Subway in Los Angeles.  I learned a lot about the political tumult in the 1980s and early 1990s, and the power of one man, Waxman, to impact the urban form of a city for so many years.

Side Note: Monorails have been proposed along Wilshire for well over 100 years.  They've never been taken seriously, as aerial structures would severely disrupt the nature of the neighborhood.

Happy Holidays from the LA Subway Blog!

Our Transit-Oriented Christmas Tree included a Metro 2 bus button; a Metro Rail cardboard car; a replica of a Metro Bus in California Poppy; a traffic cone, and a Dump the Pump stress toy from an old UCLA Transportation campaign.

And yes, John Gahbauer, that is an actual (heavy paper-stock) Metro Rail car on our Christmas tree.

The bigger question this Christmas:
John, quick: Make, model, year of manufacture of the rail car.

UCLA Speaker Series to discuss how local transportation policy can affect climate change

The UCLA Program on Local Government Climate Action Policies and Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies proudly present the fall speaker series: Perspectives on Local Climate Planning. In this series leading academics, policymakers, and practitioners discuss how cities, counties, and regions can meet the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change.While much attention is focused on the federal American Clean Energy and Security Act and the international UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, we will examine what can be done at the local level to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

Mondays at 2pm in the UCLA School of Public Affairs Room 1246. (directions: driving, bus)

Free and open to the public. Please RSVP.

Monday, October 5 - Katherine Trisolini, Professor, Loyola Law School, and local government climate change response legal scholar will discuss the legal and political context for local climate action

Monday, October 12 – J.R. DeShazo, Director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, will discuss his recent study of California Climate Action Policies.

Monday, October 19 - Richard Katz, Member, CARB SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee, Metro Board Member, and 16-year California Assembly veteran, will talk about SB 375 regional targets.

Monday, October 26 - Michael Woo, Member, CARB SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee and Los Angeles City Planning Commissioner will talk about the future of development.

Monday, November 2nd - Tim Kohut, AIA and LEED AP, Vice President and Director of Architecture of Abode Communities speaks about challenges to building green affordable housing.

Monday, November 9th – Juan Matute, Director of the UCLA Program on Local Government Climate Action Policies will speak about measuring greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

Monday, November 16th - Kathryn Phillips, Environmental Defense Fund Director, will talk about "10 Ways Local governments Can and Have Reduced their Transportation GHG Footprint"

Monday, November 23rd - Matthew Kahn, UCLA Professor and author of Green Cities will share his research on residential energy use.

feel free to distribute widely, we have secured a large capacity room for the speaker series

See the Program on Local Government Climate Action Policies Web site for more information.

UK High Speed Rail CO2 Study Flawed

Juan's note: I'm crossposting this from my new blog: www.localclimateaction.com

Because I was unsure of the findings, I spent some time looking at the Booz Allen Hamilton/Department for Transport High Speed Rail Study (Estimated Carbon Impact of a New North-South Line) mentioned in a Freakonomics Blog Post.

First, I went to look at the source documents. This was a bit difficult, because footnote xii is actually a link to the AEA study source document. None of the links on footnote x, which is supposedly the AEA study, lead to any usable data for this study.

Looking at the AEA study for DfT, I'm able to see how they got the AEA figures. 49 for average passenger rail, 109 for all cars, 76 for bus, 180 for plane. However, they leave out the Class 373 EMU(high speed rail train).

I was unsuccessful in searching for the June 2007 DEFRA statistics released in the study, but I did find the updated 2009 statistics. Each year, DEFRA (UK's EPA) publishes statistics that they have businesses use to calculate their scope 3 (indirect) emissions from rail travel. This study shows a figure of 17 g/pkm for Eurostar, specifically the high speed rail route between London and Paris. This figure could be a bit low, because France derives a high proportion of their energy from a non-ghg-emitting source (nuclear).

Taxi, Bus, Rail and Ferry Passenger Transport Conversion Factors				CO2
Method of travel		Vehicle kms travelled (vkm)	x	kg CO2 per vkm	Total kg CO2
Taxi 1	Regular taxi		x	0.2217
	Black cab		x	0.2558
Method of travel		Passenger kms travelled (pkm)	x	kg CO2 per pkm	Total kg CO2
Taxi 1	Regular taxi		x	0.1583
	Black cab		x	0.1705
Bus	Local bus 2		x	0.1104
	London bus 3		x	0.0830
	Average bus		x	0.1035
	Coach 4		x	0.0300
	Average bus and coach		x	0.0682
Rail	National rail 5		x	0.0577
	International rail (Eurostar) 6		x	0.0177
	Light rail and tram 7		x	0.0834
	London Underground 8		x	0.0780
Ferry (Large RoPax) 9	Foot passengers		x	0.0191
	Car passengers		x	0.1322
	Average (all passengers)		x	0.1152
Total					0

Looking at the Center for Neighborhood Technology study's figure for the Danish IC3 Diesel Multiple-Train Unit and converting lb/pmi to g/pkm, I get 72.71, which is the same (73 g/pkm) as the study.However, the IC3 is diesel-powered conventional rail train capable of a top service speed of 112 mph, not a high speed rail train. Better comparables would be the ICE line 6 in Germany or the TGV in France, which have lower g/pkm emissions.

At this point I was left wondering if the report's authors meant to analyze the impact of a mid-speed diesel powered train line instead of a high speed line. Although the report was light on specifics, the authors did mention that they meant to analyze the effects of efficiency gains in "traction electricity," although this may refer to maglev. They could have also assumed much lower load factors for these routes, although they did not state this in their assumptions.

Needless to say, I'm convinced that the study is flawed.

However, assuming it is not flawed, the energy mix still differs from region to region (different power pools have different generation and emissions profiles). I found the UK-wide electricity emissions-factor on DEFRA's site, which is 546.67 kG of CO2 per mWh. Using the EPA's eGRID data for the California region, I converted lbs/kWh to 398.57 kG of CO2 per mWh. So, California's electricity results in about 73% of the emissions in the UK, per unit of delivered electricity.

	raw	convert
UK, From DEFRA	0.54667	546.67
California, from eGRID	878.71	398.5766

So, even if the report was correct, and high speed rail emissions in the UK would emit 88 g/pkm (which I highly doubt), the equivalent technology would only emit 64 g/pkm operating in California.