Operating the right transit mode

Transit planning is often done backwards as planners and the public decide from the start what technology they want. The problem is that it's then hard to run an efficient service with the wrong vehicle type.  Let's put aside any notions you have about one mode being better than another and consider some guidelines. Each type of transit mode has a capacity range at which it is useful. The table shows very general ranges; although the numbers can vary significantly, the ratios are generally accurate.

Transit Bus (local)	35 seats, up to 65 total ("crush load")
Articulated Bus (local)	57 seats, up to 85 total ("crush load")
Coach Bus (intercity)	50-57 seats; no standees
Light Rail	100 per car, up to 4 cars
Subway	150-200 per car, up to 10 cars
Commuter/Intercity Rail	100-200 per car, up to 10 cars

It is very important to first identify your service objectives and determine the volume of passengers to be carried.  Then your choice of vehicle is just a function of the normal capacity required (as dictated by service standards/policies) and the costs and logistics of operating each type of vehicle.

For small loads a single bus will be sufficient, but when loads are higher you either need to add a second vehicle -- and pay a second driver -- or run a higher-capacity vehicle (such as one of the rail options). Remember that paying a driver dwarfs all other expenses, and some rail options require more than one employee (if you need conductors or token clerks, for example).

The type of vehicle you need may vary by time of day, often so drastically that it actually makes sense to run different modes at different times. This is what GO Transit, the Toronto area's intercity transit provider, been doing for many years. Some lines generate enough volume to justify rail service only on weekdays, so GO Transit runs coach buses on weekends on those lines. The Barrie line only runs trains in rush hours.

A regional train requires several employees, whereas a bus requires just one. Even if you need two or three buses to handle the passenger volume, it's still better because you can stagger them and thereby increase the frequency of service for the same cost. Traffic in the suburbs is much lighter on weekends so the trip times are comparable, and in order to get the times down buses omit some parking-lot-only stations. As you can see the buses even have bike racks, and some of the buses are double-deckers. You also don't need to buy any extra buses because most coach buses aren't needed on weekends anyway.

I don't know of any other agencies that do this, although many should. Boston's MBTA is a perfect candidate for this kind of arrangement.  If you know any others, please share.

Episode 3 - transit fares, intercity rail and bus

Observations on transit fares prompted by my recent quick visit to Bethlehem and Easton, Pennsylvania. And why do so few people take Amtrak? Hint: it's not because they don't want to.  Check out this early blog post on improving the entire American rail system in an efficient and cost-effective way. Only a few links this week.  LANTA provides local bus service in and around Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton; Greater Greater Washington wrote last year on Amtrak's declining service levels; and Transit Maps from Cameron Booth.  We heard music from Manudub, Funkysushi, and Broken Social Scene.

Flexible Street Design in Downtown Kitchener

The main street in downtown Kitchener, Ontario -- King Street -- was recently redesigned to provide for flexible uses. I took this photo in 2010 during reconstruction. Notice how the entire street width is level, from the buildings to sidewalks to auto space.

The curb line is still visually present to guide users during times when cars are permitted (and for truck deliveries), but the design allows the city to maximize use of the street for different needs. At most times it is just a big pedestrian space, but parts of the streetscape are used for cafe patio seating, special events, and even temporary street furniture (tables, chairs, benches).

Kitchener also has a beautiful City Hall building and plaza that can be better appreciated without cars in the way.

Bus Driver Speeding is a Scheduling Problem

Every time I visit Boston I notice a pattern I've seen in a few other cities: MBTA buses being driven beyond a safe speed. Not only is this potentially dangerous; it also provides an uncomfortable ride for passengers and is at least discourteous toward other road users. There are three main factors responsible for unsafe driving practices:

1. Insufficient schedule time.  Buses must be given enough time to complete each trip and be ready for the following trip. As discussed in Episode 2 - Transit Scheduling, schedules should take into account the maximum normal running time at that time of day, as well as the layover time which consists of a 10-20% recovery period and a short driver break. Failure to provide enough total time causes well-intentioned drivers to try to stay on schedule by driving faster. The possible lack of a driver break is also dangerous because it increases their stress level, a primary cause of aggressive driving.
2. Lack of a schedule adherence policy that is strictly enforced.  Aside from making people miss the bus and causing bus bunching, allowing operators to leave major stops before the scheduled time creates a powerful incentive to drive faster since doing so will likely result in a longer break at the end of the trip. Some drivers also play games such as deliberately catching up with the previous bus so as not to have as many passengers to pick up. Enforcement of scheduled departure times removes any incentive to drive faster than the allotted time, since no operator wants to sit and wait with anxious passengers on the bus asking why they're waiting.
3. Inadequate training and supervision.  Transit operators need to be retrained periodically and monitored frequently. Many transit agencies, in desperate attempts to minimize the impact of budget cuts on service availability, have cut essential behind-the-scenes functions beyond a reasonable limit. As a result places like Boston have very few supervisors on the street to monitor for service problems and identify necessary schedule changes or operators who may need retraining or disciplinary actions.

Boston's MBTA suffers from all three of these problems. They should look to the New York City MTA where aggressive bus driver behavior is rare. Although the MTA has had to eliminate some services and layoff employees, they seem to have retained enough staff to make the necessary schedule changes and monitor service on the street.

Many agencies resist adding time where needed because it would either require changes to connecting services or cost money. Increasing the travel time reduces the number of trips you are able to run with the same number of operators, which may violate the policy headway or cause overcrowding. But you have to do it; pretending a trip only takes 30 minutes does not make it so. Transit agencies should plan their budgets in a way that permits a reasonable growth or reduction in operating costs during the fiscal year, so that these constraints are avoided.

Moving beyond auto-centric tools for multimodal planning

Nice to see this article on BikePortland about that city's efforts to change what planners correctly note are unfair auto-centric metrics. You can't build multimodal, sustainable cities if the system is still be biased toward cars. And have no doubt that the vast majority of transportation engineers adhere strictly to the old manuals that put traffic flow above all else. This also relates to the projections fallacy I mentioned on the podcast last week calling into question traffic projections and our obsession with them. I have run into this obstacle in almost every street design project I've been involved in. According to most planners and virtually all engineers, street space can only be reallocated to pedestrians, cyclists or transit vehicles if it doesn't negatively impact those driving cars. It is reasonable to estimate traffic volumes, just as transit planners must estimate transit passenger volumes. However, traffic projections are usually wildly overestimated and ignore some important and undeniable facts. The most obvious discrepancy is that Vehicle Miles Traveled has declined for almost a decade. This trend will continue as more people choose to live in cities where they can rely on public and non-motorized transportation and live car-free.

Projections tend to ignore driver behavior and decision making. The assumption is that all of the current traffic will remain and we must make sure it keeps moving. However, traffic is fluid and changes significantly after changes are made to the street and highway networks. Since nobody is attached to a particular route, you will simply choose the best mode and route to get between points A and B. So when you design a road today to have 30 percent greater capacity, it will fill up tomorrow as more people find it faster and more convenient, and you will be wondering how you failed to predict the growth. (You will also ignore the decline in traffic on other routes and probably pull the same tricks there in the future.).

Traffic volumes reach an equilibrium as each individual finds the best way to reach his/her destination. This is true regardless of mode, and people often switch modes if they find that the calculation of variables -- time, money, stress, comfort, parking availability, etc. -- changes. Traffic volumes usually decline during road construction projects as drivers use other routes (or modes). Then, by the time the new road opens, it's not really needed or even justified.

Given all this, we should ask ourselves why we even bother making localized traffic projections when we know it only serves to prevent progress. Some people say we should have a bicycle LOS metric, but that misses the point. We should instead design streets for safety and a basic level of mobility for all road users (except transit which should receive top priority along with walking). This means taking space away from cars and giving it back to others. If car lanes or parking spaces have to go, so be it.

Ban the Car Horn

It's time to put an end to the use of car horns. Not just pass ineffective laws against using it but ban it altogether. It must be removed during regular state inspections and cannot be included with any new car sold. This device is supposed to alert others to dangerous situations, but in reality over 99% of all horn use is at best a nuisance and at worst creates dangerous situations by scaring people or prompting sudden moves.  Also, each use of this sound weapon in an urban area bothers at least a few dozen and sometimes hundreds of people.  Most of us have to put up with this terrible sound throughout our daily lives while the person causing the disturbance is insulated by a steel box. Every time a driver honks in my presence I have the urge to pull up along side them, smash their closed window and put a super loud air horn right against their ear.

In case you're not convinced:

1. The average car horn exceeds 100 decibels, well above the level at which hearing damage occurs (85 decibels), even though the user is surrounded by an insulated steel box and not exposed.
2. The privilege that is the availability of the horn promotes dangerous behavior. Drivers often drive recklessly and deliberately intimidate people in the hope that they won't have to slow down and drive responsibly. But when you can't bully people you have to show some courtesy and respect.
3. Car horns frighten people, often enough to cause pedestrians to trip or cyclists to lose control and crash. Besides just being a dick, a driver who intimidates pedestrians and non-motorized vehicle users is putting those people in serious danger.
4. Such loud sounds are a nuisance to everyone except the person using it. Because the driver is insulated by a steel box, horn users never seem to care about its impact on others.
5. Despite clear evidence that traffic congestion and delays do not magically solve themselves when honked at, too many drivers haven't figured that out.
6. Although most places prohibit use of the horn except for danger, there are no effective consequences for inappropriate use of the horn. Enforcement of such laws is difficult and usually ignored by the same police departments that ignore other reckless and arrogant driving behavior.
7. Pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized road users get along just fine without a horn, even though they are in much more danger and could probably use one. If anything, horns should be on bikes instead of cars.

If you insist that we must have the horn for dangerous situations, we have to reduce the volume and put a strict limit on its use.  I propose a maximum of two uses per month; after that it just won't work.  Maybe you can get an additional two uses by explaining to a judge why you had to use it the first two times.

Trucks and buses can keep their horns. In certain limited situations it is a safe practice for large vehicles to tap the horn to warn other road users. These professional drivers are mostly trained to use it responsibly and can more easily be held accountable. And obviously, emergency vehicles.

Of course none of this will ever happen because the car lobby has such a firm grip on our government policy and decision makers. They market their products as status symbols and means of exercising power over others.

Door Zone Bike Lanes

If you’re going to install a bike lane, please -- I beg you -- don't install one like this:

It’s very common for cities to “squeeze in” bike lanes like this one. They don’t want to upset anyone so they will only install bike lanes “if there is room” without changing anything else. The usual result is a totally unusable, narrow slice of the road in the “door zone” next to parked cars. But there is a reason cars don’t drive in that space, and bikes shouldn’t either. It’s just not safe: one of the major causes of bicyclist injuries is crashing into suddenly open car doors (being “doored”). You might think you can watch the car doors, but you can't really see inside cars and you'll have no time to react when a door opens in your face.

It happens all the time. I wish we could get car drivers and passengers to look before open their doors, but the reality is that most of them just don’t care. Whenever I try to educate someone on that, the response is an expletive every single time. There must be something about driving a big steel box that makes people act in ways they would never do otherwise.

So if you come across a lane like this, don’t bike in it, and if you have any influence on street design, please install bike lanes that people can actually use. While reducing lane width is a good method of lowering traffic speeds to improve safety (traffic calming), bike lanes should not be used exclusively for this purpose. Instead, if that’s your goal, a meaningful improvement can be made by simply marking narrower lanes or painting a shoulder/edge line to define a lane width.

The Boulevard of Death must die

There are so many dangerous streets in my neighborhood that I tend to forget about completely insane streets like this one.  The official name is Queens Boulevard but it’s been known locally as the “Boulevard of Death” for many decades. Just how are you supposed to cross this 12 lane highway?

Pedestrians are killed along Queens Boulevard on a fairly regular basis, mainly because they attempt to cross against the signal.  Since traffic flow is so heavily prioritized, the signals do not provide enough crossing time. How are you supposed to obey the signals when you have to run halfway across, then wait in the middle for at least two minutes, then run across the rest?  Standing on a tiny piece of concrete in the middle of a highway is quite a terrifying experience. And with traffic speeds often reaching twice the speed limit of 30 miles per hour -- and the signals timed to encourage such dangerous behavior -- it is easy to underestimate the amount of time you have to run across.

Unfortunately, rather than seeking a solution, the Department of Transportation decided to blame the victim and install these signs:

The real problem is the design of the roadway. The highway-like corridor encourages driving at far higher speeds than are safe in any urban area. Let’s repurpose half of the street for things like bus lanes, bike lanes, park space, and perhaps even selling some of the land to developers in order to finance such changes.

Can Bicycles and Transit Coexist Peacefully?

I knew it was only a matter of time before I got to talking about bicycles – and as it happens, it’s my first post after a long hiatus (was busy moving, sorry!). Can’t we all just get along?  That’s the question everyone should be asking but no one does. I’m talking about bicycles and public transportation, because we’re all in this whole sustainable transportation thing together.

Bicycles solve one of the fundamental flaws inherent in any transit system, which is that transit is not great for short trips. While a frequent and comprehensive public transport network makes it easy and convenient to travel long distances, it is simply not possible to design a system serving every possible trip need.

Yet half of all trips are less than three miles. Even for longer trips, we have the “last mile” problem: you can go all the way across a city or region but not get close enough to walk, and thus you can’t use transit.

Enter the bicycle!  Bicycles are perfect for those trips too far to walk yet too close to be effectively served by transit. It’s hard to beat a 20-minute bike ride in any transit mode, especially when you consider walking time to the transit stop/station.

Transit is expensive for short trips. Paying only $2 to go across town may be a bargain, but not if you only go a mile, and certainly not compared to a free option. (Which is, of course, why so many people drive so much, because we provide and maintain streets and parking spaces, among other subsidies. More on that in the near future...)

Another positive effect of bicycling in large, dense cities is that fewer people are taking up space on the subways and buses at the most crowded times. In a time of growing ridership and inability to add buses and trains, any extra space is a good thing.

Contrary to popular myth, bicycles and buses can coexist peacefully. Transit operators are highly trained professionals, and bicycles aren’t surrounded by tons of steel. In other words, neither one is likely to hurt anyone, and they should have a healthy respect for each other.

The Fare Increase

Fare increases are happening more often these days -- nearly 90 percent of all US transit agencies have raised fares in the past two years -- but of course that doesn’t make them any more popular. Passengers don’t like fare increases, and transit agencies dread going through the mountain of paperwork and lengthy public hearings associated with fare changes, often to wind up with a lower increase than they budgeted for. We can reduce the pain by introducing regular, small fare increases scheduled to take effect on a consistent date (i.e. January 1 every year). For most agencies this would mean charging an extra 5-10 cents per year. It’s also possible to have a very small increase each month or a few times per year.

Automated fare collection equipment makes it much easier to charge uneven amounts when most people are paying with smart cards or tickets. Riders can be encouraged to use smart cards or tickets by charging more for payment in cash or offering free transfers only on a smart card. This reduces the “dwell time” when the bus is sitting at the bus stop.

For riders, it’s much easier to afford and accept a fare increase if it’s small and you know it’s coming. When you make your budget and plan your lifestyle you know how much your transport costs will be for the next few years. The current system imposes a real burden on the poorest users because they have trouble suddenly coming up with another $10 a week.  Ridership won’t drop quite as much if the fare increase is small and expected.

Transit agencies stand to collect a lot more revenue over the long-term -- raising the fare 5 percent each year yields much more revenue than waiting five years and raising it 25 percent. If you can go through only one public process at the beginning, you save countless employee hours, paper and money, as opposed to going to the public each year.  This means more time spent on core job functions and more money available to actually operate bus service, which is why you needed a fare increase in the first place.