Why does Philly have no pedestrian signals?

One of the first things I noticed in Philadelphia was the near complete absence of pedestrian signals. Except on Market Street, the main street in the Center City, I haven't seen any. This seems to make walking more difficult than it needs to be. A lack of pedestrian signals conveys the message that drivers are more important than pedestrians, and as a result both are often confused as to who goes first.

Is there an argument that I'm missing?  Perhaps the lack of dedicated pedestrian signals makes drivers more careful?

Road expansion does not relieve congestion or improve air quality

The problems caused by large roads cannot be solved by making those roads larger. I am often frustrated by planners and elected officials who insist on spending scarce resources on a pretend solution such as a freeway expansion or bypass road. Their logic is that reducing traffic congestion will necessarily improve air quality by reducing idling, which causes the most harmful emissions. Yet such initiatives don't accomplish anything except creating jobs for road construction workers (who, by the way, seem to hate motorists because careless drivers regularly kill their colleagues).

Roads and highways are part of a system. You can make a highway segment as wide as you want, but once it narrows there will be a bottleneck, and you cannot eliminate anywhere near all the bottlenecks. By widening a segment your best hope is to move the congestion a little further down the highway.

If you built it, they will come. New road capacity is very quickly filled up as the "improvement" created an option for people to drive further or to a different place. Now those people are stuck in traffic and regretting their life changes. We cannot build our way out of traffic congestion with more and wider roads.

Air quality does not improve. If you induce more car traffic, the air and noise pollution and all associated dangers will continue to rise. Is should be unacceptable to use Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for any road project except a road diet.

Transit continues to suffer. I can't count the number of times I've seen buses used as a pawn to win support for anti-transit projects (or opposition to pro-transit projects). Traffic engineers like to claim that if a project makes things better for all traffic then it's an improvement for buses. Don't fall for this lie!  Road expansion projects induce driving, thereby increasing bus delays and making buses less attractive. If you want to improve bus service on congested roadways, the only answer is a dedicated bus lane.

The only way to reverse congestion is to invest in sustainable transportation options such as walkways, bikeways and high quality transit services. Instead of spending millions adding new asphalt, dedicate an existing lanes to buses and invest that money in new bus routes to meet the demand served by the highway. Give people real options and make it easy to use them, and they will come.

P.S. No podcast episode this week due to the American holidays but my voice will return next week.

New York MTA Announces More Overnight Subway Shutdowns

One of the reasons many people consider the New York City subway to be the best in the world is that it's one of only a handful of rail systems which operate all night, every night.  It provides service to every station (except one in the financial district), although many routes change and most service operates every 20 minutes. Most cities shut down their rail systems overnight so they can perform essential inspections and maintenance. Check out this recent documentary by Boston's MBTA showing all the work they do in that short window from about 1-5 AM.

Since the MTA New York City Subway runs all night, maintenance work requires careful planning and frequent diversions, and occasionally replacing a line segment with shuttle buses. There are limits to the work you can do when trains are operating, raising the costs of repairs and increasing the risks related to the safety of workers. The same service changes often happen repeatedly as bits of work are completed.

Last year the MTA rolled out its Fastrack program which shuts down a line segment completely for a few consecutive nights and floods it with employees to do maintenance and repairs. Get in, finish, get out.  Now they are expanding it beyond Manhattan.

The concept of focused complete shutdowns is gaining traction in transit agencies all over North America because of the reduced length and cost of construction. For example, Boston is closing a major downtown station for two years rather than the six years it would take to complete renovations while keeping it open. Sometimes you may need shuttle buses (preferably at night when the streets are empty, or otherwise with temporary bus lanes); other times you can get away with using a temporary platform.

As long as the inconvenience is small and well publicized in advance, a shutdown makes so much sense than to drag out repairs.

Red Light Cameras improve safety and cannot be about revenue

When I talk about traffic safety and enforcement of traffic laws, people often respond that the police department should aggressively enforce traffic laws so that they bring in lots of money. That's not the point, and this line of thinking is dangerous because it frames the goal as increasing revenue. It is then easy to attack an effective program like red light cameras or speed detectors as (a) designed primarily to make money, and (b) ineffective and wasteful if they don't generate reliable income. In fact, if done well, such programs generate significant revenue in the beginning but then make a lot less money as word spreads among the community that drivers can no longer get away with certain forms of dangerous behavior. That's also the case with things like cigarette taxes: cities forecast millions of dollars in revenue only to see that income decline dramatically and a good thing (fewer smokers) become a bad thing (budget shortfalls). Since most police departments either don't care much about traffic safety or lack the staffing levels to properly enforce traffic laws, it is promising to see cameras being increasingly deployed to catch drivers disregarding red lights and speed limits. But the use of these cameras is still limited and in many places is being held back by reckless politicians. From TSTC:

A recent report released by NJDOT determined that it is still too early to reach any conclusions about RLR, but what is clear is that in locations where the cameras have been installed for two full years, dangerous driver behavior is down and intersections are becoming safer. Some legislators in Trenton, however, are working to repeal the RLR program. This video illustrates why that may not be the best idea. [WARNING: This video contains graphic images of real life accidents.]

New York City has been using red light cameras for at least a decade and they have been proven to reduce dangerous driver behavior.  That doesn't stop the media and the car lobby from trying to paint reckless drivers as hapless victims of what is supposedly the city's ongoing efforts to steal your hard earned cash. Of course, that might be a legitimate argument if drivers already paid their fair share anyway, but that's beside the point.

The real challenge with any enforcement mechanism is to keep the focus on preventing violations. We tend to get distracted by the financial aspects and then the revenue becomes more important than improved safety, causing the Chicago Tribune to report that in one town, "Revenues — and citations — from the cameras have gone down since they were installed because drivers have gotten used to them."  The article frames this as a bad thing but to any reasonable person it's actually good because it means the intersections are getting safer. What would be more interesting to study is whether dangerous red light violations are down across town or just at the intersections drivers know have cameras. Do we need cameras recording every intersection movement or just enough so drivers never know where they might be?

Americans for Transit

Join me for a great discussion on transit funding and politics with Andrew Austin from the national advocacy group, Americans for Transit. It's a difficult time to be a transit advocate fighting federal neglect of sustainable transportation. Yet despite all the problems, it's increasingly clear that Americans want more (and better) transit, and pressure is increasing at the local level. Amir from Israel shares a few of the unique public transit challenges there related to religious tension and military transport.  Minku from the Vegan Pedicab Podcast sent in an article on mobile transit apps, prompting some grand thoughts on how to make mobile transit apps useful.

Follow Americans for Transit on Twitter @A4Transit and Facebook. Check out their Organizing Guide and Directory and other great resources for advocacy and activism. You can also read the article written earlier this year on Streetsblog, and remember that transit agencies are not allowed to advocate for us so we must do it ourselves.

Philadelphia's diversity of transit modes

I am in Philadelphia for a few days for only the second time in over a decade. Since New York is only two hours away I should get there more often. There are numerous ways to make the trip through New Jersey in addition to the good old $15 intercity bus trip. Philly can be a transit fan's paradise, since its transit agency, SEPTA, operates one of the most diverse transit systems in North America: buses, trolley buses, streetcars, light rail, subway and elevated heavy rail, and regional rail.  Only Boston's MBTA has a more diverse system as it also operates a handful of low-ridership ferries. San Francisco joins the list if you include the entire region (not just a single transit agency), but MBTA and SEPTA serve their entire regions.

Expanding beyond SEPTA, transit services in  the Philadelphia region include the PATCO High Speed Line, a single heavy rail line to neighboring Camden and a few NJ suburbs; NJTRANSIT rail to Atlantic City; and many NJTRANSIT local and express buses feeding the transit hub that is Center City.  Across the river in Camden, NJTRANSIT runs the River Line light rail to Trenton, and the SEPTA Regional Rail connects directly with both NJTRANSIT rail to New York City and Delaware's DART First State bus system, as well as a handful of smaller local transit operators in adjacent counties.

As an aside, both SEPTA and DART First State have buses on loan to NJTRANSIT to fill in for buses damaged during Hurricane Sandy.

Articulated Buses: are they worth it?

The introduction of articulated buses was a great technological advancement in the world of passenger transportation. Replacing a typical 40-foot transit bus with a 60-foot bus allows you to carry a lot more people without any additional operating costs. There are many benefits to having them in your fleet. Longer buses can be a great solution for cities looking to add capacity to busy routes. Only 3 articulated buses are needed to replace 4 standard buses, so the reduced operating cost outweighs the extra capital cost. Bunching can be reduced since you don't have as many vehicles on a route. The turning radius of an articulated bus is actually shorter than that of a standard bus -- because of how its length is divided: 35 feet plus 25 feet --  so the route does not need to be changed. And since articulated buses are well suited to high volume routes, they can come in handy during planned rail outages, if you can plan the shuttle for a time of reduced demand on the normal bus route (try Sunday).

However, there are drawbacks to consider, as well as things that need to be addressed before and during implementation.

Target deployment of higher capacity vehicles. Articulated buses should first be deployed on your most frequent routes, the places where service is already so frequent that adding 40-foot buses only worsens bunching (generally every 5 minutes or better). Fewer vehicles means more balanced capacity and hopefully a reduction in bunching and long gaps in service.

Don't mix different bus sizes. Only add articulated buses if you can convert a whole route. If two or more routes run together for a long segment, convert all of them. Otherwise you get major bunching as a 40-foot bus takes longer to load and a 60-foot bus catches up to it. You might try to be creative by scheduling a longer headway in front of the longer buses, but we all know how well buses stick to their schedule all the time. Just don't mix 'em.

Lengthen bus stops. Bus stops will need to be lengthened by 20 to 40 feet. Often the new stop becomes inaccessible for disabled passengers or blocks a cross street or pedestrian crossing. Rebuilding sidewalks is very expensive and, if the transit agency does not manage the streets, very difficult. Even if these issues don't come up, abutters are likely to raise hell about the removal of a few parking spots.

Consolidate stops. These are busy, frequent routes. People will walk farther to a fast, frequent service, so while you're lengthening stops, take advantage of this rare opportunity to reduce travel time. If you don't have limited-stop service, converting a few routes to 60-foot buses may free up the resources to try limited-stop service on one route.

Make a snow plan. Many transit agencies experience problems with articulated buses fishtailing in the snow, so much that they usually need to be removed for safety reasons. If you suddenly need to pull many buses off the road, how quickly can you do it, and where are you getting the extra 40-foot buses during a storm when you need every vehicle on the road? The best solution may be to create and heavily publicize a plan for reducing service on specific routes during a storm, so you can make extra buses available. (There are many other good reasons for a snow service reduction plan, but mostly it's about safety and the ability to shift buses around.)

Add more doors. These are busy routes, so you can greatly reduce dwell times by having 3 or 4 doors per bus. This is why articulated buses beat double decker buses, so don't make New York City Transit's initial mistake of buying articulated buses with only two doors. And as with all buses, increase passenger movement within the bus by choosing fewer seats in favor of more standing room.

Implement off-board fare payment. Add to the savings by taking advantage of this golden opportunity to speed up your service. The extra doors allow an even greater reduction in time spent at the stop -- and make it even more ridiculous to wait in line at the front door.

Hurricane Recovery Special with Epic Transit Journey

Enjoy this special, extra-long episode on the damage from Hurricane Sandy and the struggle to rebuild devastated communities and submerged transit networks. We have shuttered rail lines, debris and trash all over the streets, massive flooding in stations, hundreds of shuttle buses, missing rail cars, huge neighborhoods in a now-snowy region with no heat or electricity. ... More people are using bicycles and hopefully some will make it their preferred transport mode. This episode features bits of live audio from Boston during the hurricane and from my epic transit journey from Boston to New York via a combination of local bus services when intercity carriers were not running.

Next week is a discussion about bicycling in Toronto with Yvonne Bambrick. Later this month, the rest of my audio from riding the MBTA, walking and biking in Boston.

Great photos of the damage and amazing recovery efforts courtesy of MTA Photos on flickr:

Sports stadiums are a complete waste of money

Many of us said a few years ago that building thousands of car parking spaces at the new Yankee Stadium was a terrible idea, a waste of precious funds, and an insult to the community. So it is no big surprise that the Yankee Stadium parking operator recently defaulted on its bond payments. Aside from causing more car travel, which is consistently raised as the top concern of South Bronx residents, this debacle quite perfected illustrates why we should never use public funds to construct private property. Because sports stadiums are among the worst uses of public money.

Proponents of stadiums make grand claims about new jobs, expected tax revenues and neighborhood revitalization, but in reality sports teams don’t help the city anywhere near as much as people think they do. Many cities feel desperate to attract or retain whatever little bits of tax revenue they can, and a stadium seems like a good deal until you realize just how much land it takes up and how little it gets used, and remember that it's not open to the public.

The lies about jobs, taxes and community development -- and the phony threats sports teams make to move outside the city if they can’t rob the public to pay for their own private buildings and further enrich the 1 percent -- are all part of a ploy to convince the city to open its cash drawer.

Since a typical arena operates only a few hours a day, its contribution to street life is negligible at best and can actually be negative since it makes vast areas undesirable and unsafe except during events. These massive buildings also have the effect of dividing communities, especially if parking facilities are included.

New York City made major investments to the subway and regional rail networks serving Yankee Stadium, including a new station.  And now -- surprise! -- fewer people than anticipated are driving there. The need to pay market rates for parking is a strong disincentive to drive a private vehicle, and the rapid transit and regional rail networks in the Bronx and Brooklyn (where another new stadium recently opened) make transit very convenient. This is great news for the community, but it's apparently a “problem” if you’ve invested lots of money on parking that isn't being used.

Regardless of the parking debacle, New York City paid millions of dollars to build each stadium -- millions of dollars that we would never see again even in the best case scenario. At a time when living costs are rising, wages are falling, public services are being gutted due to austerity, and thousands of people in New York City alone don't know where their next meal is coming from, can anyone honestly say that subsidizing private stadiums is money well spent?

Drivers, don't be a jerk. Bus stops are for buses.

A while ago, after a tough battle, New York’s MTA was finally allowed to record license plates of cars blocking bus stops so they could be mailed a ticket.  I’ve never seen this happen but I see bus stops blocked all over the place, especially by the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law. Today I received this forwarded mass email. (Sidenote: I don’t get much of this type of spam anymore, but it reminded me of those awful chain email from the 90s where you had to forward it to 50 people or you would receive bad luck.)

“This morning I saw the license plate of a car in the bus stop light up on the front of the bus. I then learned the newest method being used to issue parking tickets.

If a bus pulls into a bus stop and there is a car there - even if the car is running - the bus camera takes a picture of the license plate and [the owner] will be sent a parking ticket in the mail... “

Okay, fine... Good... No, excellent, if this makes drivers stay out that’s great.... oh, wait:

“The city has found a way to raise more money and with the picture of your plate at the bus stop it will be very difficult to fight this ticket.”

I could rant for days about the sense of entitlement that drivers display by ignoring speed limits, parking and turn restrictions and other rules which are inconvenient to them. Then they repeat the popular myth that it’s all about money, which is a convenient way of justifying selfish behavior, rather than thinking about why blocking a bus stop is illegal in the first place.

And it’s not about money. Because if it were about money, the city would be aggressively ticketing and towing cars parked in bus lanes, bike lanes and other no standing zones, running red lights, blocking crosswalks, driving too fast/recklessly, failing to yield the right of way, and on down the list.

Keeping bus stops clear is a battle that every city bus operator has been waging since cars entered public space. Buses transport people of all abilities and need to be able to board and alight people against the curb. How are you supposed to use a wheelchair lift if a car is preventing the bus from pulling flush to the curb?

Bus stops are only blocked when a driver thinks s/he is more important than anyone else. These people deserve much worse than a parking ticket. Perhaps this solution from Lithuania.