Episode 17: conversation in transit with Brock Dittus from The Sprocket Podcast, regional connections

I hopped on a train from Boston to Providence last week with Brock Dittus from The Sprocket Podcast. On the return train we got out the microphones and had an interesting chat about bikes, buses, trains, slow travel between cities, suburban sprawl and much more. Brock mentioned Tri-Met of Portland, the Lower Columbia Community Action Project which provides limited rural transit service in Washington state on a shoestring budget, and Transportland cargo bikes. Thanks to Josh Zisson from Bike Safe Boston for loaning Brock a superb single-speed bicycle.

At the end of the show I share an experience where a connection between LRTA and MBTA was practically useless due to lack of information. A great example of an inter-agency regional transit connection is the Coastal Link operated jointly by Bridgeport, Milford and Norwalk transit agencies on the Connecticut shore line. This decade-old route fills a gap in a retail-oriented suburban area and is part of a a series of local bus routes running from the New York line to the Rhode Island line.

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?

Episode 16: Livable Streets with Charlie Denison

While in Boston I sat down with Charlie Denison, Advocacy Committee Chair of the Livable Streets Alliance, a local network of sustainable transportation advocates. We discuss the latest in the ongoing effort to redesign our transport networks to serve all users and shift the balance away from car oriented development. Charlie is a multimodal transit user and passionate advocate for safer and more inviting streets where everyone can coexist peacefully. Find out more about the Livable Streets Alliance and read Charlie's blog on the Somerville Patch.

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.

Articulated subway trains

The new subway cars in Toronto have an excellent feature that I wish all transit agencies would adopt. The "open gangway" means that the cars are connected to each other in an articulated train set with a section similar to the middle "accordion" section of light rail cars and long buses. The ability to walk easily between cars increases capacity by allowing crowds to disperse throughout the train. It also improves safety as you can see through the entire train and won't be isolated, and nobody can become injured when trying to pass between cars on a typical subway train. This setup is apparently common on trains in Europe but not in North America.

The main disadvantage of having the cars permanently connected is that an entire train set must be removed from service when maintenance is needed, so you need more cars in your fleet.  With a typical setup, one or two cars can be removed and the rest coupled with other cars ready to carry passengers.  I think it's worth spending a little more money to get the benefits of articulated train sets.  Although I guess it would also be bad if you can't change cars to escape the guy who hasn't showered in weeks.

Episode 15: Scheduling, construction, privatization, service quality, how to not get hit by trains

News items fill up this week's show. More cities trying to speed up construction projects by shutting down line segments. Bus rapid transit lines often promote themselves based on the inclusion of things that should be standard on all buses. Privatization is usually bad policy. I discuss the impacts of scheduling on operator health and system safety. Finally, I explain how to help someone who falls on the train tracks (hint to NY Post: put down your camera and go get help.) Chicago: CTA Red Line South Renewal Project

Long Island, NY: Privatized NICE bus ridership decline & LI Bus Riders Union

Palm Beach, FL: Lack of bathroom breaks for drivers

San Antonio, TX: Via Metropolitan Transit launches Via Primo BRT route (article)

Vancouver, BC: TransLink launches Compass Card for contactless fare payment

Washington, DC: WMATA studying operator fatigue

New York City: Jerk takes photo of man being hit by train instead of trying to help

Sacramento, CA: General Manager rides the bus (a novel concept!)

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.

Episode 14: parking, land use and transit with Rachel Weinberger

Parking is a very important factor in urban design and transport mode choice, yet is frequently overlooked as cities consider it part of zoning codes rather than transportation infrastructure. Sustainable transportation consultant Rachel Weinberger joins me to explain the connections between parking, transit and the urban environment. The costs of driving are not only heavily subsidized by all levels of government but also bundled into the costs of goods and services in the public and private sectors. As a result, the provision of free or cheap parking (and the perceived endless need for it) promotes driving and makes it more difficult to walk or use other transport modes. We also talk about her work on the original PlaNYC and other transportation politics and trends.

Find out more about Rachel Weinberger by reading her research papers and and in coverage on Streetsblog.

Please send questions, comments and suggestions for future topics or guests to feedback@criticaltransit.com.

No Turn on Red

One of the most dangerous laws in the United States is the provision permitting drivers to turn right on a red light. It was one of a few terrible 1970s policy changes, along with raising highway speed limits from 55 to 65 mph, which pretended to reduce gasoline use and emissions during the US gasoline shortage. Environmental awareness began increasing at that time but even today most people don't recognize that anything you do to make driving easier and faster actually encourages more driving. The theory of induced traffic demand shows that adding motor vehicle capacity or improving traffic flow is always going to increase traffic demand and congestion. Research by the Federal Highway Safety Administration confirms my experience:

While the law requires motorists to come to a full stop and yield to cross street traffic and pedestrians prior to turning right on red, many motorists do not fully comply with the regulations. Motorists are so intent on looking for traffic approaching on their left that they may not be alert to pedestrians on their right. In addition motorists usually pull up into the crosswalk to wait for a gap in traffic, blocking pedestrian crossing movements. In some instances, motorists simply do not come to a full stop. ...

Prohibiting right turns on red will significantly improve pedestrian safety.

A common problem is that no turn on red signs are typically located on the far side location where they are less visible. Traffic signs and signals should always be located at the near side of the intersection, prior to the crosswalk, so that drivers have to stop before the crosswalk in order to see when the signal changes to green. If an advance stop line is used the signals should be placed so that motorists stop there.

Focus on service quality, not cost

In today's political climate of artificially tight budgets, it's far too easy to fixate on costs and nothing else. Comparisons among light rail systems in different cities (or even in the same city) are almost always rendered invalid by the wide variations in service outcomes and specific construction requirements. Costs are impacted by many things beyond distance and vehicle type, although these are often ignored by those trying to score cheap political points. The planned service characteristics and facility layouts have to work with the existing land use, streetscape and utilities. If you want to build and operate high quality transit service, you need to invest a lot in infrastructure, so the capital construction cost will be higher than the cost of low quality transit without new infrastructure. That decision should be based on what kind of transit is necessary to meet the current and future demand for transportation, is very specific to the particular site. Remember also that higher quality transit reduces ongoing operating costs. A fast subway yields great savings over a slow light-rail line that may be cheaper to build, just as implementing so-called "bus rapid transit" wastes far more operating money than doing it right.

Stephen Rees says it best on his blog when talking about the Vancouver subway proposal:

But just looking at costs – and trying to minimize them – is not a good way to plan a transit system. You have to look at the benefits too – and there are always judgements that are going to be made. ... Look at the Canada Line. It was built down to a price, not up to a standard. It is therefore less safe than it could be. There are no platform edge doors, which are standard for new automatic train operated subways elsewhere. It is inconvenient with only one entrance for each station, forcing passengers into crossing the road on the surface which is also a safety concern. It is not going to be big enough if Vancouver actually achieves its 2040 goals: the platforms in the stations just cannot accommodate much longer trains.

Focusing on the cost of capital construction means devaluing the service, providing lower quality transit than should be provided, and spending more money in the long run than is necessary.