Simple solution for bus-bike conflicts

Something they figured out long ago in the Netherlands is that the safest way to design roads is to physically separate the various types of users. Hence the ubiquity of cycle-tracks. This not only reduces conflict between vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians, but it actually improves traffic flows in many cases.

Upon returning to Portland, there have been several instances where I've been riding the bus and the driver has had to wait for several cyclists to pass on the right in the bike lane in order to get over to the stop, then wait again to merge back into traffic. This is especially bad on streets like Hawthorne between SE Grand and SE 12th Ave, where traffic in all forms is high.

More than an inconvenience, it's a safety issue for cyclists. Having buses constantly going in and out of your lane isn't exactly ideal for things like "not getting hit" and "living" and such. Cycle-tracks would indeed be ideal to address the issue, but Portland has been somewhat slow to invest in them, as these are the only two of any significance in the city:

Raised cycle track on SW Moody (Image from swmoodyproject.com)

First cycle track in Portland, on SW Broadway (Image from bikeportland.org)

A full blown cycle-track is not the only option, however.  While the current configuration might look like this (and please forgive my lack of graphic design skills):

It would be a huge yet relatively simple improvement to do something like this:

It would require installation of a concrete island with curb cuts for wheelchair access, but in my mind the increased safety and reduced delays for both bus riders and bikers justify the expense.  Drivers, of course, might experience more delays due to being stuck behind buses loading and unloading passengers, but I don't claim to want to make things better for drivers (even when I'm one of them).  Besides, it really wouldn't be that much worse than the current situation for them since drivers are impacted by the constant weaving of buses and cyclists.  

Update (Aug 15, 2012): My good friend (and Dear Leader) Derek Abe enlightened me to the fact that there is actually a legitimate cycle track on NE Cully in addition to the two I mentioned here. 

An existential crisis: Is sharing really caring?

So I'm sharing my car on Getaround . If you're not familiar with Getaround, it's a relatively new carsharing company that enables car owners to rent out their vehicles on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis.  An owner sets his price (women aren't allowed), which the renter pays to Getaround, and after taking a commission Getaround pays the owner.  Why bother with the middle man, you ask?  Because Getaround screens, and more importantly insures, the driver.

It's a pretty innovative concept that fills another niche in the carsharing market.  While Zipcar's vehicles are generally high quality and accessible through purely electronic means (no disgusting human interaction required!), it ends up costing more due to membership fees and higher hourly rates than most owners charge on Getaround.  Zipcar is also limited by where they can rent parking spaces for their vehicles (which, judging by the map below, doesn't seem to be a huge barrier).

Zipcar locations in Portland

Car2Go's home area in Portland

Another carsharing service, Car2Go, has a fleet of Smart Cars that are aimed at those who want to make short trips without needing to return the vehicle to its pick-up location.  Users pay by the minute and can leave the car anywhere within a large designated area (see map).  The rate of $0.35/minute (maxes out at $12.99/hour) makes Car2Go generally more expensive than either Zipcar or Getaround, except when rented for an entire day; at that point, Car2Go actually ends up being cheaper than Zipcar.

Clearly there's a decent market for carsharing, at least in a handful of cities around the U.S. and Western Europe.  My question is whether it's really as "green" as it's often promoted to be.  In its favor, it shifts the costs of driving to up-front costs, which plenty of evidence (click here or here) shows to be effective at reducing driving.  It also has the potential to reduce the sheer number of cars in existence if enough people opt to utilize carsharing in favor of car ownership.  In fact, my wife and I made the leap to become a one-car family a couple years ago due to the presence of a Uhaul Car Share vehicle nearby.

On the other hand, carsharing enables driving instead of discouraging it.  Yes, this is America, and discouraging auto-use is akin to being forced to send a Tribute to the Capitol, but I'm skeptical that long term transportation sustainability (I really hate that word) is possible without actively dis-incentivizing driving.

Conveniently enough, the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC) is currently studying Getaround and its impact on travel behavior.  I'll be quite interested to see the outcome and whether I can abandon some of my communistic notions.

Dynamic commuting on transit

Having options is good.  Or is it? Because you care, here's a flow chart (that's right, a flow chart) of my daily commute on the TriMet system:

Simply fascinating.  All in all it takes about 45 minutes if I only take the #14 and MAX, or 35-40 minutes if I can avoid taking MAX through downtown by taking #6.  

The point is, there are a variety of transit options to get me from home to work, just as drivers often have several routes they can choose depending on traffic, weather, etc.It stands to reason that transit trips should be complicated - and therefore interesting - right?  

Not at all.  Yes, I get some satisfaction out of "beating the system," so to speak, since TriMet's trip planner doesn't even offer me the option of taking the #6 when in fact it is often the fastest.  (This is likely either because as it's scheduled it wouldn't be faster, or because it has too many transfers--you can currently select either "Fewest transfers" or "Quickest route" on the trip planner, but not both).

But I'm the exception (which makes me exceptional, indeed).  I do think that people want to feel an element of control over their journey, which explains much of the appeal of driving.  On the other hand, I would easily trade the transit-junkie "high" I get out of my commute with a reliably fast and simple trip.  I'll take the pure powder over crack any day.  

So while I see potential for real time trip information to enable better travel by providing information on alternative routes, it probably requires too much effort and knowledge of the transit network to be practically used in this way by most riders.  Then again, drivers everywhere have a good knowledge of the road network where they are driving and can make routing decisions on the fly. 

I had initially thought that this idea of a dynamic commute might be a creative selling point for transit.  Maybe the perception of dynamism would appeal to those who want more control than they feel they normally get with transit.  In the end, though, I'd argue that people prefer simplicity and limited options.  Profound, I know.  Otherwise transit could fall victim to the paradox of choice problem.  And with scales already tilted against it, public transportation doesn't need another disadvantage in comparison to driving.  

Distance-based fares are for champions

I just read this article in the Salt Lake Tribune talking about UTA's potential future fare-collection system.  Riders would pay according to how far they traveled, as tracked by GPS using a card with an embedded smart chip.  All monthly passes allowing unlimited rides for a flat fee would likely end, as would special discounted pricing for organizations like the University of Utah who purchase passes for employees/students.

The OV-chipkaart system in the Netherlands requires cards to
 be pre-loaded with funds, which the system debits from based
on distance traveled. 

I'm all for it.  Someone commuting from the suburbs has no business paying the same fare as someone using transit for short inner-city trips.  We accept this with private vehicles, so why not public?  Further supporting such a system is the demographics of those who take shorter vs. longer trips (generally poorer vs. generally wealthier, generally more minorities vs. generally whiteheads) due to residential patterns in cities.  But selling such a Marxist agenda has little luck in places like Utah.  Instead they better emphasize fairness in a more libertarian, less redistributive way.

A couple foreseeable challenges to implementation:

1. High costs in the beginning to "train" the public on how to pay their fare, especially those who are least capable of understanding the system.

2. Good old-fashioned American Brand privacy concerns.

3. The end of the world.

If UTA can address these, they have my highly coveted endorsement to move forward

Transportation and social equality

Throughout this stint in the Netherlands I haven't encountered very many homeless persons.  There have been a few panhandlers here and there in busier areas of larger cities, but nothing like I'm used to in either American or other European cities.

To see whether this perception was accurate, I looked up the stats: according to Statistics Netherland, only 0.02% of the Dutch population is homeless, compared to about 1% of the U.S. population.  In other words, a Dutch city of 500,000 people is likely to have 850 homeless persons, while a comparable American city would have closer to 5,000.

A big reason for this is the strong safety net provided by the Dutch government.  For example--and I'm not sure whether it's all residents or citizens only--but anyone making below-median income is eligible for a housing subsidy.

My purpose in posting this here is my contention that transportation plays a significant role in terms of social equality.  Someone's level of mobility can seriously impact their ability to meet their needs or improve their circumstances.  I saw this firsthand working with chronically homeless adults in Salt Lake as the program I worked for provided bus passes to clients who needed them.

Back to Holland.  A thoroughly connected and safe bike network means that all someone needs is a cheap bike to access almost the entire country.  Public transportation generally goes wherever (and whenever) you need to go, and quickly.  The region where I'm staying (Haaglanden) has a great radial tram network targeted towards average travelers, with a bus system that fills in the gaps to serve those who can't use any of the above.  With little-to-no need for a car, both poor and rich are on more equal footing, and that simply has to contribute to solving social problems like homelessness.

Houten and Utrecht

Two bits of insanity from today:

This is a video of me riding through a BICYCLE ROUNDABOUT, which is below the roundabout for cars.  I'm estimating its cost to be somewhere in the range of $0-$10,000,000,000 and the Wow Factor to be valued at $10,000,000,001.  It's located in Houten, which is just outside Utrecht and is basically a bicycle and pedestrian enthusiast's wet dream.    

And this, my friends, is a DOUBLE ARTICULATED BUS (2 accordion-looking extension things) in Utrecht - riding in a dedicated bus lane flanked by a raised bike lane and further-raised sidewalk.  All because the Dutch want to and therefore they can.    

Weekend in Dusseldorf and Cologne

So it turns out Germany is a bit less bikey than the Netherlands...

Addressing the "what-ifs" of biking

Today (which is a lie) I was reminded of one of my biggest barriers to cycling more frequently: the risk of getting a flat.  While touring through Rijkswijk and The Hague (again), the risk became reality and I had to patch the oldest and crappiest inner-tube on earth.  Long story short, this didn’t work for long, I ended up walking at least 100km, and replacing the tube took at least twice as long as anything I’ve ever done before in my life. 

“Wow,” you say.  “You’re complaining about a minor inconvenience in the middle of your two-week stay in Holland and you expect me to feel bad for you?”  You’re not done: “Get over it man; flats happen.  And while you’re at it, send me some stroopwafels to compensate me for the time I just wasted reading your e-whinings.” 

Bicycle superhighway near Delft.  Despite its awesomeness,
 flats can still happen here.

Easy there.  My point in sharing this anecdote is simply to point out that no matter how thorough, innovative, and user-friendly a city or region’s bicycle infrastructure is, it does not solve the problem of flat tires and other mishaps.  It may reduce the likelihood by providing cleaner/smoother riding surfaces, but it will not eliminate bike issues. And if the potential of incidents like this is enough to deter me from cycling, it certainly doesn’t help attract those less likely to choose a bike for more of their trips. 

Of course, complications are not unique to cycling.  People often have car troubles, buses and trains can sometimes be painfully late (or break down themselves), etc.  So no matter what mode one takes, the potential for delays is always there. 

Separate bike signal on bike path to reduce conflict.  This cyclist still didn't stop though.  

Thus, having alternatives is crucial.  Depending on where a cyclist "breaks down" in the U.S., he or she may have the option of hopping on a bus or train with their bike.  This still makes the cyclist dependent on the quality of public transportation service (here in Holland bikes are not allowed on most public transit due to capacity constraints).  According to bikeportland.org, AAA and the Better World Club offer bicycle towing services (but only to members), while some local Portland companies attempting to do so have failed.  Perhaps - just perhaps - if more people felt assured that if they encountered issues on their journey they had a reliable backup option, there would be more cycling by a wider range of populations.  

Oh beautiful for spacious Ypenburg

Jan Termorshuizen describing Ypenburg

Yes, the Netherlands is a tiny country.  I'm pretty sure you can fit 1.5 million of them in the good old USA.  Still, the Dutch have made such a concerted effort to preserve farmland and natural resources by limiting and containing growth that the country feels largely uninhabited.  Cities are usually centered around a main train station and carefully planned in terms of land use and the transportation facilities supporting it.  The result has pretty consistently been dense, compact, and navigable cities.  

Which is why Ypenburg somewhat confused me.    Redeveloped on the site of a former air force base, the town seems like a combination of Dutch planning principles and American spatial standards.  In less stupid language, the general patterns of orienting the city to transit and facilitating social interactions while embracing nature are there, but the density and compactness are not.  In fact, it almost felt like a gigantic office park:

Another crazy thing about the place is the departure from beautiful building design the Dutch are known for.  The social housing that dominates the town center is bland and institutional, which our guide Jan Termorshuizen of Stadsgewest Haaglanden (the regional government) explained by saying, “It seems that they forgot to make it look nice.” 

Social housing in Ypenburg town center

Indeed.

As we biked away from the uninspiring center, nicer townhomes emerged, which then gave way to neighborhoods of single-family homes on large lots.  So although we experienced all this on bicycles instead of in cars, I couldn’t help but think that the 4^th of July was a perfect day for this tour.  God bless you, Ypenburg.  

Ypenburg "Main Street": bike path and tramline only

View through one of the two Ypenburg train stations

To each his own (mote)

   

The Hague, or How My Mind Got Blown

I love cities - hence the whole urban planning degree thing.  When a few of my colleagues (hmm...colleagues makes them sound way too sophisticated) suggested we take a bike ride from Delft to The Hague, I was definitely excited to see yet another city I knew basically nothing about.  After a mishap provided an opportunity to MacGyver the shit out of Zef Wagner's broken bike and we got lost a few times, we finally made it to a city that is in the midst of a massive development project that has produced some unbelievable structures.  It also happens to be the home of a diverse range of ethnic populations, which was somewhat refreshing considering both Portland's and Delft's relative lack thereof.  


After staring in awe at the city's emerging core (including a building that was built OVER the tram line, as shown below), we turned around and made the 12km trek back to Delft to make it back before it got dark.  

(This is what makes this post relevant to transportation)

As it happens, a few of us headed back today to go to the beach and geek out over everything I just mentioned.  I got a few more pictures, which is really all you want to see anyway.