The happiest bus on earth

Next week I'll be heading down to the Land of Freeways, where the only thing thicker than the smog is the pretentiousness.  My wife and I will be spending half the time in Anaheim and the other half in L.A.  Naturally I'm excited to explore the LA Metro and bus rapid transit lines there.  

But I was surprised to find out that the Anaheim Resort Transportation system (interactive map here) provides an alternative to driving to the various tourist attractions in the area.  OK, that's an awfully innocuous way of putting it; the system is there for Disneyland.  Yes, it serves other destinations, but all 16 of the 18 routes routes (18 routes!) go directly to Disneyland, and the other 2 simply stop across the street.  

When I heard about ART, I assumed it had to be A. Free, and B. Funded cooperatively by those resorts/destinations it served (primarily Disneyland).  

Oh, such naivety.  

Upon actually researching it, I found that when it opened ten years ago, it was intended to be fully supported by rider fares.  At the time, a day pass cost $2 and kids rode free.  Three years later ART received a $292,000 earmark.  And since then fares have doubled, landing at a current rate of $4 for adults and $1 for kids.  

In other words, a "public" transportation system created in response to Disneyland's enormous transportation impact (and in effect saving Disney a ton of money by limiting the amount of parking it needs to provide) operates free of ANY contributions from Disney.  Instead it has raised fares and turned to federal funding for support.  

The news isn't all bad, however.  Ridership is good (21,900 people/day, or 7.5 million/year according to this report) and many of the vehicles are electric or powered by natural gas.  

So while it's nice to see an alternative to driving for access to Disneyland (and a few other places), I will retain my ill feelings towards Disney as one of the most irresponsible mega-corporations out there.  

Soap box out.  

No trolley jolly here

I might as well add my voice to the chorus of "streetcar skeptics" in the transportation world.  As the opening of Portland's eastside streetcar gets closer, the real costs and complications are getting a decent amount of press.  Particularly, Willamette Week highlighted the cutbacks in frequency compared to what was initially planned.  For the most part I think the article did a good job explaining the major issues for those who don't necessarily have transit hard-ons like myself.  However, check out this quote from Peter Finley Fry, a planner (not sure where or in what capacity) on the citizen advisory committee:


“I think frequency is an overrated thing,” Fry says. “Let’s say there’s a 20-minute [wait]. You can look on your phone, wait inside and have a beer.”

Portland Streetcar map (www.portlandstreetcar.org)

I couldn't help but laugh (and beat my head against the table) when I read that.  Now, I don't know who this guy is; he's probably a smart person and I hope this quote was misprinted or taken out of context.  If not though, I really hope his view doesn't represent those held by the rest of the advisory committee.  What an absurd notion to believe that those riding the streetcar have time (and the desire) to relax for 20 minutes before being on their way to wherever they're going, to do whatever they're doing.  This would imply that the streetcar is meant primarily for tourists and other people with ample leisure time--not those who rely on it for their practical transportation needs.

For what it's worth, here's my prediction: once enough cities join this "streetcar revival" movement, the novelty thereof will wear off and we'll be stuck with an impractical mode of transportation that will no longer succeed at spurring development.  It seems short-sighted to invest so heavily in a system that only fulfills its complete purpose as long as it's new and sexy.  So unless current lines are improved and future lines planned to be efficiently practical, I will remain a child who realizes the box can provide just as much entertainment (and sometimes more) as the shiny toy inside it.

The Red Line

I have a new goal: I want to ride the Pyongyang Metro - mostly because I had no idea such a thing existed until about a week ago.  It has two lines, supposedly runs every 5 minutes or better, and trains have pictures of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il on the sides (fun fact: those two built the entire system with their bare hands in one week).  I can't imagine it being anything but the most efficient, cleanest, and most mind-blowing subway ride ever.  Also the station names are amazing: Comrade, Triumph Return, Unification, Paradise, etc.  There are a few pictures out there, mostly of the station shown above.

So if it does in fact exist, I'll be making an excursion to North Korea, hopefully before they blow themselves up.

Of maps and London, and maps of London

Do yourself a favor and spend some time checking out The Mapping London Blog. I sure did today.  Among my favorites:

- Transport for London's Why Not Walk It? map (which they produced to divert people from the Tube to limit overcrowding during the Olympics)

- Both the map and the video of every bus trip in London over the course of a day

As I'd assume is the case with many transportation geeks, my experience riding London's transit system contributed significantly to my fascination with the subject.  It's truly incredible - unlike Great Britain's performance thus far in this year's Games.  BOOM!

Update (Aug 13, 2012): Being a fan of both basketball and public transit, the New Yorker's picture of the U.S. men's basketball team on the Tube was cool to see.  Then I had to step back and say, "Seriously?  This is a big deal?"  Perhaps it shouldn't be, but it is.  

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. 

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.    

Crazy money for crazy projects

BIG NEWS!  Construction of Utah's FrontRunner commuter rail expansion is complete.  The tracks now run from Provo (45 miles south of Salt Lake) to just past Ogden (45 miles north of Salt Lake), for a total of--you guessed it--90 miles!  The southern segment took about four years to build and cost $890 million, including new vehicles purchased.  But hey, it takes large investments like this if you want high-class public transportation systems, especially when projections say that by 2015 a total of...8,000 PASSENGERS PER DAY will ride FrontRunner South (according to this Salt Lake Tribune article).  

Map of the FrontRunner South route

No, I must have misread that.  Surely I missed a zero in there somewhere.  Or perhaps the 8,000 is per hour of operation?  


Unfortunately, that's the figure. Along the entire 90-mile route, they expect a total of 14,000 passengers per day in 2015.  So before we even start talking about operating costs, this thing has a ridiculously long way to go before it pays off.  I mean, 8,000 riders per day would mean a cost of $4,450 per rider per year for 25 years just to cover expenses to this point.  Add in those operating costs (labor, maintenance, diesel fuel, etc etc) and it's pretty clear that FrontRunner South is an economist's nightmare.  


The question, then, is how in the hell was this thing approved?  Making things even crazier is the fact that Utah County residents (who are more likely to burn an Obama effigy than recycle) voted to increase their sales tax to fund this as well as some LRT projects that are completely within Salt Lake County.  So on the plus side, this means that capital costs were financed by 80% local money and only 20% federal.  At least they're wasting primarily their own money.  


More than anything else, I think this stands as a perfect example of just how much of a "bright and shiny object" rail projects are in the U.S. (Europe isn't completely immune, case in point: Edinburgh).  We're seeing it with expensive streetcar lines (Washington DC, Portland, Charlotte)  and light rail projects (Portland again, Salt Lake again, Seattle) as well.  So I don't think the voters in Utah are particularly stupid; in fact, I was one of them. But the appeal of sexy projects like FrontRunner often outweigh their practicality by far.  I'm definitely not the first person to state this (read Jarrett Walker's blog and book for a much more eloquent and informed analysis of this type of thing), but this has to be a passing phase, right?...Right?