Author Archive | Jarrett

Long-term Transit Plans: Asking the Real Questions

For several years I worked on a Strategic Public Transport Network Plan for Australia’s national capital, Canberra, so I’m happy to report that the plan has now been released for public comment.
The concise Executive Summary pulls together a number of key ideas about long-term transit planning that I’ve found useful in many cities, so even if you don’t know or care about Canberra you might find it interesting.

Canberra 2031

The most important single idea in the plan (as in much of my long-term planning work) is the Frequent Network, which consists of services that will run every 15 minutes or better all day, every day of the week.  This is the level of service that can motivate people to choose a transit-dependent lifestyle, because it assures you of the ability to get around without building your life around schedules. The proposed Frequent Network includes Rapid service (red lines in this image, stopping at “stations” every 1 km or so, averaging 40 km/hour) and Local service (orange, stopping every 200-400m, averaging 20 km/hour).   (As always, click image to enlarge.)

Continue Reading →

How Paris is Like Los Angeles (via New York)

All-new-york-rail-lines-3 Alon Levy, guest-writing at The Transport Politic, recently did a great piece proposing that the New York region’s commuter rail lines, which currently all terminate in Manhattan, should be connected to each other so that trains would flow through, for example, from Long Island to New Jersey and back.  The inspiration, of course, is the Paris RER, a system in which commuter rail lines on opposite sides of Paris flow across the city into each other.  Because all these commuter trains, merged into a common city segment, add up to reasonably high frequency, the RER also serves as an “extra-rapid metro” connecting major centres across the city with trips making just a few stops.  Alon’s plan  (part onepart two) is a great read, as is Cap’n Transit’s response to it. 

Such a system would be wonderful if it existed today.  Commutes from Long Island to New Jersey would certainly be much easier, and it would also be great to get the space-consuming and time-consuming end-of-line functions out of the core.  

Continue Reading →

Just Asking …

DSCF9178 We’ve all seen wide, high-speed suburban boulevards where it’s not safe to cross the street anywhere but the occasional huge signalized intersection.

Yet there are often bus stops on these boulevards far from those signals.
Since most transit trips are round trips, and most services are two-way, most passengers need to use the stops on both sides of their street.  They depart from a stop on one side but usually return to a stop on the other side.
So a pair of stops isn’t really functional unless it’s safe to cross the street at that point.

 

Continue Reading →

On One-Way Loops

Detroitpeoplemovermap On Transport has a nice post on the Detroit People Mover, a loop that connects a number of major employment and activity centers in downtown Detroit.

In a recent post I argued that downtown shuttles aren’t of much use unless they’re extremely frequent.  The Detroit People Mover doesn’t have that problem; it runs every 3-5 minutes.  It has the other common problem of downtown shuttles: it’s a big one-way loop.

(Detroit’s loop is clockwise, having reversed direction in 2008.  Some one-way loops, like the one at the heart of Melbourne’s train system, also reverse direction in the middle of the day.)

In a one-way loop, the the way you go from A to B is completely different from the way you go from B to A.  It’s likely to be much longer or shorter.  In fact, the more direct the service from A to B, the more circuitous it’s likely to be if you want to come back.

Whenever someone proposes a one-way loop as the solution to their transit problem, especially downtown, I feel the need to take a deep breath and offer — in my most calming and supportive voice, as though speaking to someone standing on a ledge — this crucial bit of wisdom that it took me years of study to acquire:

Very few people actually want to travel in circles.

Sometimes, of course, a loop serves a rational non-transit agenda.  Managers of a city’s tourism industry, for example, don’t particularly want tourists to get where they’re going. They want instead to create an experience that will show them other places that visitors might not have intended to go, and that might even be used to tour the city and come back to where you began.

But even where this isn’t the purpose, some people are just comforted by loops.  Transport planners describe our travel demands in terms of “desire lines,” straight lines from where people are to where they want to be, but some people seem to have “desire loops” instead.  When community leaders are asked, in a meeting, to talk about their transit needs, it’s not uncommon for one of them to say, usually with circular hand gestures, that they need some kind of loop. (The same people may use the word linear to mean narrow-minded or conceptually trapped.)  Straight lines can seem so aggressive, while loops offer a sense of closure or embrace.  And as a model of the fundamental nature of being, there’s a lot to be said for the loop.  See, for example, the medieval notion of the wheel of fortune, or the “cycle of death and rebirth” that underlies Hinduism and Buddhism.

For whatever reason, there are a lot of one-way loops out there.  In transit, one-way loops do have their legitimate uses, but they’re very specialized:

  • When you’re spreading a very small quantity of service over the largest possible area, with no concern for travel time, one-way loops are the answer.  Bus systems in small cities or low-density suburbs, where the goal is exclusively to provide lifeline access to the most transit-dependent persons, often use one-way loops for this purpose.  (As these systems grow, undoing these loops becomes a crucial restructuring step in the maturation of the system.)
  • In a very small circulator system, with very high frequencies, loops can be logical.  There’s nothing wrong with a one-way loop inside an airport, for example, where there are just three or four stops and the whole cycle is done in just a few minutes.  There’s no significant penalty to going the long way around the loop.
  • Bus lines and some rail services need to make one way loops at the end of the line to turn the vehicle around.  (Most trains and some streetcars can be operated from either end, so they can reverse direction in place without looping.)  The best practice is to make these turnaround loops as small as possible to minimize the number of people affected and potentially confused by them. In the best case, a station or interchange provides the turnaround capability so that there’s no need to loop on streets at all.

Two-way loops, of course, are a totally different topic (and can often be a ground of compromise between linear and circular modes of thought).  On a two-way loop, any portion of the loop can be experienced as an ordinary two-way route; some are even described as two or more linear routes that happen to be connected at the ends.

But be careful with one-way loops.  If you connect all the important dots in your downtown, and you call that your ideal route, you’ll probably find that you have some kind of loop.  Tourists will ride it, including locals visiting your downtown for pleasure, but it will have very little relevance to anyone else.  Most of our transit desires, I’m sorry to say, are linear.

Today’s “Car Street,” Tomorrow’s Rapid Transit

Last week Portland’s Metro released a High Capacity Transit study, which identifies the region’s next priorities for rapid transit.  Rapid transit, as explained here, encompasses high-frequency services that serve widely spaced stations rather than local stops.  It’s typically implemented by “metro” heavy rail, light rail, or Bus Rapid Transit, though the first of those is unlikely at Portland’s scale.  The official US term is “high capacity transit (HCT),” a term I like less because it’s more removed from the customer’s point of view.

Since we all look at the pictures before we read the words, here’s a picture of the long term Portland vision (click, as always, to enlarge):
Portland HCT plan
I want to notice a couple of really smart things about this plan, plus a curious one:

Continue Reading →

The Problem with Downtown Shuttles

A common misconception about downtown areas is that great things can be achieved by “shuttles” or “circulators,” short routes that just run around in downtown.  The problem with these lines is that they save time for the customer only if they are very, very frequent.  This is an issue that separates people who need only a symbolic service (such as a line on the map or a photo of the transit vehicle in front of the development they’re trying to sell) from people who want actual mobility.  [2015 update: I’d no longer use the term “mobility” here. I’d use “abundant access.”]

Frequency is really important, but it’s also really expensive.  Doubling the frequency of a service (i.e. halving the “headway” or elapsed time between consecutive trips on the line) comes very close to doubling its operating cost.  If you double your peak frequency (i.e. the highest frequency you run) it also doubles your fleet, which doubles your fleet capital cost, your ongoing mainteance cost, and the size that your storage and maintenance facility needs to be.  So it’s not surprising that we see a lot of downtown shuttle services that offer a line on a map, a photographable vehicle, and even some mobility for people who aren’t in a hurry, but that don’t really compete with walking. Continue Reading →

Learning, Again, From Las Vegas

DSCF9181
Tired of arguing about streetcars?  Let’s take a break and talk about something we’re more likely to agree on — Las Vegas!

While the city plays a crucial role in American culture as a test-site for exotic street names, I suspect we’d mostly agree that it’s not going to be a leader in sustainable urban form anytime soon. While the grid pattern of the city has some advantages (more on grids soon), Las Vegas has a particularly bad habit of building blocks of apartments in places where efficient transit will never be able to serve them and where basic commercial needs are still too far to walk. Thus achieving all of density’s disadvantages and none of its benefits.

But there are surprises.  I just completed my annual trip to Las Vegas, to see family there, and thought I’d update this 2007 item from my personal blog about this capital of churn:

Continue Reading →

Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth

DSCN0337

It’s a big day for streetcars.  Portland has released its draft Streetcar System Concept Plan, an ambitious vision for extending the city’s popular downtown streetcar all over the city.  There are similar plans underway in Seattle, Minneapolis, and many other cities.

I love riding streetcars, and I don’t want to shock anyone, so let’s start with a warning: This article contains an observation about streetcars that is not entirely effusive.  It may provoke hostile reactions from some streetcar enthusiasts.  It would probably be better for my transit planning career if I didn’t make this observation, but unfortunately it seems to be true, and very important, and not widely acknowledged or understood.  So I’m going to say it.

Continue Reading →

Muscular Whimsy: Southern Cross Station, Melbourne

 

Last time I was in Melbourne, my hotel room looked out on a sea of churning metallic waves.  Forty years ago they would have been called psychedelic.
DSCF7845
The waves are the roof of  Southern Cross Station.  It’s one of five stations on Melbourne’s City Loop, the hub of the city’s extensive electrified urban rail network.  It’s also the Melbourne terminal for the remarkably extensive V-Line system, a network of intercity trains linking Melbourne to the smaller cities all over the surrounding State of Victoria.  I usually arrive here on a bus from the airport, which comes into an adjacent bus terminal.  Southern Cross thus serves as part of the arrival experience at all scales, from daily commutes to flights from overseas.

Continue Reading →

Frequent Network Maps: An Obvious Idea That Took Forever to Happen

Muni bit If you know San Francisco at all, take a look at Steve Boland’s new map of its high-frequency “main lines.”   It’s quite deservedly copyrighted, so I’ve shown just a taste of it here.

For years I’ve advocated that transit agencies need to produce clear maps of their high-frequency networks, so that people can quickly see where they can go without waiting long.  I also argue that these maps should be on the wall of every planner, everyone making decisions about social services, indeed everyone who decides where to locate anything.  Because ultimately, the most effective public transit is what happens when the city grows in response to the transit network — just as all cities did until about 1945.

Continue Reading →