Transportation Problems and Polices Class Blog (2021)

Friday, December 10, 2021

"Access to Choice" and the Interstate Bridge Replacement

Having just written an op-ed that was in part about how expanding and empowering regional governments could help us out of the stalemate around the Interstate Bridge replacement, I find myself still thinking about this, specifically the debate around whether or not to run the MAX across a new bridge. The old Columbia River Crossing project failed because Republicans in the Washington State Senate refused to fund a bridge that would include light rail. I've seen a number of Clark County folks on the internet protest the extension of Portland's "crime train" into their state, but speaking for myself (and I assume at least a few like-minded people) I'd be much more likely to go to Vancouver or even consider living there if I had a reliable, stress-free alternative to Interstate Bridge and I-5 traffic and all the angry people stuck in it.

In "Access to Choice" Jonathan Lecine makes the argument that transportation and land-use are trapped in something of a vicious cycle in which people-oriented and transit-supportive land-uses a effectively prohibited by the lack of reliable non-automobile options, and vice versa. One quote from Levine's article that stood out to me was "self-selection is the prime process by which alternative development forms might affect travel... It is much more promising to accommodate people whose preferences for less auto-dominated environments have been inhibited by zoning and other exclusionary regulations." I would go ahead and classify the lack of light rail across the Columbia one of these other exclusionary regulations. While I think much of Clark County is a sprawling mess, I like Downtown Vancouver alright and would love to see it connected to the MAX. While I know there's considerable opposition to overcome in bringing light rail to Vancouver, I can't help but think it could work wonders for expanding transportation and lifestyle choices in the way Levine discusses. Plus, their mayor (elected 2018) thinks it's a good idea!

References

Levine, J. "Access to Choice." Access, Spring 1999, pp. 16-19.

Brown, C. (2018, March 30). Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle delivers her first State of the City address. Clark County Today. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/vancouver-mayor-anne-mcenerny-ogle-delivers-her-first-state-of-the-city-address/

Op-Ed: The Columbia River Crossing, the Gas Tax, and the Case for Expanding Regional Governance

By Sam Galvan

Of the approximately 2.5 million people living in the Portland Metropolitan Area as of the 2020 US Census, roughly half a million live in Clark County, Washington, an area that is connected to the rest of the region by only two bridges across the Columbia River. One of these bridges was first built over one hundred years ago and is sure to collapse in the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake coming to the region sooner or later (Interstate Bridge Replacement Program). Despite the fact that the Interstate Bridge is a critical connection and a chokepoint both within the Portland region and at the scale of connecting the West Coast, efforts to replace it with a seismically sound bridge that can meet the region’s transportation needs into the future have failed spectacularly due to the inability of Oregon and Washington’s state governments to agree on funding (Theen). Although talks of resurrecting the project have resumed in the last few years, it’s not a reach to call the relationship between the two state governments around this issue dysfunctional as there remains a significant amount of distrust and necessary rebuilding of relationships before any work can actually be done.

“Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax” by Robert Puentes and Ryan Prince gives an overview of the current state of the gas tax, which is something of a dysfunctional system in its own right. Even though it is one of the primary sources of transportation funding at both the federal and state levels, the federal gas tax hasn’t been raised since the 90s. Adding to the gas tax’s woes are increased vehicular fuel efficiency and the proliferation of electric vehicles, making its utility as a funding source increasingly obsolete. With Oregon and Washington’s state governments struggling to come to terms on how to modernize a crucial piece of shared infrastructure, coupled with the failure of one of their chief transportation funding mechanisms, the situation begs the question: are state governments the appropriate entities to be handling these types of projects?

With the majority of the US population and an ever-increasing share of commercial, financial and industrial activity being located in suburban areas (Parker et al) it is increasingly valuable to look at metropolitan regions as whole entities rather than examining their core cities alone. Portland exemplifies this well as it is home to only 650,000 of the region’s 2.5 million or so residents and the metro area’s 2 largest employers are located in the suburbs (Greater Portland Inc.). In other regions, such as the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and the San Francisco Bay Area, population and commerce are even more dispersed. City governments no longer have broad enough jurisdictions to effectively fill this role and the significant number of unincorporated communities in US metro areas means that coalitions of city governments would still leave gaps. Metro areas represent, and have been for decades, a key scale of analysis for understanding social, economic, and demographic geography in the US and therefore should have their own governments for issues like coordinating growth, transportation, services, and infrastructure in a unified and cohesive way. To be fair, many such governments do exist in a variety of forms, but only Portland’s Metro actually has elected officials.

To be sure, Metro is effective at what it does and is a major asset for the Portland Region, however Metro is limited in that its jurisdiction only encompasses the urban parts of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties, leaving out the aforementioned half a million or so Clark County residents who are very much a part of the metropolitan area. Portland is far from the only metropolitan region spanning multiple states. The metro areas of Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Philadelphia, Washington DC and New York City all cross state lines. Elected and publicly accountable governments, performing similar functions to Metro with somewhat standardized roles and the expanded authority to operate in multiple states, would be valuable to all of these places. A Metro that included Vancouver and Clark County would be well-positioned to take a leading role in projects such as the Interstate Bridge Replacement. The greatest benefit of establishing stronger regional governments could be in bridging the gap between different parts of multi-state metro areas and unifying them with a shared sense of place. In addition to things like consolidating public transportation and unifying regional growth strategies, officially defining regions in this way could have the potential to cultivate stronger regional identities, much in the same way people take pride in the cities and states they come from.

Metro areas entirely contained within single states would benefit as well from increased coordination. The San Francisco Bay Area alone has over 24 different transit agencies (Clipper). Both operations and usage of these would be much more efficient if they were unified under a single authority. Furthermore, as the gas tax wanes as a useful funding mechanism metropolitan scale governments would have the opportunity to implement their own funding mechanisms for metropolitan scale needs. This could help resolve the mismatch created by relying on state funding for regional projects that currently results in many urban areas contributing more to state funds than they receive back (Puentes & Prince).

Establishing stronger and more standardized metropolitan governments could help fill out a growing “missing middle” in US governance. This could be especially valuable in regions straddling multiple states but would be beneficial in metro areas across the country. Furthermore, if cities are to be the leaders in climate action that UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called on them to be, doing so in coordination with the rest of their metropolitan regions might just be the most effective way.

References

Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. (2021, October 21). Earthquake vulnerability | Interstate Bridge [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVo8uUMeMLg&ab_channel=InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram

Theen, A. (2018, December 12). Washington and Oregon lawmakers return to Interstate Bridge talks, with thanks and questions. The Oregonian/OregonLive. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2018/12/washington-and-oregon-lawmakers-return-to-interstate-bridge-talks-with-apologies-and-questions.html

Puentes, R. & Prince, R. (2003). Fueling transportation finance: A primer on the Gas Tax. Brookings Institution.

Greater Portland Inc. (2019). Metro Portland’s major employers. Portland Relocation Guide. https://portlandreloguide.com/metro-portlands-major-employers/

Clipper. Where to use Clipper. https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/where-to-use.html

United Nations. (2021, November 3). Cities must lead climate action to keep 1.5o C global temperature rise goal within reach, Secretary-General says at launch of Council on Urban Initiatives. United Nations Media Coverage and Press Releases. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm21002.doc.htm

Op-Ed: Trimet Should Favor Equity Informed Coverage over Patronage

By Sam Galvan

Jarrett Walker’s “Purpose driven public transport” outlines two main categories of goals in operating transit systems: maximizing patronage and maximizing coverage. Patronage goals focus on getting as many people to ride transit as possible, typically by concentrating service on corridors with the most density to support ridership. Coverage goals seek to provide quality service to as many areas as possible. Coverage goals should be applied through an equity lens, aiming to ensure service needs are met in disadvantaged and often transit-dependent areas, regardless of whether or not these areas have the highest ridership potential. This framework of analysis is acutely valuable in Portland considering the city’s spatialized patterns of inequity. “Uneven Development of the Sustainable City” by Erin Goodling, Jamaal Green, and Nathan McClintock details the history of Portland’s spatialized inequity and provides a compelling case for why infrastructural investment in the region should prioritize the areas east of 82nd Avenue.

Most of East Portland was developed starting in the mid-20th century as unincorporated suburbs prior to annexation by the City in the 80s and 90s. As such, the area was built out without much of a cohesive vision and without coordinated utilities and infrastructure. While the city’s core has rebounded from the decay brought on by suburbanization, building itself into the environmentally conscious, highly-livable city Portland likes to brand itself as, East Portland has been largely neglected and left out of the realization of this vision. As costs of living have risen in the gentrifying core, poor people and people of color have been displaced to the east. Using all this as basis, Goodling et al argue that Portland’s reputation as a sustainable metropolis is unearned and undermined by its uneven development and associated equity failures.

When applying Walker’s two-track model for transit goals, it is crucial to take into account this ongoing history of uneven development. If patronage, that is highest ridership, is the priority, one might look at inner Portland corridors for increased investment. Areas like the Pearl, Hawthorne Boulevard, and the now gentrified Albina have much of the density, activity, grid connectivity, and residents with environmentally-conscious social dispositions that Walker associates with patronage goals. While these areas could very well benefit from increased transit service, they are already relatively well-served compared to much of East Portland and can boast a wide array of community assets. “Uneven Development” makes it clear that if equity is a value in Portland’s transportation future (as is stated on PBOT’s page on transportation justice), efforts must be concentrated first and foremost in East Portland.

As poorer (and more likely transit-dependent) residents are displaced from the core to the city’s infrastructurally deficient east side, they lose easy access to the city center. This history of displacement to East Portland, most notably from Albina, is well-chronicled in “Uneven Development” and provides a compelling case for prioritizing East Portland transportation projects as it is key to restore easy access to Downtown. Applying an equity lens further strengthens this case as East Portland is home to a higher concentration of the city’s most marginalized communities, among which Goodling et al list most poorer newcomers to the city in addition to those displaced by gentrification.

Prioritizing East Portland Transit projects does not have to mean failing to make improvements in inner Portland. This is particularly true for routes that connect the east side to the central city. The Division Transit project is a good example of this as its first and most vital function will be improving the speed and reliability of a key transit connection between Gresham, East Portland, and Downtown. While the project will bring improvements to transit in inner Portland as well, its benefits will be most strongly felt further east.

At the end of the day given the spatialized history of displacement and calculated equity priorities East Portland has to be a priority for transit. Within Walker’s dichotomous model of patronage versus coverage this falls more on the coverage side, nevertheless, quality of service is just as crucial. Prioritizing East Portland’s need for equitable transit means providing frequent, reliable, and well-networked transit options with wide coverage in an area that has historically lacked investment in infrastructure. While there are many corridors in inner Portland and other parts of the region that would benefit from and could support improved transit service, Portland’s history of inequity uneven development demands that leveling off this disparity for East Portland be at the top of the agenda.

References

Walker, J. (2008). Purpose-driven public transport: creating a clear conversation about public transport goals. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(6), 436-442.

Goodling, E., Green, J., & McClintock, N. (2015). Uneven development of the sustainable city: Shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geography, 36(4), 504-527.

Portland Bureau of Transportation. (2019). Transportation Justice. PBOT Strategic Plan 2019-2022. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/741201

EVs won't save us

Yes, electric vehicles are a better way to meet our carbon emissions goals and to somewhat reduce air pollution than gas powered cars. That's it. They're still cars. They still sit in traffic; they still require an absurd amount of paved space; they still contribute to air pollution (they're heavier, so their tires release more micro-particulates into the air than regular vehicles); they still kill people; they're expensive to buy - the existing subsidies to make them more affordable are complex (tax rebates - really? Oh no problem, let me just call my accountant to handle that); they widen the social divide between sophisticated rich people doing their part in saving the environment and the rest of us because EVs are complex and expensive to operate and maintain because they are covered in needless amounts of proprietary tech and touch screens; all of which requires extracting obscene amounts of lithium, which displaces and exploits native people whose lands are blessed with the material; they are a flashy, inequitable, insufficient solution to our transportation problems.

I know that this is America, and that if we can't consume our way out of a problem then we simply won't do it, but we're running out of time. We are seeing the effects of climate change on our lives. We are still obsessed with being the hero of the story, as long as the hero has all the latest gadgets and technology, as long as we can turn it into an expanded cinematic universe. We don't care about your every day heroes humbly doing their part, walking, biking or taking transit because that is the way they can get to work. We ignore ancient wisdom in favor of something we can own. Because if we can't own it, then it's not worthy of our attention. Our ever diminishing attention.

***

Because I'm unable to hold all of these truths in me without doing something, I will continue to dedicating my life to supporting sustainable forms of transportation, and to preserve and take back as much nature from the claws of the battery-powered automobile. And because I must go on, I must find sources of optimism. When the transportation realm fails me, I look elsewhere. In general, I believe this good practice - upon stating it, it really becomes obvious, but specialization narrows our focus, and it becomes difficult to find alternative solutions. Recently I've found hope in forest management practices to help fight forest fires. Indigenous people practiced prescribed burns in the forest to ensure that plants that can catch fire easily (and therefore reach temperatures high enough to burn larger trees) are kept at bay. Indigenous people felt a connection to the forests, and understood their place within nature. When colonizers took control of the land (to phrase it mildly), all their eyes could see upon looking at the forest was the raw materials for industry. Our settler relationship to the forest has mostly been an extractive one, whether we seek to profit from timber, or to get a story out of it to tell the folks back in the city. Despite this, great portions of our forests remain unexploited, and there are humans who care to form a connection back to it.

With the onset of fire seasons in the Northwest, there has been renewed interest in prescribed burning practices to help our forests make it through the hot and dry months of summer. After all, when Indigenous people were the sole stewards of the land, forest fires did not reach the scale of our contemporary fires. Human-caused climate change and poor forest management practices are responsible for our fire seasons. No amount of technological advancements come close to preventing forest fires as much as prescribed burning. We've had the answer to this problem all along, we just chose to ignore it. And such is the case in transportation. Are EVs better than gas-powered cars? Yes. If you're able to, should you make the switch? Again, yes. But should we make it our central policy to dig ourselves out of transportation-based carbon emissions? No, we don't need to do that. Walking, biking and transit have a larger impact on reducing our carbon emissions, and they can do it more equitably than EVs ever could. We've known this for generations. We must focus on active transportation and public transit. Enough with the snake oil. And enough with focusing blame on drivers as well. People aren't addicted to driving a car, they simply don't have alternatives that can compete with a car's convenience. A flashier car won't save us.

By Alan De Anda-Hall

Sources:

Electric vehicles are good for emissions, bad for advancing equity

https://t4america.org/2021/11/10/electric-vehicles-and-equity/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=86d6ac55-79a0-4eb0-8a24-e583086f9853

More smoke from prescribed forest burning could be on its way to Oregon

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/22/more-smoke-from-prescribed-forest-burning-could-be-on-its-way-to-oregon/

Op-Ed, Federal: Introducing Non-motorized Lanes to Nationwide

In recent years, improving conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists has always been a popular topic among transportation planners. The nation’s road system is currently used and designed as an automobile-based system. Efforts have been made to improve the safety and attractiveness of riding a bike but more action should be taken in order to make people bike more. In this Op-Ed, I would like to recommend the federal level policymakers to start reform in the roadway system we currently use nationwide and move from designing streets mainly to satisfy auto use to making the streets comfortable and safety meets non-motorized travelers as well. The plan is to introduce non-motorized lanes to the roadway system nationwide. The proposed reform in federal level policymaking will provide a great opportunity to provide a perfect solution to the issue by setting a new roadway configuration as a national standard. There are countless benefits of doing so for both travelers and transportation planning agencies. The added non-motorized lane could promote biking and walking and generate positive impacts on people’s health conditions since they are exercising at the same time as traveling. Environmental reasons are also behind this. The safe and convenient travel environment for bikers provided by the non-motorized lane would definitely reduce the number of vehicles on the road as more people switch to biking and walking. Fewer vehicles on the road mean fewer emissions.

The priority of the reform plan should be redesigning collectors and local roadways, which are the roads people use most frequently in everyday life. By adding non-motorized lanes to local connection roadways, they could provide a safe and comfortable place for on-street pedestrians and bikers. Another reason to start with these local roads is that they usually have a relatively lower volume and speed in comparison to other types of roadways. Michael Williams, a transportation consultant who has been involved both with the planning and design of active transportation facilities and public works construction management for more than 25 years, also talked about the non-motorized lanes in his study “Solving the Challenge of Non-Motorized Infrastructure with Advisory Bike Lanes”. Williams refers to the added non-motorized infrastructure on vehicle roadways as advisory bike lanes. The advisory bike lanes would be able to accommodate the non-motorized lane design with roadways that are too small or too narrow for the full-size bike facilities or where is difficult to add a bike lane onto the street. In the design of advisory bike lanes, non-motorists would share the same amount of lanes as motorists do. Motorists travel in the center lane until they need to pass an approaching vehicle. In order to pass, they merge into the edge lanes, after yielding to any non-motorized users there. After completing the passing movement, motorists return to the center lane. Successful precedents in other countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have shown this type of road to be safe and effective.

What is more, it is very important to get the idea of how acceptable will people be to this new roadway design with non-motorized lanes and what are people’s thoughts on these improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s research on non-motorized lanes roadway design has been ongoing for a while. In their publication of “Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Supporting Documentation”, they identified a few important questions to the policy: “· If we build a new bicycle or pedestrian facility, how many people will use it? If we improve an existing facility or network, how many additional people will choose to walk or bicycle? · What types and combinations of improvements will have the greatest impact on increasing non-motorized travel? · How will improvements to non-motorized travel conditions affect motor vehicle use?”. In my opinion, all these questions are very representative and cover the major concerns of the public and the government on making the non-motorized lanes standard in the existing roadway system across the nation. Adequate analysis of non-motorists' travel behavior must be completed before any implementation of the design in order to introduce a safe, efficient, and attractive non-motorized infrastructure national wide.

Written by Yingjia Zhou

References:

1. Williams, Michael. Solving the Challenge of Non-Motorized Infrastructure with Advisory Bike Lanes. ITF Research Reports. September 2018

https://www.advisorybikelanes.com/uploads/1/0/5/7/105743465/a_new_type_of_road_for_north_america_solving_the_challenge_of_non- motorized_infrastructure_with_advisory_bike_lanes_ite_journal_september2018.pdf

2. Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel. US DOT. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/guidebook2.pdf

3. Anchorage Transportation Planning Non-Motorized Plan. October 2021.

https://www.muni.org/departments/ocpd/planning/amats/documents/nonmotorized/update_2020/20210104_non_motorized_plan_public_review_draft.pdf

Thursday, December 9, 2021

Regional Op-Ed: Don't let ODOT expand our highways

It was never a good idea to increase the number of lanes in a highway to solve congestion, and it certainly isn't a good idea to keep acting like it is in the 21st Century. The costs of pretending that induced demand is not real are too great: an eroding climate is not a proper legacy to leave for future generations.

We have felt the effects of climate change firsthand in Oregon over the last couple of years - it is now common to prepare for fire season: keep smoke particulate masks in stock, weather-tape seal your windows shut. We have seen our neighbors die from heat waves that our region is not prepared to handle. We've known for years that climate change would make the earth a less inviting place to live, but we're still in denial, despite the evidence, that it is happening within our lifetimes. We know that carbon emissions contribute to and accelerate the pace of climate change. And despite the fact that we know that 40% of Oregon's carbon emissions come from transportation, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) feels that it's a good idea to expand I-5 through Portland.

Metro is currently considering whether to invest $35 million on planning and engineering to replace the I-5 bridge to Washington and to expand the highway on the Oregon side for several miles. By investing these funds on a highway expansion project, Metro would give in to status-quo pressure to maintain the car's dominion over our roads, and set the stage for how Oregon should spend the nearly $5 billion in transportation funding it will receive over the next 5 years from the federal infrastructure bill that recently passed.

By trying to appease every single frustration that drivers experience (which are ironically exacerbated by our over-reliance on the private car), we have shoveled mountains of money at projects all over the country that make air pollution worse, displace people, increase the cost of living for everyone, while also worsening the one problem we were supposed to be solving: congestion. Widening highways induces demand, period.

If the 20th Century brought us the age of the private car, let the 21st Century bring us a renewed focus on actually solving our problems instead of just passing along the bucket to the next generation. Instead of trying to move cars as fast as possible, let's focus on moving people. Let's fund active transportation and transit so that it can compete with the auto industry. Let's invest in safe and convenient modes of transportation so that we can avert the worst effects of climate change. It's already here, folks. Let's stop pretending we have more time to waste on highway expansions. Let's stop pretending that people will have the ability choose transit and active transportation when we fund it at much lower rates than highways. There are no redeeming qualities to expanding highways. There is no problem that highway expansions solve in the short term (months) that are not exponentially worsened in the long term (a couple of years). The time for action is now. ODOT may still believe their role is to fund highway expansions because the loudest people in the room complaint about being stuck in traffic. But Metro should know that it is folly to keep going down this path. Metro is currently accepting public feedback about this issue. The public has until December 28th to submit feedback. You can submit your own feedback here. Our regional government body should not be in the business of increasing our carbon footprint. As the youth says these days, climate leaders don't widen freeways.

By Alan De Anda-Hall

Sources:

Moving Los Angeles

https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2009/moving-los-angeles/

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emmissions

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HY_eiecLXmrOVKVrvrh0619zCEHYsSf6/view

Prepare for Fire Season

https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/prepare-for-fire-season_1.pdf

Multnomah County: Lack of air conditioning was a prime factor in heat-wave deaths

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/13/portland-oregon-heat-wave-deaths-air-conditioning/

The UN says climate impacts are getting worse faster than the world is adapting

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052112717/the-u-n-says-climate-impacts-are-getting-worse-faster-than-the-world-is-adapting

Maximizing the MAX

Maxing Out the MAX

By Sam Galvan

Edited by Emma Birckhead

Portland’s MAX Light Rail runs trains on four lines (officially five although the Yellow and Orange Lines operate as one service). All four lines cross the Willamette River on the Steel Bridge, creating a bottleneck and limiting each line’s frequency to once every 15 minutes. The system’s capacity is further constrained by its routing on Downtown streets where blocks are only 200 feet long, limiting train length. The Transportation Research Board’s “Special Report: Making Transit Work” lists frequency and reliability among the first priorities in implementing high quality transit service (2001) and Trimet must be able to increase capacity in order to make high quality service viable in the future.

A long term solution would be the construction of a subway for the MAX in the central city, with longer platforms and a tunnel under the river. This would allow Trimet to run longer trains at greater frequencies and would greatly improve the system’s overall efficiency. Despite its benefits, such a project is years away at best and would require complex funding and engineering. In the meantime, with a simple realignment of the MAX services, Trimet could increase or maintain current frequencies on almost the entire system.

Current MAX Map from Trimet

If the Red and Green Lines were combined into a single service, running along the I-205 Transitway from the Portland International Airport to Clackamas Town Center rather than turning west at Gateway and running Downtown, this would free up capacity on the Steel Bridge for additional Blue and Yellow Line trains. The revised system would contain three lines: the Blue Line from Hillsboro to Gresham (as it runs currently), the Yellow Line from Expo Center to Milwaukie (as it runs currently), and the Red Line from PDX to Clackamas. With the Steel Bridge able to handle four trains per direction in a 15 minute span this would allow for frequencies of 7 and a half minutes on each line. Areas currently served by one line would see frequencies double, areas served by two lines would maintain current frequencies and only areas currently served by three lines would lose frequency. Transfers between the North-South Yellow Line and the East-West Blue Line would occur as they currently do, at the Pioneer Square and Rose Quarter stations. Transfers between the Blue and Red Lines would be even more seamless, using the same platforms at Gateway Transit Center. With trains every 7 and a half minutes per line transfer wait times would always be just under four minutes.

MAX Map with discussed realignment

While this alignment would have its advantages in terms of increased frequency, it does have its drawbacks. First and foremost, it would eliminate one seat rides from the airport and Clackamas to the City Center. The easy transfer at Gateway and the increased flexibility of this alignment would address this, but it still could deter some riders. Additionally, the Banfield segment between Rose Quarter and Gateway would lose some frequency, with two trains every 15 minutes rather than three. Still, the increases in frequency on the rest of the system could justify the loss of frequency here.

Although this wouldn’t solve all of the MAX’s long-term capacity needs, this realignment is something Trimet could implement without needing any new infrastructure investments (beyond perhaps the double-tracking of the Red Line already underway with the “Better Red” project).

Around-a-Circle

A recent article in the New York Times highlights the city of Carmel, Indiana and what they are doing to improve traffic safety and reduce carbon emissions. Carmel has 140 roundabouts, the most in the United States, and plans to add over a dozen more.

The Federal Highway Administration found that roundabouts improve safety to the tune of a 90% reduction in fatalities, 76% reduction in injuries, and a 35% reduction in all crashes. Roundabouts reduce congestion by reducing stops as traffic flows through the circle. Reduced stops also have environmental benefits, as hard accelerations increase emissions and reduce idling time.

The Oregon Department of Transportation cites similar studies highlighting the benefits of roundabouts. The following graphic shows how roundabouts result in fewer collisions. They are fewer "conflict points."

A study in Mississippi found that roundabouts decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 56%. Despite the benefits, many are still hesitant to adopt the roundabout. Carmel's city engineer says "you can spit out fact-based data, but at the end of the day most of the general population is scared of things that are new and different... They are used to being told what to do at every turn."

According to ODOT, Oregon has 50 roundabouts with 2 in Portland (2010). If you pictured the intersection of SE Glisan and Cesar Chavez, like me, we're wrong. That intersection isn't a roundabout - it's a traffic circle. Washington County, MN provides the distinctions between the two.

A traffic circle is "a series of T intersections." Each intersection has a stop sign for vehicles entering the circle, as opposed to yield signs present in a roundabout. Exiting the circle requires a turn instead of a "straight ahead movement" found in roundabouts. The comparison goes on to say "traffic circles have a low capacity and are inefficient; they are used primarily for visual appeal."

The synonymous nature of the two intersections has made it difficult to research them separately, as searches for either would return similar results. Many references to "traffic circles" or "roundabouts" claim they are different names for the same thing, but they are starkly different.

A roundabout is beneficial due to its continued traffic flow in response to yield signs, not stop signs. The environmental improvements of roundabouts, reduced idling and hard acceleration, are missing from traffic circles. Roundabouts are designed to slow speeds for traffic within the circle and are often smaller in diameter than traffic circles. The high-speed merging happening in a traffic circle nullifies the implied safety benefits.

I am curious as to why we would choose a traffic circle instead of a roundabout, especially when the City has put an emphasis on safety and the environment. Is it possible to turn a traffic circle into a roundabout? Is it simply about the removal of a traffic signal? In the words of academics who came before me "more research is needed."

Op-Ed, Regional: How Could Building Trails Benefits Regional Economy

Cumberland County, New Jersey, one of the southernmost counties in the state, has been in the process of establishing a multi-use trail network for several years. In 2010, a feasibility study was submitted to the County that identified six potential trail networks. These trails were located throughout the county and sought to increase connections between municipalities and the many ecological attractions the county has to offer. Based on this foundation, I explored some new opportunities to create a regional trail network that meets the needs of the residents and visitors alike.

Cumberland County is rich in natural beauty but has higher rates of people living in poverty and other economic challenges. Trails are one way to provide and encourage business revenues. Trail-related businesses, such as bike shops and restaurants, generate about $7.5 million in wages per year. Not only do trails increase wages, they also increase tax revenues and businesses see trails as an attractive amenity making them more likely to either locate or relocate where trails exist. Trails also enhance transportation options. In the City of Bridgeton, about 20 percent of residents do not own a vehicle. The development of a trail network that connects residential areas to commercial areas would enable people to get to work, schools, and other destinations. The County also has the opportunity to support the trail network within the county to trails in nearby counties including tourism-rich Cape May County. The rural and picturesque setting makes Cumberland County an ideal place for multi-use trails and has enormous potential to increase tourism dollars. By connecting to other trails in South Jersey, the County and municipalities have the opportunity to create an attractive, long trail that has been successful in other parts of the country.

After reviewing the proposed trails for on- and off-road capacity, opportunities, and potential challenges, my recommendation to region policymakers would be to prioritize implementing the Bridgeton to Camden Trail Plan, which is one of the three intercounty connection trails in the 2010 report (The red line in the map below). The trail is 7.5 miles in length, with 3.20 miles on-road and 4.3 miles of off-road trail. This trail is a link between Cumberland County, Camden, and Philadelphia. It would then be a connection to the Maine-to-Florida East Coast Greenway.

Studies have found that trails create numerous economic benefits for their communities. A study commissioned by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials found that transportation enhancement projects such as trails, and pedestrian and cycling paths, created more jobs per dollar than any other investment made by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Another study in 2012 that studied the economic impact of the Great Allegheny Passage found that users of the trail spent more than $40 million dollars each year. The trail was also a boon to local business and employment. Another study of the trail in 2008 found that trail-related businesses like bike shops, restaurants, and other businesses that serve trail patrons paid $7.5 million in wages each year.

While much focus is on tourist dollars being brought into regions that build a trail system, studies also find that trail utilization is primarily done by residents that live along the trail. Local users of the Erie Canalway Trail in upstate New York spend $165 million annually in their own community. Local trail users also utilize the trails for commuting to work, and to perform other daily activities. Commuting to work via bicycle grew by 60 percent in the U.S. between 2000 and 2012. The continued investment could increase that number. More individuals walking and cycling to work will save local, state, and federal government money on road repair and maintenance.

What is more, this trail would benefit an underserved population and would be an economic driver, particularly post COVID-19.

Written by Yingjia Zhou

References:

Dowell, P. and Petraglia, L. (2012). NCHRP 08-36, Task 103. Mining recovery act data for opportunities to improve the state of practice for overall economic impact analysis of transportation investments.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

The Progress Fund. (2016, April 1). Economic impact of regional trails. Retrieved from https://www.trailtowns.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Economic-impact-of-all-Trails-1.pdf.

3. Campos Inc. (2009). The Great Allegheny Passage Economic Impact Study (2007–2008). The Progress Fund’s Trail Town Program Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau and Allegheny Trail Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.trailtowns.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/07-294-GAP-Economic-Impact-Study-2008-2009_Final-Report.pdf.

4. Scipione, P. A. (2014). The economic impact of the Erie Canalway Trail: An assessment and user profile of New York's longest multi-use trail. Parks&Trails New York. Retrieved from https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Trail_Study_109-NY-Econ-Impact-Erie-Canalway.pdf.

5. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014 American Community Survey.

Op-Ed, Local: Adding More Bike Infrastructure to BART Stations

To begin with, I am interested in the relationship between bike infrastructure design and transit ridership because I want to find out whether people will choose to ride transit more if there is bike share available at transit stations, in order to understand how well-built bike infrastructure at transit stations could affect people's choice of travel mode. In my opinion, improving the accessibility and proximity of transit stations is the key to reviving the city’s transit service. The introduction of bike availability at transit stations will promote people’s willingness to use transit services more and serve as a last-mile solution for passengers.

After reading some relative literature on the topic, I found one of the readings very interesting. It is the study “Bike-and-Ride: Build It and They Will Come” by Robert Cervero, Benjamin Caldwell, and Jesus Cuellar, from UC Berkeley. It is an article published in 2013 in the Journal of Public Transportation (16 (4): 83-105). The quantitative-research-designed study surveyed bicycle access trips to 42 BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) stations and these stations’ ridership data, including stations with or without bike infrastructure such as bike racks, bike trail access. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy rail elevated and subway public transportation system serving the San Francisco Bay Area in California. BART serves 50 stations along six routes on 131 miles of rapid transit lines. In conclusion, the article argues that bicycle plays a significant mobility role in accessing rail stations, especially when safe, secure, and well-designed bicycle infrastructure are present.

The study surveyed data from BART in 1998 and 2008. There are some newly built stations in the system which are built after 1998. These stations are excluded from the study. And the study always uses a two-mile buffer from rail stations as the boundary of the study area. The quasi-experiment study did pick some auto-dependent rail stations where bike infrastructure isn’t available as a controlled group. The study also explained a causal effect that “build it and they will come”, which means if safe, secure, and well-designed bicycle infrastructure is built at a rail station, more people will use bicycles as their mobility option for accessing the station. There is a strong empirical association that more bike infrastructure at rail stations will make the station looks more bike-friendly and it will attract more people to ride to stations inside of walking or driving, especially when such a well-designed infrastructure makes biking safe and secure.

The article argues that bicycle infrastructure improvements at BART rail stations could increase the use of both bicycles and rail ridership. The study has great social importance because it promotes proactive partnerships between transit agencies, local municipalities, and bicycle advocacy organizations to conduct more bike infrastructure design and improve the local transportation system as a whole. Meanwhile, another author Minjun Kim’s study “Analysis on bike-share ridership for origin-destination pairs: Effects of public transit route characteristics and land-use patterns” also shares a similar perspective that bike-share and public transit could promote each other.

Currently, there are 16 BART stations that have bike share available at the station. The bike-share provider in Bay Wheels, formerly known as the Ford Go Bike system. The bikes are available for one-way trips, all-day rides, or annual membership. The bike-share system is also collaborating with Lyft so Lyft users could use the app on their phones to use the bike share service as connecting travel mode from or to the BART stations.

Given the great social importance and scientific relevance it has, local transportation planning agencies may want to conduct interviews on how people think about bike infrastructure, its role at transit hubs, and whether it will affect their decision on travel mode choice. Since Cervero’s research was done in 2013, urban landscape and transit technology levels have significantly changed, as well as the social environment. To add more contribution to Cervero’s research, I would specifically recommend future policymakers take Covid’s effect on people’s choice of travel mode into consideration. The effect of Covid on public transit must be significant and it is urgent to understand what could be learned for future transportation planning.

Written By Yingjia Zhou

References:

1. Bike-and-ride: build it and they will come

R Cervero, B Caldwell… - Journal of Public …, 2013 - scholarcommons.usf.edu

2. Analysis on bike-share ridership for origin-destination pairs: Effects of public transit route characteristics and land-use patterns