Op-Ed, federal: allocate funding based on noise pollution data

 As I wrote about in a previous article, Barcelona has created really precise heat maps that display noise pollution levels in the city. The maps' clear message is that highways and major streets are the main source of noise pollution in the city. By focusing on reducing noise pollution through the superblock program, the city has also cut down on transportation-based air pollution, which some would argue is a more urgent concern than noise pollution.

What really drew my attention is the fact that recording noise pollution data is much easier, cheaper, and more precise than recording air quality data. Decibel meters are cheaply available online, and there are NIOSH approved smartphone apps that do the same. Decibel meters can therefore be placed close to the source of pollution, and they can be moved as needed. Decibel meters can also be placed at more frequent and regular intervals to produce data of the same quality as Barcelona's. 

Air quality sensors are typically installed permanently, and their distribution tends to be inequitably concentrated in highly affluent areas, leaving many neighborhoods that abut industrial land uses, highways and train yards with close to no reliable air quality data. People don't typically choose to live next to highway fumes. These communities are often made up of people who have been displaced from another part of the city, BIPOC people, and people with low income and resources. People in these neighborhoods don't often have the time or energy to take care of more than their basic needs. And while it is clear that poor air quality and noise affect their health, there is very little wiggle room to come together and demand healthier living conditions. Collecting air quality data requires specialized instrumentation and knowledge. This makes it much more difficult for these neighborhoods to advocate for better air quality.

When it comes to transportation-based pollution, we can be fairly certain that noisy roads are also roads with poor air quality. While I'm academically curious in investigating the exact correlation between these two variables, I'm more interested in finding out how many more pollution-abatement projects would be funded in these neighborhoods if we lowered the advocacy barrier by accepting noise pollution data as a proxy for air quality data.

With our new infrastructure bill comes $100 billion in discretionary funding, to be awarded by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. I would urge Secretary Buttigieg to encourage communities to submit applications with noise pollution data when it is not possible to provide air quality data. Not having the ability to record the proper type of data should not disqualify an application if a suitable proxy that is easier to collect is available. To ensure that applications that target noise and air pollution receive funding, a substantial portion of the discretionary funding should go towards projects that would tear down highways, create new transit lines and urban trails, and re-design existing right-of-ways to accommodate transit and active transportation modes safely. To reject proposals due to unconventional data submissions would be pedantic at best. To accept proposals that submit data that is easier, cheaper, and more precise to record would start the long process of providing equitable transportation options that create more good than harm.

-Alan De Anda-Hall

Sources:

Barcelona wants to build 500 superblocks. Here's what it learned from the first ones.Web. April 2019.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18273894/barcelona-urban-planning-superblocks-poblenou


The Accuracy of iPhone Applications to Monitor Environmental Noise Levels. Web. February 2020. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lary.28590

Professional Decibel Meter. Web. November 2021. https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Backlight-Accuracy-Measuring-30dB-130dB/dp/B01MZ0IUGY/ref=asc_df_B01MZ0IUGY/?tag=&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312357852128&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12342762214536365379&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032930&hvtargid=pla-348660547600&ref=&adgrpid=62539486699&th=1

Op-Ed, local: let's build transportation infrastructure that improves our climate change resilience

While walking through my neighborhood recently, I came across a new pedestrian crossing island at Holgate and 29th in Southeast Portland:

NearMap Imagery, 08/28/2021

 

 

 

This pedestrian crossing island was much needed, as it connects directly to Tucker Maxon School, but it also does a good job of slowing traffic on Holgate, which is frequent and fast in both directions. You may have seen similar pedestrian crossing islands in other streets like Foster Rd or Hawthorne Blvd:

NearMap Imagery, 08/28/2021

I love seeing these projects crop up. One of the beautiful aspects of these pedestrian crossings is how easy they are to use, both for drivers and people walking. The narrowing of the travel lane and the concrete curb slows cars down. When present, rapid flashing beacons alert people in cars that someone is about to walk across the street. The zebra crosswalk gives higher visibility to people crossing. The sidewalk curb bulb-outs shorten the crossing distance. The concrete island provides a safe place to wait for cars in the next lane to stop. When people driving stop for you as you approach the intersection, walking across feels natural and safe, and one can essentially forget the infrastructure that makes this possible. This is a hallmark of good design. 

Every time I use these crossings in the summer, however, nothing, not even the drivers glaring at me as if this would make me walk faster can distract me from the massive, hot, concrete islands on either side of me. What in typical Portland gray weather exists as a beacon of hope towards a more walkable future, is transformed by the summer into a stark missed opportunity, a painful reminder that it did not use to get this hot for this long, that we humans are the reason why, and that we are not doing enough to prevent the future from getting worse. As I reach the other side, my apocalyptic anxiety subsides as I leave the pavement, concrete and tailpipes behind, and I am wrapped in the loving shade of a tree. If I'm in my neighborhood, hopping from under the shade of one tree to the next until I get back home becomes a fun challenge, and my mood begins to improve as I process feeling thankful for the fact that there are trees lining the streets.

While my neighborhood does not boast the tree-shade of the Laurelhursts and Ladd's Additions of Portland, Creston-Kenilworth is well covered by the tree canopy. I spent the first two thirds of my life in the high mountain desert of Juarez/El Paso, and I will forever be grateful for all the trees in Portland. I am thankful for the ancient pines in parks and yards and for the dogwoods and maples found in the planting strips between the curb and the sidewalk.

The Urban Forestry Office reveres trees at least as much as I do, and they wisely consider trees to be part of our city's infrastructure, providing shade and cleaning up our air and and stormwater. In the most recent Citywide Tree Inventory, it was reported that many planting zones have the wrong size tree - small-fruit trees are often planted in areas that could support a large pine, which would maximize the benefit of the lot, and conversely, some trees are too big for their planter, which can lead to sidewalks breaking. This is perhaps due to the fact that homeowners are responsible for what grows in their planting zone. Portland Urban Forestry is focusing their efforts on correcting this trend by educating the public, and by donating trees to houses that have an empty planting zone, which helps bring shade to places that have had their native trees inequitably torn down through unregulated urban growth.

I can't take a walk these days without noticing the vacuum between these two siloed efforts, each working to solve only their part of the problem: on streets we control, we're building concrete pedestrian islands to increase safety, and on planting strips we don't control, we're encouraging the public to choose to plant the right tree. These strategies are not mutually exclusive, and they can go a lot further in improving our climate change resilience by working together.

I am not suggesting that Portland Urban Forestry stop giving trees away, or that PBOT stops building safe crossing islands - I want them to work together. I am trying to illustrate the Venn Diagram that should exist between both of their missions so that regulatory, jurisidictional, budgetary or otherwise barriers can be broken.

Let's consider our Holgate and 29th crossing island. Making conservative estimates, if all concrete within the curb of the big island were removed, we would get 100 square feet to work with, in an planter 18 feet long by 6 feet wide. The Urban Forestry Tree Inventory Report recommends a large tree for the site, given the 6 foot width and lack of overhead electric cables. (Note that many pedestrian islands meet these criteria). However, Holgate is a major emergency response and truck access road, meaning that we'll need a thin tree whose canopy will mature at higher heights than trucks. Most pine trees would be suitable for this location. If planting a tree were not immediately feasible, planting sedges and rushes, which are very adept at filtering stormwater, could still be planted. According to Depave, a local non-profit organization that removes pavement from overly paved places, removing 100 square feet of concrete could save 10,000 gallons of stormwater each year. There is also the fact that any type of vegetation would more reflect solar radiation (and be cooler) than asphalt and concrete, which would make using the pedestrian crossing island in the summer a more welcome experience than if one were surrounded by concrete and pavement on all directions, even if no tree shade were provided.

Instead of filling in pedestrian crossing islands with concrete, trees and vegetation should be planted. We can combine the tree-selecting expertise of the Urban Forestry Office with PBOT's knowledge of our streets to plant site-appropriate trees, prioritizing those that will provide the most shade or filter the most stormwater, given the size of the crossing island. 

Thinking outside the realm of infrastructure, planting in pedestrian crossings should also raise our sense of pride in the city. During a bike trip through in France a couple of years ago, I noticed that each small town had a flower sign at the entrance. The number of flowers designated each town's flower rating, which was based on the quality of the gardens visible from the street. I think we have a lot of reasons to stir up a similar sense of pride. We are the city of roses! We are home to the Portland Thorns! Japan gifted us Cherry Blossoms! People here love to garden! Why shouldn't we allow our pedestrian infrastructure to serve a higher purpose we could all be proud of?

-Alan De Anda-Hall

Update:

This week, the City of Austin's Public Works Department published photos of a recently completed pedestrian island crossing improvement on a road that is a close analog of Portland's Holgate. Austin summers are typically punishingly hot. Austin also suffers from more frequent flooding, so capturing rain and stormwater on pervious cover is a high priority. While the situation is not as dire in Portland as it is in Austin, I wanted to update this piece to show that it's possible to integrate rain gardens into pedestrian crossing islands:

 

 

 

 

Sources:

Imagery: http://maps.us.nearmap.com/

Street Tree Inventory: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020/citywide-inventory-report-2017-rs.pdf

Transportation System Plan: https://www.portland-tsp.com/#/streets

Depave: https://depave.org/

   

OP- Federal Level: Carbon Emissions

 Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation pose a big threat to our environment. Burning fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel, release greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The buildup of such gasses in the atmosphere causes the earth's atmosphere to warm, resulting in a change in our climate. The EPA states that transportation accounts for 29% of greenhouse gas emissions, making transportation the biggest contributor to the United States’ emissions. Over the last 30 years, such emissions in the transportation sector have increased more than any other sector. This makes pollution from emissions due to transportation a federal issue in the country. We need to analyze behavioral patterns and understand what we can do individually and collectively. The issue of climate change is bigger than ever, and as the years go by things will start to go bad before they get better. Therefore we need to make conscious decisions about transportation and our habits. Policies can play a big role in the improvement of pollution and emissions from greenhouse gases, and on the same hand, we need to think about how such policies can be implemented. The need and demand for transportation mobility will always be high, but we have to apply ideas that can be both: a solution and a complement to the current demand for transportation. 

The EPA released an article in which they provide individual choices that can help reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. The article proposes individual car owners to drive less, after all, the less you drive the fewer emissions your car produces. Some alternatives to driving are biking and walking, using bike-share programs, taking public transit, carpooling with coworkers or friends, using ride-sharing devices, and working periodically from home (the pandemic has shown that working from home is an accessible option for many workers). Another solution to the emissions is current trends in the auto industry. The EPA article addresses such trends and talks about how when shopping for a car fuel-efficient vehicles can reduce emissions. These types of cars can help the environment while also saving buyers money in the long run. Such vehicles are electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and cleaner-burning gasoline vehicles. Lastly, the last key takeaway from the article is to not idle. Unnecessary idle from school buses, trucks, and cars pollute the air, waste fuel, and cause engine wear. “Reducing idling from diesel school buses prevents children from being exposed to diesel exhaust, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and saves money on fuel”(EPA). Creating awareness and promoting such ideas is an extremely difficult task. It requires awareness and education to the broad public. As we come to know, creating an environmental campaign is not a simple assignment. Several different players play a huge role in the decisions made. Individually we start to change our habits and shift towards solutions that can have an impact on our environment. Individual decisions can influence others to do the same.

David L. Green and Steven E. Plotkin in their book “Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from US Transportation” they discuss mitigation options, policies that promote emission mitigation, and mitigation potential. A mitigation option is to improve the operating efficiency of transportation systems, as it could reduce transportation emissions. “System efficiency improvements can reduce GHG emissions significantly and generally produce valuable co-benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, and lower costs” (Green and Plotkin). Governments can improve systems by making investments in the infrastructure of highways, transit, and airports. One of the policies for mitigation surrounds the idea of pricing. By increasing “the cost of fossil-based fuels, a carbon price would affect the quantity of vehicle travel, the efficiency of vehicles, and the carbon content of transportation fuels” (Green and Plotkin). Increasing the price of fuel on a federal level can cause a reduction in the number of vehicles on the road. Policies and strategies can play a huge role in reducing carbon and greenhouse emissions, which as stated at the beginning is a big problem on the federal level in the United States. Such strategies can promote changes in the current national conditions. 29% of the total carbon emissions is a huge number, and we have learned transportation is the biggest contributor to emissions. Hopefully moving forward individually and collectively, policies and a change in habits can serve to tackle the overwhelming issue of emission of carbon and greenhouse gases from transportation.  

By Manuel Suarez Pallas

Sources:

Greene, D.L. and S. E. Plotkin. 2011. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission from U.S. Transportation. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (pp. 1-11)

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transportation

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/what-you-can-do-reduce-pollution-vehicles-and

OP-ED Local Problem: Parking in Southeast Portland

    Parking is one of those aspects in transportation that as soon as we get into the car we start thinking about. Parking can come at very high costs, not only financially but mentally, at times it can dictate whether or not we decide to go to a place or not. Which in turn can be detrimental to the local economy. We start asking questions surrounding how accessible it is to park in certain areas of the city. The city of Portland has suffered from a lack of parking space and lack of accessible public transportation. Southeast Portland is one of these areas that have been heavily affected by those two aspects previously mentioned. High demand in the neighborhood has increased the number of cars in the street. Rising rent rates have caused homeowners to lease by the bedroom, which means more people are in need of transportation or have a car in a confined space. Parking in Southeast Portland has found itself in need of solutions that immediately serve as a reaction to the current conditions of the local area. From a local perspective, resident involvement and output is needed to figure out solutions. Although the parking problem is more complex than just a “big” demand for cars to park, it also entails and connects to issues of affordable housing and infrastructure. Throughout the next couple of paragraphs, we will discuss potential solutions in the Southeast Portland area. 

 We’ve found out that the main causes for parking problems are due to poor planning, lack of public transportation, demand, and policies in place. David Krogh, a writer from the Oregonian writes that in the case of Southeast Portland a lack of public transit is a factor in the parking problem, most people don’t take the bus to go shopping (unless it is the last resort). The city of Portland does not require businesses along transit streets to provide on-site parking, visitors have to find parking on streets that are adjacent to residential areas. This creates issues between visitors and residents in the area. Krogh states that the 2035 comprehensive plan estimates a population growth of 120,000, which means there will be a higher number of cars in the streets. Moving forward the city of Portland has to look at the land use in the neighborhood, and plan towards the current demand. Increased density has influenced mix-use areas, which I personally think is great, but at the same time, such mix-use areas also need to provide space for visitors and businesses. We at times overlook how commuting can also have an impact on the area. As the city is planning forward, it had to take into account the planning of density development with adequate facilities. Government officials need to take time for community engagement and neighborhood meetings to figure out the next steps in the area. An improvement in public transit and the promotion of bike share is desperately needed. The streetcar and max barely scratch the surface of the neighborhood, an improvement in lines is a priority and can improve the local economy while tackling the parking problem. 

In the article “A Survey of Smart Parking Solutions” by Trista Lin et al, it is explained that smart parking “is a way to help drivers find more efficiently satisfying parking spaces through information and communications technology” (Lin et Al). From an economic standpoint, smart parking is beneficial as it shortens the amount of parking search, reduces pollution, fuel consumption, and alleviates congestion. Through smart parking, drivers receive parking information, drive to their desired destination, and finally park. When a parking spot is already available and assigned to you, this reduces the competition for a parking space. In the case of the city of Portland, it would be a good idea to have a preliminary trial to see how people engage with the idea of smart parking. Smart parking also comes at a cost and it would be a big investment from the city to push for such a solution. Smart parking might be an innovative way to tackle the traffic problems in Southeast Portland using technology. The idea on paper is fascinating, but the idea on paper and the execution are two very different things. As “urban population and traffic congestion increase and the reducing land, smart parking becomes a strategic issue to work on, not only in the research field but also from economic interests” (Lin et al), as there are several benefits to incorporating technology in parking strategies.

By Manuel Suarez Pallas

Sources:

Lin, Trista, et al. “A Survey of Smart Parking Solutions.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 12, 2017, pp. 3229–3253.

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2015/03/portland_has_created_parking_p.html

Healthier transportation activities

 Walking and cycling are activities that correlate to healthier mental and physical lifestyles. Personally, walking is my main source of exercise each day. Walking provides me with exercise, fresh air, socialising, and time to organize and gather my ideas. There is something about being connected to the outdoors, experiencing natural light, breathing fresh air, and generating heat that just makes us feel a little better. Reading through the article, “Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment”, some of the articles made me further think about my first statement. The paper states that walking and cycling rates are higher in places where policies encourage such activities. Such policies do not always target walking and cycling, but rather discourage the use of cars. Therefore policies that promote public transport or road and parking pricing tend to indirectly impact walking and cycling. Another key takeaway from the article is that land use and the built environment play a huge role in our travel behavior. Land use mix has been associated with more walking, cycling, use of public transportation and less substance driven. Having stores, restaurants, offices and parks nearby will play a huge role as to what method of transportation you use. Better infrastructure, such as better sidewalks, crosswalks, signaling, and lighting invite people to walk. 

Now, you may be wondering: how do all of the policies mentioned above impact health? Well “Studies have linked directly walkable neighborhoods to the physical and mental health of its residents. Access to green space has been shown to improve health, particularly mental health and quality of life” ( De Nazelle et Al). Walking increases physical activity and fosters social interaction with other members in the community. On the other hand, auto use imposes threats to physical and mental health, as it links to annoyance, sleep disturbance, myocardial infarction, and a lack of physical mobility. Overall policies that directly or indirectly promote the use of public transit, walking, and cycling have a direct impact on health and overall physical mobility. 

By Manuel Suarez Pallas

Edited by Asif Haque

Source: De Nazelle, Audrey, et al. “Improving Health through Policies That Promote Active Travel: A Review of Evidence to Support Integrated Health Impact Assessment.” Environment International, vol. 37, no. 4, 2011, pp. 766–777.

Op-Ed — A Transportation Issue on the Federal Level: Public and Active Transportation, Climate Change, and the U.S. Infrastructure Bill

Expanding people’s access and mobility through public and active modes of transportation is, will be, and always has been key to mitigating climate change and alleviating related disasters. Fenger had even made it clear more than a couple decades ago the significant air quality benefits resulting from increasing public transportation use and decreasing single-vehicle occupancy use (Fenger 2000). To add further, Josyana Joshua of CityLab reports that “organizations are calling for $208 billion in annual investments for the nearly 100 cities in the C40 network, which together make up about 25% of global GDP.” From a report by C40 Cities and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), Joshua goes on to mention that “electrifying transit fleets, expanding bus and rail infrastructure, and improving system accessibility would not only slash transport emissions and air pollution but also boost quality of life and economic opportunities, particularly for low-income urban residents.”

Joshua mentions that the report highlights cities that are already making similar, ambitious and bold public transportation infrastructure investments, such as in Austin, Texas, where “ voters approved a $7.1 billion plan to add new rail lines, bus rapid transit and all-electric vehicles to the city’s transit offerings;” and in Jakarta, Indonesia, “which is on track to provide access to transit within 500 meters of 95% of residents’ homes by 2022.” Everyone residing in rural and urban areas would benefit from the positive climate change mitigation outcomes if more urban areas followed the leads of Austin and Jakarta. But still, Joshua highlights the stark difference in investment spending within the U.S. infrastructure bill between public transportation, rail, and roads and bridges — $39 billion for public transportation, $66 billion for rail, and $110 billion for roads and bridges. Giving credence as to why this disparity in funding is so alarming, Joshua references that “continued investment in roads and highways will make it hard for public transit to compete as an attractive alternative.”

Joshua references further that “[to] draw large numbers of riders out of cars, transit has to be more appealing and efficient than private vehicles … [requiring] dramatic changes in land use policies that have promoted auto-oriented sprawl in cities around the world and ending government subsidies for driving, such as free parking.” Moreover, Joshua references that “even a rapid transition to zero-emission cars would not avert catastrophic climate change if vehicle-miles traveled are not also dramatically reduced.” So, this provides further evidence to the notion that investing significantly in roads and highways is grossly counterintuitive and counterproductive to the general needs of public transportation in all of its forms. Also, this provides evidence to the notion that investing in electric vehicle infrastructure, which is $7.5 billion in the infrastructure bill, will not be enough to mitigate climate change to the extent that is needed.

Joshua does not speak in length regarding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure investments that are a part of the infrastructure bill. But unfortunately, these investments have the lowest funding allocation at $5 billion, among all of the other infrastructure investment categories. Even electric vehicle infrastructure investments, which ought to be considered analogous to single-occupancy vehicle use investments such as investments into road and highway infrastructure, have a higher funding allocation. The miniscule funding allocation to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure investments is also counterintuitive and counterproductive to the goals of mitigating climate change in order to avert catastrophic disasters, as Joshua similarly mentioned previously regarding the disparity between public transportation, rail, and road and highway infrastructure investments. But using Fenger’s article as a clue, if more public transportation use and less single-vehicle occupancy use could help society realize the associated air quality benefits, then cycling and walking could help society realize even more significant air quality benefits that are associated. Intuitively because cycling and walking do not have any associated emissions from their use, these modes of transportation would have the most beneficial climate change mitigation impact than any other transportation mode.

But of course, implementing cycling and walking infrastructure at a large scale would require a significant change in the current land use policy paradigm, as Joshua mentioned previously regarding public transportation. Marginally in contrast to the change that would be needed in land use policies to more attractively implement public transportation, land use policies would have to support even denser areas than they would for public transportation, in order to implement cycling and walking as viable, attractive transportation modes. But as Joshua and many other experts in the field have alluded to and directly pointed out, the most difficult part of implementing viable, attractive public transportation and cycling and walking infrastructure is conveying and ensuring the associated, prerequisite behavior change.

By Asif Haque

Peer-reviewed literature

Fenger, J. “Urban Air Quality,” Atmospheric, 33: 4877-4900 (2000).

Other sources

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-10/transit-use-must-double-to-meet-1-5-c-goal-mayors-warn?srnd=citylab-transportation

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/28/fact-sheet-historic-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/

OP-ED Regional Problem: Congestion in Portland Metro Area

 By Manuel Suarez Pallas

Traffic congestion in Portland has been a recurring problem around the city for quite some time now. Although the 2020 pandemic made the traffic index drop 66%, the city still ranks 14 worst in the nation. Many people started working from home, most students did their classes online, and many recreational areas (shops, restaurants, meeting areas) closed. Now that life seems to get back to normal, traffic congestion in Portland will (most likely) be on the rise again. In 2019 before the pandemic, the average driver would lose almost 90 hours stuck in traffic, and the city ranked 8th. The pandemic had a tremendous impact on the number of trips people took downtown, trips declined 77% in April and 65% in December (Ley, Clark County Today). As things start to get to normal we found ourselves in a time where we need to start thinking about future strategies to solve the regional congestion traffic issue in the Portland Metro Area. Throughout this article, we will examine the causes and possible solutions to this reoccurring issue in the city. After all, none like to get stuck in traffic all morning or all afternoon. Based on a Metro Poll, residents of the city indicated that widening roads and highways is the top priority, as opposed to improving public transportation in the city. Moving forward we will need to keep analyzing the trends to keep making decisions that maximize the needs and wants of the residents in the Portland Metro Region. 

“Worsening urban congestion is the result of many factors, including increased travel demand for intensified economic and leisure activities and a growing population” (Bell et Al). Looking at the current situation of Portland Oregon, we need to analyze the transportation demand to meet the needs of the residents. This technique is called the travel demand strategy. Aside from the tedious wait in traffic, congestion comes with several other issues, such as air pollution, irrational use of traffic infrastructure, and an increased number of accidents. TDM consists of three core elements. The first element is demand-side strategies, which are implemented by employers as a strategy to mitigate traffic. The second element is travel choices, here is analyzed what mode of transport individuals use. Lastly, application settings target certain events, such as school events, travel, and tourism (Bell et Al). We need to understand the motives and look deep in analyzing the reasons behind transportation use, to make decisions in which we can impact and react to the needs of the users in the regional area of Portland. We need to ensure that economic and environmental success is not affected by the congestion around the city. Transportation demand management serves as a way to analyze and look for opportunities to impact the congestion issue. We need to look for options that are viable, sustainable, and meet the needs of the average resident. It is more feasible to solve the congestion issue from the demand side, rather than offering more capacity or facilities of transportation. 

An article from Portland Mercury, states that “Portland’s stretch of Interstate 5 suffers from what engineers call “hyper-congestion,” a near-complete breakdown of traffic that cuts the freeway’s efficiency roughly in half” (VanderHart). A firm hired by ODOT stated that widening the highways would not be the solution to congestion in Portland, in fact it will stem congestion in the coming years. Adding lanes won’t ultimately ease the communication vessels in the city. Local leaders are raising the question of adding toll fees, some experts stated that tolling could have a significant impact on congestion, without adding lanes to the highway. “ The state could settle on a far more limited approach—or none at all. Other concepts under consideration include tolling a single bridge (the Abernethy, where I-205 crosses the Willamette River), constructing tolling lanes on a larger stretch of I-205, tolling all existing lanes on a segment of I-5 through downtown, and tolling a lane of I-5 in each direction just south of the Interstate Bridge” (VanderHart). But as of right now we don't know all the answers, as the idea of tolling is extremely complex. At the end of the day, satisfaction and understatement between the plans and people are crucial. The issue of congestion is a complex one, residents' needs are important and our decisions moving forward should understand the why behind the decisions we take on a daily basis, and act towards that. We need the output of the people, and the Portland Metro Area needs to listen to such concerns.

Sources:

Ge, Ying-En, et al. “SOLVING TRAFFIC CONGESTION FROM THE DEMAND SIDE.” Promet, vol. 27, no. 6, 2015, pp. 529–538.

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/portland-drops-to-14th-worst-traffic-congestion-in-nation/

https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2018/03/07/19724128/a-new-report-shows-highway-widening-wont-solve-portlands-congestion-woes

Biden’s $1.2 Trillion Insufficient Bill and the Social Safety Net (Federal Op-Ed)

 

On Nov 15, 2021 President Joe Biden signed his insufficient infrastructure bill into law. Earlier today, the social safety net bill was passed by the House. There is a lot of talk about the benefits of Biden’s infrastructure bill, including the $550M of $1.2T going towards transportation infrastructure. Of this, only $5B is going to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and $20B to roadway safety. The two bills are contradictory, both an improvement and detriment to public health.

This is “the largest federal investment in public transit ever” and “the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak,” according to the White House (whitehouse.gov). The health and social benefits touted by these statements are cancelled out by the amount of money dedicated to highways and roads. The funding does little to help the people or the planet, much like an EV Hummer (pictured above). 

Biden’s social “safety net” will have a tough time moving forward as economically and politically conservative members of the Senate are sure to vote “no.” The bill includes $401B for health care. I argue that if the bills worked together, both would come up cheaper. As a result, they would have a better chance at being signed into law.  

A. de Nazelle et al. emphasize public health is an urban planning policy issue. “Transportation and planning policies that promote active travel by walking and cycling can contribute to these [control obesity, limit chronic disease, and reduce air pollution] goals.” 

Investing more in bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure could greatly reduce the funds dedicated to health care. According to transportation engineer George Poulos, the societal costs of walking or biking are $0.01 and $0.08 per dollar you spend, respectively. In contrast, driving costs society $9.20 per dollar. 

The automobile itself emits pollution and emissions which directly affect the health of community members and the infrastructure built to support them alters the way we move through the environment. A car-centric urban fabric comes at the expense of walkers, rollers, and cyclists. Urban planning policies that increase walking and cycling, while supporting public transportation are shown to reduce household vehicle ownership rates and vehicle speeds. 

Included in the infrastructure bill is a requirement for states to develop Complete Streets programs. These are roads that are built to be accessible and safe for “people of all ages and abilities” according to Congress. By their definition this includes walking, cycling, transit, and automobiles. This is a step in the right direction although contradicted by the large sums of money going towards highway building.

$15B of the infrastructure bill’s funds will go to supporting EV use by building a network of chargers and implementing EV school buses. While this is a great step toward environmental protections, the continued support of roads and vehicles undermines pedestrian safety. Nazelle’s research highlights that traffic injuries are the second leading cause of death for people aged 5-29. Support for the motor vehicle is also present in the social safety net bill, $22B is going to EV tax credits and $15B for renewable fuels like biodiesel. Biden did the right thing when he included $4B in tax credits for electric bikes. The credit provides a 30% refundable tax credit, capped at $1,500 (theverge.com). 

Neighborhood design that centers walkability and public transportation promotes walking and contributes to a healthier community. Research found that “policies and planning decisions that increase walking and cycling can also reduce household vehicle ownership rates and vehicle speeds.” Investing in public health starts with restructuring the infrastructure bill to move away from road building and instead investing more in walkability. Instead, the $26B dedicated to public health will be used to fix problems caused by the injection of $110B into roads and bridges. 

By Anthony Tortorici

Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-07/an-interactive-tool-measures-the-social-costs-of-driving-and-transit-in-vancouver

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1289/text

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/28/22751273/ebike-tax-credit-build-back-better-biden

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/28/fact-sheet-historic-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/

Maximizing patronage by decreasing coverage yet increasing demand response

Walker discusses how public transportation planners, policymakers, and decision-makers can best analyze the trade-offs between transit patronage and coverage (Walker 2008). I was aware and had a general understanding of the wicked problems associated with such trade-offs, but I gained a better understanding of how to analyze this issue after reading Walker’s article. Later on, Walker also differentiates demand-responsive transit from “paratransit” and discusses them as separate services (Walker 2008). However, I push back on this notion and propose that demand-responsive transit and “paratransit” services ought to be identical, such that all demand-responsive transit services are identically ADA-compliant if this is not already the case.

I secondly propose that fixed-route transit service designed for coverage ought to be decreased in ratio with or entirely substituted for this more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. The vehicle fleet comprising this fixed-route transit service designed for coverage could then be sold to purchase outright or finance the vehicle fleet comprising the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. Let us assume that each vehicle of the fleet comprising the fixed-route transit service designed for coverage is worth more on resale than what it costs to purchase outright or finance an additional vehicle for the fleet comprising the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. Under this assumption, we can then assume that only a portion of the vehicle fleet comprising the fixed-route transit service designed for coverage would have to be sold to purchase outright/finance and decrease in ratio with/entirely substitute for the vehicle fleet comprising the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. The unsold portion of the vehicle fleet comprising the fixed-route transit service designed for coverage could then be reallocated to maximize the fixed-route transit service designed for patronage.

Even under these assumptions, I still want to consider that entirely substituting a fixed-route transit service designed for coverage for the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service could be more socially and politically costly than decreasing the ratio. Therefore, an entire substitution is one extreme end of the production possibilities frontier, whereas decreased ratios are points along that frontier, and doing nothing is the opposite extreme end of this frontier. The main point is that Walker has already suggested that doing nothing is inefficient, making an example of the empty vehicles that serve fixed routes designed for coverage. Introducing the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service in place of some, if not all, of these empty vehicles would alleviate this inefficiency, while simultaneously increasing equity and access and more efficiently serving routes designed for coverage. This is a very rough idea. These propositions do not consider the possibility of this more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service being able to pick up riders en route from their origins and/or destinations. This could be accomplished, for example, by requiring riders to call 15 to 20 minutes in advance of when they would like to depart (effectively creating a headway), among other possibilities.

By Asif Haque

Edited by Manuel Suarez Pallas

Source:

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

Daylight Saving Lives

The Portland Bureau of Transportation announced that they will be addressing pedestrian safety by “daylighting” intersections on “pedestrian priority streets.”

“Daylighting” is the removal of car parking nearest a crosswalk, marked or unmarked. Removing the parking and cars associated with it will greatly improve visibility at Portland’s intersections. Ultimately, this will reduce the amount of conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles in the intersections. 

Oregon State Law 811.550 states parking cannot be placed “within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection [with exemptions].” This law has been cited by activists who have been pressuring the bureau to remove the parking in the name of pedestrian safety. This law is not mentioned in PBOT’s announcement of the new citywide guidelines. Instead these guidelines highlight that “Oregon state law allows cities to set their own regulations regarding intersection approaches,” and go on to proclaim that the city has not required daylighting intersections but “that’s about to change.” The new guidelines will require the 20’ setback on some streets designated as “pedestrian priority.” These include Neighborhood Greenways and streets on Portland’s High Crash Network. 

Credit: Portland Bureau of Transportation Vision Clearance One-Pager

Safe Urban Form by Dumbaugh and Rae acknowledges the inherent danger at intersections due to the “conflicting streams of traffic.” The text goes on to highlight that the mere presence of intersections causes vehicles to decelerate or stop completely, which “reduces impact speeds, and thus the incidence of fatal crashes.” This points out an interesting paradox where intersections are simultaneously dangerous for pedestrians, yet a safer place to be hit by a car. Supporting design modifications both within the proximity of intersections and “even where intersections are infrequent… may help reduce both traffic conflicts and crash incidence.” 

Jonathan Maus of BikePortland cites two pressure-building efforts as the impetus for change. First, Oregon Walks has created a campaign to inform community members of the law requiring a 20’ setback. Included on their website is an explanation of daylighting and instructions on how to get the City’s attention. They urge readers to post an image of a car in violation of this law with the hashtag “#ClearTheCorners” as well report it to PBOT by calling its hotline. Second, Forum Law Group filed a lawsuit against the city for not adhering to this law. The lawsuit was in reference to the death of a motorcyclist who lawyers claim would not have been hit by a motor vehicle if the City complied with the 20’ setback law. 

The new initiative named “Vision Clearance” began in September and work is ongoing until June of next year. The funding comes from the PBOT Small Capital Project budget and funds secured by Jo Ann Hardesty, the Portland Commissioner delegated to the bureau. 

By Anthony Tortorici

Edited by Asif Haque

Sources:

Eric Dumbaugh & Robert Rae (2009) Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the

Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety, Journal of the American Planning

Association, 75:3, 309-329, DOI: 10.1080/01944360902950349

https://bikeportland.org/2021/11/04/city-of-portland-says-theyll-daylight-350-intersections-340939

https://bikeportland.org/2020/02/20/5-9-million-lawsuit-says-city-of-portland-is-negligent-for-allowing-parking-at-intersections-311314 

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.550 

https://oregonwalks.org/clear-the-corners/ 

https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/intersection-visibility

Op-Ed — A Transportation Issue on the Regional Level: The Concerning Lack of Inclusive TODs in the Portland Metro Area

The Portland Metropolitan Area is composed of a well-connected system of bus lines and light-rail (MAX) lines maintained and operated by TriMet, and a few loops comprising the Portland Streetcar maintained and operated by the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Moreover micro-mobility, such as e-scooters and e-bikes, has proliferated near many bus, light-rail and streetcar stops. All of the MAX and Streetcar lines generally run frequently, or about every 15 minutes, and so do many of the high-ridership bus lines. Projects like Portland’s Rose Lanes Project are also seeking to decrease headways and increase frequencies. Micro-mobility furthermore is alleviating the last-mile dilemma between the end of transit routes and commuters’ actual destinations.

Given the wealth of transit options, total transit use in the metro area is still proportionately low in comparison to maximum vehicle seating across all transit services, even when considering the effects of the pandemic. As figures show, the pandemic has had devastating effects on transit ridership, but ridership was already low before the pandemic when considering the number of boardings in relation to the number of available seats across all transit vehicles in service. There are some potential explanatory factors — to name just a few: driving alone was the dominant travel mode for people commuting to work as of 2020; driving alone and carpooling comprised over 70 percent of all trips according to 2014 data; and average non-commute drive times between suburbs and cities significantly outcompetes all relevant transit options.

But what I did not mention above, which is the main focus of this article, is a position held by Renne: “the importance of a quality built environment upon travel behaviour and vehicle ownership.” This now brings us to a conversation about transit-adjacent and transit-oriented developments (TADs and TODs), which may or may not be an original discussion, considering the deep and broad literature on the matter. Renne said “a TOD describes a station-area precinct that is compact, mixed-use, and facilitates transit connectivity through urban design,” whereas “a TAD is ‘physically near transit [but] fails to capitalize upon this proximity … [It] lacks any functional connectivity to transit — whether in terms of land-use composition, means of station access, or site design.’” Renne even goes so far as to mention that “97% of rail stations in the USA would be underdeveloped or in other words — a TAD.”

Renne’s definition for TADs and TODs may remind us of many places in this metro, such as many areas in Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tualatin, Tigard, Sherwood, and Lake Oswego, among other cities, in the case for TADs, and the Orenco, Elmonica, Beaverton, and Convention Center Stations to reference just the few that were mentioned by Dill in the case for TODs. But by no coincidence, notice that the amount of TADs and their relative geographic areas significantly exceed that of TODs. The lack of TODs and rather the relatively disproportionate amount of TADs in the metro are in tandem hurting aggregate transit ridership, including the use of micro-mobility particularly at last-mile junctures.

One option could be for planners to work on shifting the characteristics of station precincts from the TAD- to the TOD-side of the TAD-TOD spectrum, as described by Renne. This would entail redeveloping around existing TAD-like station areas, rather than developing greenfields for new TOD-like station areas — the former would also be much more cost-effective and equitable than the latter. Hess and Lombardi mention “five major impediments to TOD in inner cities,” which generally are the private sector disinterest to locate and invest in such areas, the absence of low-income individuals’ demand for such developments, competitive disadvantage, prejudice (which may include racism and classism in this context), and financing limitations. Hess and Lombardi mention further that “on the subject of local economic and market conditions, note that transit investments redistribute growth (instead of generating it) and that there must be growth to redistribute for development to occur.”

Therefore, redevelopment around existing TADs could include dense mixed-use residential with a range of market-rate and affordable housing for rent and homeownership from 30% of the area median income (AMI) to 80% of the AMI to respectively handle projected growth, with a project financing plan that has a longer time horizon for a reasonable and competitive fixed interest rate that serves as an incentive to developers. This could help with the financing limitations for developers and public agencies and the issues of affordability for low-income individuals. This could then in turn help with issues of prejudice and exclusivity regarding who is actually being served by and benefitting from such transitioning TADs.

Furthermore, such redevelopment could first take place around existing TADs that are closest to their respective central cities’ services, and also giving priority to the largest central cities and their associated TADs in closest proximity. This could help to spur private sector interest to locate and invest in these areas, given the prospective rewards from the capitalization effects of speculative redevelopment, which would in turn induce the prospects for competitive advantage from place to place. This could also help to further increase the demand for transit among choice and dependent riders who already live and will prospectively live in these transitioning TADs.

Equitably and efficiently transitioning areas from TAD- to TOD-like environments will be paramount to increasing non-driving modal share; inducing compactness, mixed-use, and modal connectivity; realizing sustainable development practices; and handling population and economic growth projections. The dominating presence of TADs over TODs illustrates the under-development of our cities and their surrounding areas within the metro.

By Asif Haque

Peer-reviewed literature

Renne, John L. (2009). From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environment. 14(1), 1-15.

Dill, J. (2008). Transit use at transit-oriented developments in Portland, Oregon, area. Transportation Research Record, 2063(1), 159-167.

Hess, D. B., & Lombardi, P. A. (2004). Policy support for and barriers to transit-oriented development in the inner city: Literature review. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1887(1), 26-33.

Community Design

 

Car accidents have always been an issue and a headache to transportation planners. In 2006 in the US, there were around 39,000 crashes — 45 percent of those crashes occurred in urban environments (Dumbaugh & Rae). One can only wonder what are the possibilities to prevent such crashes around the city. Reading through Dumbaugh and Rae’s article, this concept of community design was a concurring theme in the papar. What is community design? Well I had to dig a bit deeper to understand this concept. Based on the Association for Community Design website, community design is “a movement focused on the creation and management of environments for people. This process promotes change to the built environment from the neighborhood to regional scale, and aims to meet community needs through participatory decision-making at all levels”. With this idea now in my mind, I went through the article once again, and looked for specifics as to how community design impacts safety levels in urban areas. The article emphasizes the ways in which community design on paper should enhance safety. The first idea is to develop a new class of roadway that addresses safety needs of motorists. The second idea is that street networks should be reconfigured to prevent vehicle traffic from entering residential areas and reduce conflicts between opposing streams of traffic. Lastly, the third idea is that land uses should be designed to reinforce the functional separation of traffic (Dumbaugh & Rae). The results showed that this type of community is safer.

Now I wonder what other outside-the-box techniques can be brought into place using the idea of community design to increase safety in transportation. In this class, thanks to one of our classmates' videos (Alan), we learned how the superblocks in Barcelona are a technique to reduce the amount of accidents. I think that in order to successfully achieve a goal regarding public spaces, you need people’s input. Understanding what they need, and how those needs may serve you as a source to reduce accidents in the urban area. Maybe a neighborhood is looking for public spaces to organize events. How can you use that to your advantage from a transportation planner’s point of view? Maybe you promote more walkable neighborhood events, and by that you may indirectly impact the number of cars in the street. Also as a driver when you see people walking around you tend to be a little more careful of your surroundings. Crashes and accidents are an ongoing problem, but maybe there are some indirect outside-the-box ideas that can help ease such problems. 

Edited by Asif Haque

Sources:

Eric Dumbaugh & Robert Rae (2009) Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety, Journal of the American Planning Association, 75:3, 309-329

“About.” About | Association for Community Design, https://www.communitydesign.org/about.

By Manuel Suarez

Op-Ed — A Transportation Issue on the Local Level: The Prospects of Portland’s Rose Lanes Project

Portland’s Rose Lanes Project seeks to establish “transit route[s] where buses and streetcars have priority on the road in congested areas.” The theoretical framework of this project is that over time “as transit moves faster and more reliably on these lines, service will increase, helping move more people.” The ultimate goal is that “transit service will be 12-minute frequency or better all day and 10-minute frequency or better during peak hours.” The project requires a collaboration between the Portland Bureau of Transportation and TriMet, “a public agency that operates mass transit in a region that spans most of the Portland metropolitan area,” for adequate implementation of the project.

According to Paul Sorenson, “Implement[ing] deep-discount transit passes … Expand[ing] bus rapid transit (BRT) with bus-only lanes … [and] Improv[ing] signal timing and control where deficient” were three of the 10 complementary measures recommended for Los Angeles to seek to alleviate its congestion problem. These measures are not exclusive to just this city, and establishing them elsewhere in other growing cities will have commensurate results. As examples most relevant to Portland, TriMet already offers reduced-fare passes for low-income riders; and the Division Transit Project, a quasi-BRT project currently in the construction phase with upcoming service seeking to better connect Downtown Portland and Downtown Gresham, has a similar focus as actual BRT such that bus transit signal priority and station locations minimizing travel times are primary concerns.

Put simply, the main elements that the Division Transit Project is missing in order to be considered a full-fledged BRT service is (1) total separation from traffic during the whole duration through the service area and (2) at-station and/or off-board transit fare purchasing and redeeming ability. This is besides the point, but it is still worth mentioning. The main point is that Portland is already seeking to make strides in alleviating congestion by improving transit access and mobility in line with Sorenson’s three aforementioned measures. Furthermore, Portland’s Rose Lanes Project has the potential to better achieve these strides.

In theory, the project will expand bus-only lanes that are shared just with the Portland Streetcar, partially giving all buses serving the routes associated with this project the BRT quality of having an exclusive lane. Also theoretically, the bus-only lane expansions as a part of the project would not only reduce bus travel times, it would also reduce streetcar travel times. This is because cars and other motorized vehicles, along with cyclists and micro-mobility users, would all be prohibited from accessing this lane, whereas currently bus and streetcar services are having to compete with other travel modes for access and right-of-way to the streetcar lanes where the project has not yet been implemented. Moreover, this issue of travel modes competing for access and right-of-way for streetcar lanes was much worse before any implementation of the Rose Lanes Project. The streetcar in theory would then achieve quasi-light-rail operations. And, the potential travel time reductions for both bus and streetcar services would theoretically shift drivers and other users of motorized vehicles to these public transit modes.

Furthermore in theoretical terms, the Rose Lanes Project would further boost transit signal priority for both bus and streetcar services given simultaneity of operations, therefore reducing stop-light probabilities and in turn reducing stop-light waiting times. To visualize this theory, consider the circumstance in which a bus service and a streetcar service both share a Rose Lane at the same time, moving in the same direction, and approaching the same red light, where either service is immediately in front of or behind the other while in motion. The traffic signal priority technology in the bus and streetcar services would both communicate with the traffic signal, either simultaneously or sequentially depending on which service is in front of the other.

But theoretically nonetheless, the traffic signal would ultimately register this circumstance and turn green more quickly in this circumstance than it would if there was just one transit service operating in this lane. Now, consider this circumstance again, but this time with more than two transit services sharing the Rose Lane at the same time, moving in the same direction, and approaching the same red light, where all services are in motion yet immediately lined up. The traffic signal theoretically would turn green more quickly than in the circumstance where there are only two services sharing operations in the Rose Lane. And in both of these circumstances, the traffic signal would theoretically turn green much more quickly than it would if there was no transit service operating in this lane, where only drivers and other users of motorized vehicles, along with cyclists and micro-mobility users, were operating in it by out-competing transit for access and right-of-way.

The benefits of BRT are well established (Cervero 2013). It is a cost-effective substitute for light-rail transit (LRT) investments that are much more expensive in capital costs. Also, BRT is able to better serve existing low-density areas and Portland-sized cities, since, for example, LRT is not nearly as flexible in, and is oftentimes incapable of, transitioning among line-haul, collector, and distributor service types. Portland’s Rose Lanes Project has the potential to progress the quality of service of existing bus and streetcar services, enhancing them to operate more similarly like BRT and LRT services, respectively. Bus and streetcar travel times have the potential to be reduced due to the expansion of bus- and streetcar-only lanes and the de facto improvement of traffic signal priority timing and control. The temporary transit platforms as a part of the Rose Lanes Project also have the potential to reduce travel times due to quicker boarding and alighting, a subject not covered by this article.

By Asif Haque

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Aaron Golub for his comprehensive teaching of public transportation planning, from which I had learned so much.

Peer-review literature source

Cervero, Robert (2013) : Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): An efficient and competitive mode of public transport, Working Paper, No. 2013-01, University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD), Berkeley, CA