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

Perspectives and commentary about active transportation, air quality, and land use and development in an urban setting

I was fascinated by Pucher and Dijkstra’s article comparing and contrasting walking and cycling activity and safety among The Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. I was struck by how accidents pertaining to walking and cycling are underreported in all three countries. I assumed that U.S. crash incidents are underreported, but I did not know that underreporting is also an issue in The Netherlands and Germany, where walking and cycling are more common. Particularly, I was shocked to learn that only 48% of pedestrian and cycling injuries requiring a hospital visit are reported in Germany and 60% are reported in The Netherlands and that only 16% of minor pedestrian and cycling injuries are reported in Germany and 15% are reported in The Netherlands. 

It was interesting to learn that residents in The Netherlands and Germany have longer life expectancies by a few years than residents in the United States, because of the ability to safely walk and cycle. It was not too surprising to learn that sedentary behaviors and travel modes perpetuate obesity and that the United States has a much higher obesity rate than The Netherlands and Germany. Furthermore, I was fascinated by the overlap between Pucher and Dijkstra’s article and Fenger’s article, even though both articles specifically focus on respective subjects (walking and cycling, and urban air quality). The overlap is not immediately apparent until you reach Fenger’s conclusion — A comprehensive approach: Fenger points out that technological improvements in the form of less polluting vehicles would not be an optimal solution (even though that is what is playing out today). Rather, Fenger suggests reducing the need to use transportation and ensuring that public transportation dominates over single-occupancy vehicle transportation.

I would add that travel by walking and cycling also would ameliorate urban air quality, more than public transportation. Active transportation would have the best outcomes in mitigating urban air quality. And as the main travel mode, active transportation would require urban areas to grow in (a term I am borrowing from Michael Anderson’s Sightline article), rather than growing up or growing out. Growing in would involve relaxing setback and parking requirements and other strict zoning regulations to develop a denser infill of housing and business/commercial properties where feasible. Housing and business/commercial production shifts like this could involve housing to business/commercial use conversions within the existing stock of properties. These shifts could be driven by the dense infill development of rentable or purchasable high-quality, low-cost manufactured housing that frees up convertible existing properties.

An ideal mix of business/commercial uses would be nutritious food sources (grocery and farmers’ markets) and restaurants and convenience stores, pharmacies and medical and technical services (e.g., doctors, dentists, and optometrists offices, cycle for-sale and repair shops, and other mechanical services), libraries and book and media stores, and preferably medium- to high-quality second-hand and new clothing outlet stores. All the better if there are existing schools and other public institutions in place. There should be an equitable balance on the residential and non-residential mix, respective to the preferable/desirable rental and homeownership cost reductions resulting from the increased supply of residential properties.

A safer, and more accessible, mobile, resourceful, and watchful urban environment could induce the demand for more active transportation right-of-way, facilities, and equipment. An urban environment free of single-occupancy vehicles would have better ecological health than otherwise. 

By Asif Haque

Edited by Manuel Suarez Pallas

Source

Pucher, John, and Lewis Dijkstra. “Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons From The Netherlands and Germany.” American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 9 (September 2003): 1509–1516.

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

https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/01/we-ran-the-rent-numbers-on-portlands-7-newly-legal-home-options/

On air and noise pollution (lowering the advocacy barrier)

 One of the things that stuck with me while researching transportation policies in Barcelona is this map series of noise pollution that show the before and after full adoption of the superblocks:
 

As someone who studied GIS for my undergrad, I wonder about how the data for these maps were collected. Looking at the symbology, the data was likely collected at several points over a set period of time at regular intervals along streets. This is evidenced by the clear boundaries between noise levels, and their spatial co-incidence over major streets. The points were then symbolized as a heat map through interpolation, allowing us to see the different noise values as a continuous fabric over the city. Looking at the maps, I have 2 thoughts:

1) The equipment to measure noise pollution is fairly low tech and affordable (Amazon sells professional decibel meters with an accuracy of +1.5 dB, and there are iPhone apps approved for use by The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society)
2) If one were able to record air quality at the same level of measurement, my instinct tells me one could expect to see a similar map of tailpipe emissions.
 

The reason this thought seems to persist in my head is that measuring air quality is expensive, and generally inequitable: it requires a high level of expertise to analyze the data, and most air quality sensors are static. While noise pollution does affect our health, this is often overshadowed by the effects of air pollution. This is problematic because air quality measures can be more compelling data points while discussing whether a project should move forward, or whether more robust pollution abatement measures must be put in place, but air quality data is harder to collect and analyze. If one were able to come up with a reliable method to estimate tail pipe emissions based on noise levels, it might help eliminate barriers for communities that struggle to make their needs heard and make progress on both fronts.

***

This year I volunteered with Verde, a nonprofit organization that "serves communities by building environmental wealth through Social Enterprise, Outreach and Advocacy." I translated information about a program that sought to install low cost air quality sensors in the Cully Neighborhood into Spanish. Cully is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Portland, but it also suffers from some of the worst air quality in the city, in part because it abuts industrial zones in North Portland, and in part because there are no permanent air quality monitors in the area. Heat maps show values in an area by mathematically filling in the gaps between measuring points. The closer the points are, the more confident you can feel about the accuracy of the level displayed on the map.

The overall distribution of permanent air quality monitors in Portland is very inequitable: every inner neighborhood is within close range of at least 2 monitors to reliably interpolate from, but large areas of Northeast and East Portland lack reliable coverage, leaving those communities susceptible to unmonitored air pollution from industrial zones and tailpipe emissions. Without reliable data, these communities have little to arm themselves with to advocate for cleaner air.

In October, Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc, "Oregon's largest glass container recycler has agreed to control emissions at its Northeast Portland plant or else shut down". The company has until the end of 2023 to install pollution controls or it must shut down. According to the Oregonian, the company has "been fined nine times by the state for air quality violations since 2004." Below is a map of Owens-Brockway in Portland. Note its proximity to neighborhoods without permanent air quality monitors:

I do not know whether any of the air quality monitors that Verde has distributed this year played any part in the decision to cut air pollution from the plant. It will be nearly 20 years since Owens-Brockway's first recorded air quality violation before its surrounding neighborhood gets respite from the pollution it's been spewing this entire time. On the one hand, I am glad that the plant will finally stop poisoning its neighbors. But on the other hand I am quite livid that this pollution was allowed to go unchecked for so long. Would this have happened if Cully, and other close-by neighborhoods had adequate air quality monitors? Would this have happened if these neighborhoods were predominantly affluent and white, as is the case with the rest of the city that has good air quality monitor coverage?

***

The only thing that is clear to me is that air quality measures can empower a community to advocate for cleaner air. It is also clear to me that there are a lot of barriers to collect this data, of both expertise and cost. If one is able to take more precise noise measurements at a fraction of the cost of air quality measurements, then one should be able to take these as a proxy (or at the very least a predicting factor) of transportation-based air pollution. The more I think about it, the less important it seems whether we have an iron-clad method for extrapolating air pollution from noise pollution. Waiting to see the (more) correct measurement before enacting clean air policies has terrible, irreparable consequences for communities that are not able to perform exhaustive air quality monitoring. 

And while it is an absolute win that Owens-Brockway will stop polluting, take a closer look at these neighborhoods. They are bounded by highways and major arterials that serve the 18-wheeled needs of industry and freight. If we measured noise pollution at a similar level of accuracy that the Barcelona Superblock maps present, and we understood that in transportation, noise and air pollution go hand-in-hand, we would see a greater need for bold transportation policies that would address these sources of pollution. We would also see many other parts of the city display in darker hues than current air quality maps suggest. If we legitimize the use of alternative data sources that are easier to collect, we eliminate barriers that prevent people from successfully advocating for their needs.


By Alan De Anda-Hall

Edited by Yingjia Zhou

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

Verde. Web. November 2021. https://www.verdenw.org/

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

Portland glass recycler Owens-Brockway agrees to control pollution or shut down. Web. October 2021. https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/10/portland-glass-recycler-owens-brockway-agrees-to-control-emissions-or-shut-down.html

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

Portland Air Quality. Web. November 2021. https://www.iqair.com/us/usa/oregon/portland

Google Maps. Web. November 2021. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Owens+Illinois+Glass+Plant/@45.5628827,-122.5731292,15.02z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5495a406c25b340b:0xad8c659ad07b4684!8m2!3d45.5634184!4d-122.5662168