Catbus

Free Parking is not as cheap as you might think. At least according to Donald C. Shoup, professor of urban Planning at the University of California, who published a 733-page book on the “The High Cost of Free Parking.” The basic premise is that zoning requirements and regulations requiring large amount of parking act as subsidies to car ownership and car trips.

The subsidies are mostly hidden, which adds to the car owners sense of entitlement to cheap parking availability, and generally to the perceived freedom of the car; but the results are more visible. There is excessive amount of downtown land for cars, causing more sprawl and more automobile usage.

If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove.

According to the article, 99% of all car trips in the us end in free parking space and Professor Shoup estimates that in 2002, the subsidy to parking amounted to 127$ billion in the United States. In a way this means that transit users are subsidizing car ownership more than car owners are subsidizing transit, contrary to the general perception.

Within this context it’s interesting that San Francisco started a pilot project which will not only show the availability of all parking spots in certain areas in a smart phone app, but it will also allow the prizes to shift according to market demands. Jarret at HumanTransit views this as the beginning of the free market of parking, but the spots only compute with each other, up to a regulated maximum. In a real market, the land use as parking spots would be in competition other possible uses fore these spaces.

One possible argument for cheap parking is that in places where there are no adequate transportation alternatives, parking is necessary, and without it the city centers will suffer. I believe the argument actually goes the other way round — that an increased focus on automobile travel and ownership, and (possibly indirect) subsidies for parking will hurt public transportation and cause less walkable communities. It will also move residential areas farther away from business owners in downtown, hurting city centers.

Let’s look at Montreal as an example of a city with very high transit use (the second highest in North America, after New York). Presumably there should be enough transit alternatives, so that a lot of parking is not really necessary, and a real market should force them away from the high density downtown areas. That is, parking lots should not be able to compete with actual retail development. I decided to mark a downtown area, and fill out all the parking visible from above. The chosen 1.1 square mile area is enclosed by McGill University in the West, Place des Arts in the North, the old port in the East and the Bell Centre in the South. This area includes the commercial center and the old town, and includes six metro stations and two commuter rail stations. The result is the image above. It is striking how much parking area there actually is smack in downtown. And while Montreal is generally considered a fairly European city, with a lot of transit, a pioneering bike sharing system and many walkable areas, it seems that the urban landscape of downtown is forced into one one huge, ugly parking lot.

On a side note, the inefficient use of space, sprawl and bad downtown development is an example of the negative externalities of car culture, that, just like the problems to health (like obesity or commuting stress), has nothing to do with Pollution and Global Warming. This means that even the electric car, with the first mass produced model coming out later this year (although the introduction is slower than expected), will not solve any of these problems, even if they ran completely on ‘green’ electricity.

One of the problems of transit is topography. How can you provide good transit service where the population density is too low? Ideally one would want good service throughout the network, but of course that’s not affordable. On the other hand these areas still need access to public transportation. So there will always be a fair amount of transit service running at low frequency. But how can you get people to switch from cars to transit (or more importantly, not switch from transit to cars) if you cannot provide frequent service? Most people will not take the bus to save the planet, but they will if it provides similar (or better) mobility as the car.

One way to lose riders to the car is by not providing timed connections. Many services in low density areas are actually feeder lines to more frequent lines, rapid transit lines or commuter trains. If a connection can not be ensured, then the transit agency will lose riders. This seems really obvious, but it’s something that some transit agencies fail to enforce consistently, especially across different agencies.

Case in point: recently a friend of mine bought herself a house and moved into the suburb city of Laval, just north of Montreal. Naturally I asked her how she gets downtown for work (who wouldn’t?), and to my relief I found out she takes the commuter train. She did complain about the bad connection to the bus, which supposedly makes her wait for an hour at the train station all the time — both the train and the bus are infrequent; they come about hourly.

It turns out that the bus often leaves a couple of minutes before the train arrives. This is especially true when going home in the evening. The only short connection during the whole evening is exactly 1 minute, so it’s likely that a passenger will still be stranded for an hour. The bus and the train both come about hourly, and the bus has its terminus there, meaning that the connection is important for that line. The graph shows, for every train arrival, when the next bus will arrive and also when the previous bus left. Ideally the connection should always be like in the morning.

The other way the wait is not quite as long, but it seems the bus is scheduled to arrive half-way between the trains.

To illustrate the issue, it takes the commuter train 30 minutes to get to the suburb station, and the bus another 10 to bring my friend home. If the layover would be 5 minutes, this would mean 45 minutes of travel time (plus some walking). With a 52 minute layover, the travel time is now 92 minutes – more than twice as long. If you assume that the perceived time of waiting is 2.5x the actual time, then going home feels like 170 minutes…

This sort of scheduling problem is not just a fluke, it’s an example of a larger problem in the Montreal area. According to a recent article in the Montreal Gazette, up to 19 transit authorties and regional/municipal bodies are involved in planning. Additionally, Aéroports de Montreal, which runs the Trudeau airport, is pushing it’s own transit agenda to create a non stop rail shuttle to downtown. Currently it looks like their option is going to be chosen, rather than the more integrated plan of the AMT (agence metropolitaine de transport) to create a surface metro in the badly served West Island.

With all these agencies, it is no wonder that there are issues with planning, fare zones, and, well, scheduling. Bad schedules in particular are mostly due to organizational issues, not due to lack of actual transit resources. These issues could be solved with more cooperation, without actually having to increase service. For such infrequent service, schedules make or break the whole transit network. And it is supposed to be a network, not just a set of badly connected infrequently served lines.

I wonder how many more connections are this bad, and whether an individual can do anything to get this fixed. But in the meantime my friend is being pushed into using the car by transit agencies that do not cooperate.

A couple of days ago, chinahush.com posted a video (in Chinese, English translation included) showcasing the concept of a bus running above traffic. The idea is that the bus is basically a moving tunnel, with a 2 meter clearance below for normal car traffic to drive under. Thus the bus can drive above traffic without being stopped by traffic jams or without stopping traffic when it is itself stopping at a station. At the same time, the bus still fits under overpasses. The buses are four carts long, each cart taking up to 300 passengers, and are supposed to go up to 60 km/h.

This seemingly solves to problem of creating right of ways for public transportation. Subways have their own right of way, unimpeded by any other traffic, and not interfering with anything else. But they are also the most expensive. Elevated tracks also represent a dedicated right of way, but they might disturb the cityscape, due to noise and darkness below, and will only fit along certain streets where they still may take away some space due to heavy construction. Buses usually don’t have their own right of way, except for bus rapid transit. So buses may get stuck in traffic and also may – from the point of view of drivers – create more traffic. Of course a bus may replace a large number of cars. On the other hand subways are the most expensive, while buses are the cheapest (at least in terms of initial construction). So the “straddling bus” may give both advantages, of creating it’s own right of way but not disrupting traffic, by simply bringing it’s elevation structure along with itself — basically, it is its own overpass. The claim is that the cost is about 10% of what a subway would cost.

Dario Hidalgo over at The City Fix brings home the point that this concept might not actually solve any real issues:

The plan is really innovative, but seems to be at a very preliminary concept stage with too many issues to solve from the engineering standpoint. For the time being, it would be much better to dedicate time and effort to simpler and more effective transit solutions, rather than making concepts that preserve space for cars.

Another issue is that to make this system work, one may have to make some compromises which will actually make this system inferior to already existing systems like bus rapid transit or light rails, although some of the ideas could maybe be reused here.

Any information besides the video, which may very well come from a TV show where the audience has to guess whether presentations are fake or not, is hard to come by. Let’s just assume this idea is for real and will actually be implemented. And since I like innovative transit concepts, I decided to take a closer look, and at some of the issues that come up.

keeping away trucks

The clearance below the bus is planned to be 2m, which means that trucks will not fit under it. Some of the images show this bar construction presumably to keep trucks away. It seems to me that this is not enough to keep trucks actually separated from these lanes. There are already problems with drivers who are not aware of low clearances and drive into these areas. It would seem that a more solid approach would be more appropriate.

At other points in the presentation it actually shows trucks driving on the same lane as the bus. Some sensor system in the bus would detect that the truck is too high, and will warn trucks to change lanes to avoid a collision. This is an even more dangerous approach. Drivers now have to be even more aware of low clearances ahead — of another moving vehicle — and then react to some small display at the rear of the bus telling it to switch lanes, which might not always be easy. Another issue is that the bus might be driving up to a truck which is stuck in traffic ahead of it.

Even if drivers were vigilant enough, it would mean that the bus cannot really drive much faster than the slow moving traffic for safety reasons — and if the cars are stuck, and there is a truck among them, then the bus will be held up as well. It would probably be best to completely separate all tall vehicles away from any lanes where the bus can go, and make sure of that with barriers that cars have to drive through before turning onto the bus lanes.

This would mean that there would exist a secondary grid where only cars can go, which might be quite a hindrance for any traffic of large vehicles. Even on a four lane boulevard where only half of them will be low clearance, it will create problems for large vehicles to turn left or right (depending on whether the bus lanes are the inner or outer ones). This is somewhat ironic — usually trucks delivering goods or other high occupancy vehicles are the ones that should get somewhat of a priority, but this scheme completely seems to prioritize individual car transport. And if there are only two lanes to begin with, like in the picture on the side, then any large vehicles can’t go there at all. I wonder whether just dedicating one lane to either BRT or a light rail would create less of an impact on other motorized vehicles.

avoiding collisions

Even if trucks could be reliably kept away, there is still the issue of avoiding collisions. Imagine driving on a highway in heavy traffic, and having this thing whoosh over your head. The presentation shows that sensors in the bus would detect vehicles that get too close and warn them with lights and sounds. This will create a very disorienting situation with all sorts of conflicting visual information from all sides and little visibility of the fixed environment. And if there is an accident, hitting the bus from the inside, it is quite possible that a lot of people might get hurt. It would probably be better to create railings behind which the bus drives, to minimize the chance of bad accidents. It would also ensure that no vehicle crosses from a bus lane to a non bus lane as the bus approaches from behind, which will slow the bus for sure, if it doesn’t cause an accident. Again this will increase the amount of space needed for the whole contraption, meaning that one could just dedicate a single lane for a more proven form of transit.

tires vs tracks

From the presentation it is not very clear whether the vehicle is running on rubber tires like the name ‘bus’ suggests, or running on tracks like a streetcar. Besides the problems of staying exactly on track, having such large and heavy vehicles go along the exact same path on the road presents some problems. Bombardier experimented with a streetcar bus hybrid, called Guided Light Transit. It’s basically a streetcar vehicle running on tires, guided by a center rail. The idea is that it can operate like a streetcar in downtown, but does not need the rail along it’s whole path, giving it more independence and flexibility over a regular tram. The hope was that this system would be cheaper. But one of the problems is that due to the heavy vehicle always riding over the same spot, the asphalt deteriorates much quicker. Adding to that the added maintenance requirements of rubber tired vehicles, and the system actually turned out to be more expensive than a regular tram. The Bombardier vehicle only weighed about 40 tons, while the straddling bus should be much heavier. Thus rails would really seem to be the only option to ensure that the bus is properly guided and the maintenance is manageable.

stairs

Having stairs inside a transit vehicle at first sight seems like a good idea. Due to the wide width of the bus, one can easily fit stairs inside it while still leaving space on the sides to pass. This would allow entering through and exiting to (existing?) overpasses, and would reduce the amount of engineering required to build stations. One would merely need pedestrian overpasses that are required over very busy roads anyway, and no actual platforms where the bus would have to stop.

The main problem is that entering and exiting through stairs will hugely increase dwell times. In usual rapid transit, passengers enter and exit through many doors and level boarding will make sure that the time required to get everybody out and in is fairly small, in the range of a few seconds. Decreasing the number of steps required reduces the boarding time, that’s why low-floor buses and streetcars are becoming the standard. Level boarding is also one of the ways Bus Rapid Transit achieves high throughput. Instead of requiring a few steps, the image shows a full flight of stairs. This does not only impede accessibility, but also increases dwell times to the point where the overall average speed of the bus will hardly compete with normal street running buses.

Probably to increase throughput, the presentation proposes this oval shaped overpass, which appears to allow two sets of stairs. Not only will this reduce the capacity inside the vehicle, but it will also mean that the amount of engineering required will not be much different than having an island platform below a simple overpass – thus it makes the case for stairs moot.

power transmission

One interesting aspect of the straddling bus concept is the way electricity is to be transferred to the vehicle. As opposed to having an overhead wire and a pantograph attached to the vehicle, the proposal is to use fixed pantographs and a conducting rail on the roof of the car. The distance between two charging poles is smaller than the length of the vehicle, so that it will always get charged. This seems like an interesting idea, and I would like to know the cost of such a system compared to using good old overhead wires.

Another mentioned idea is to use supercapacitors and only charge between stations, making the 3d bus an actual capabus. Super capacitors have a low energy density compared to lithium ion batteries, but allow to be charged much quicker. This it is possible to charge an electric bus at every stop, so that overhead wiring is only used at stations. This idea is not new, and already Shanghai has some capabusses running since 2006.

I previously mentioned that transit has received some creative ideas to implement systems outside of the old paradigms of subway, streetcar and bus. One of these ideas is to run a system of buses as a sort of surface subway, called bus rapid transit, or just BRT. The canonical example is Bogotá’s Transmilenio. It is a relatively young system, barely 10 years old, but it has reshaped transport in the whole city, and its success created a movement to replicate similar services all over the world.

The system basically consists of buses running at high frequency to improve capacity, and actually approaches and surpasses the throughput of some of the world’s metro systems, by using a few essential tools:

How It Works

The entire bus network is run on dedicated lanes, separated from regular traffic. The lanes are usually in the center of a road, often along High Ways to reduce the number of intersections. The stops are built similar to metro stations, with raised platforms and payment of fares at the station entrance. Thus, boarding is level (no steps up or down) and happens through all doors of the single- and double-articulated buses. These features reduce dwell times while increasing capacity.

These techniques were actually pioneered in the Brazilian city of Curitiba in the 70s. Although Bogotá was not the first city to build a system like this, I would still consider its system to be the prime example, as it is a much larger metropolis than Curitiba, with more than 8 million inhabitants vs fewer than 2. It also stands out by the speed at which the system was set up, the branding used to differentiate it from previously existing buses, and the conscious choice to built the much more affordable BRT instead of an expensive metro.

Back in 2000, another option was to build 30km of metro. Instead it built BRT, which is planned to eventually reach 388km – at only 10% higher cost than the original metro plan would have been.

At the same time the city also measures to force people off the car and into the bus. These include restriction driving during certain times of the day according to the license plate numbers, huge staffed bicycle stations around the Transmilenio stops and weekend closure of highways.

The BRT Wave

It’s interesting to see innovation and integrated transportation planning in the developing world, instead of some attempt to replicate existing systems developed nations. The Transmilenio has become a new mode of transport, distinct from the bus, and people will actually say “I am going to take the Transmilenio” (well, more like “Voy a tomar el Transmilenio), instead of just the bus.

Today, cities all over are building their own BRT. For example, Guangzhou just opened a surprisingly similar system this year, emulating all the techniques of the Transmilenio.

Even in North America transit agencies are jumping on this BRT wave. Most recently, the MTA intends to create a “surface subway” along Manhattan’s east side, to be used while an actual subway is being constructed. However, for example in Cleveland, these are half-hearted attempts, lacking dedicated lanes, in-station ticketing or level boarding – and, well, speed. It seems that in North America, few planners dare take away lanes from the car. Jarret at Human Transit collected some question to ask about BRT, providing a list of properties of ‘true’ BRT.

Issues

There are some pitfalls even when implementing actual BRT. Some relate to speed (which is always going to be lower than a subway), most related to costs. One problem is that running a large number of buses is much more feasible in the developing world, where wages are low. At the same time, the cost to run the system is closely related to fuel costs – which will keep rising.

The system also requires more maintenance, both on the upkeep of the right of way (steel rail vs paved road), and the vehicles themselves, which have to replaced much more frequently. This is one of the main reasons why Ottawa is going to replace it’s busway with a light rail that goes through downtown underground. Despite a 2.1$ billion capital investment, the city hopes to save 100$ million annually on operating costs, while increasing capacity.

Another issue is the placement of stations along huge highway corridors, often far away from riders’ destinations, forcing them to traverse large distances across polluted concrete deserts. The pollution coming from the buses themselves should not be ignored, either. Moreover, even when stations are in more downtown areas, these large obstructions are often not well integrated into the urban fabric.

Maybe in the long term, as labor and diesel costs become unmanageable, the system fills up, and the pollution becomes too much of a burden for this high altitude city, Bogotá will convert to a rail solution. Already it has concrete plans to build its first metro line, whose construction is supposed to start this year, and which is to be opened in 2015. But in the meantime the city seems to have found an effective and affordable solution to it’s transportation problems.

Why Talk about public transportation?

Transit is not just a means to get from A to B. Transit, or lack thereof, is not a fact of life that you just have to deal with. It’s an important issue because transportation shapes our cities. It is directly connected with how livable and enjoyable a city, your neighborhood is. A city that is less dependent on cars and is instead more walkable turns public spaces into areas where people live, instead of concrete deserts where people hastily pass through in their mobile fortresses that separate them from their community.

In recent years there has been a renewed interest in public transportation, especially in North America, after decades of stagnation. This is probably due to the desire to create more livable cities that are not based on cars, and the realization that an oil and car-based society is not sustainable, and comes with a high price. This and climate change lead to a growing desire for more green alternatives.

In the last decade we have seen the Renaissance of the Streetcar, the first construction of a new subway line in New York in 60 years, an ambitious plan to squeeze 30 years worth of subway extensions into the next 10 years in LA and a commitment to build a High Speed Rail network in North America. The Overhead Wire called the rush and excitement to build all these new lines the Transit Space Race.

At the same time we are seeing large investments in transit in Asia, for example the new metro in New Delhi, Shanghai becoming the city with the largest metro network, and China building the largest High Speed Rail network in the world.

There is the will to create more transit, but at the same time the recent recession is forcing transit agencies to cut service or hike fares.

But it’s not just about the will or the funding to build and maintain transit, but also about creative ideas on how to organize transit. Some claim that the kinds of transit systems in use today have been around for more than half a century basically in its current form: bus, subway, train, etc. So one just needs the funding to build and maintain one of these systems. But in fact there has been a fair amount of innovation and ideas during the last two decades, like bike sharing systems, ways to make buses have similar capacities as a metro, ways to use existing infrastructure to build much cheaper rapid transit systems. Creative ideas are cropping up to make transit generally more appealing without actually building new lines, by reorganizing it or by using information technology.

This blog is about these ideas and implementations of them and the ‘transit race’ in general. I also want to talk about the desire to create more human transit and better cities as well.

About Me

I grew up in Berlin, Germany, and live in Montreal, Canada now, for half a decade. I feel this gives me both the European and North American perspective, and I have traveled a fair amount on both continents. In many of the issues I want to talk about one of the cities (or both) might be used as an example. But despite this focus, this does not mean that the issues in general are not applicable to other places.

I should’ve been an architect or urban planner by heritage, yet I am a computer scientist by trade, and a transit geek at heart.