Posts by Matt Johnson

WMATA is trying to encourage more people to bike to their stations, and providing a secure place to park is an important aspect of achieving that goal. By 2020, the agency hopes to triple the number of people cycling to their stations.

The entrance kiosk at the new Bike and Ride.

Parking costs 5 cents per hour during the day and 2 cents per hour overnight. Riders gain access to the facility and pay for parking with an access card from a company called BikeLink. There are no annual fees, only a one-time $5 fee for customer ID verification.

BikeLink will manage the facility for WMATA, and has the incentive to encourage bicycling to the station, since they take home the revenue generated by the facility. WMATA will win by getting additional rail and bus fare revenue from those who chose to College Park because of the facility.

WMATA chose College Park for the pilot program because it's already one of the top stations for cycling. In the 2011 bike parking census, it came out in third place systemwide. Additionally, the space in the garage was available, and a third of people parking at the station come from three miles away or less, which means many are already within biking distance.

Parking at the bike and ride.

Also demonstrating their commitment to bicycling, Kissal, Assistant General Manager Nat Bottigheimer, and several other WMATA employees biked to College Park from the WMATA headquarters near Judiciary Square.

This facility is a great addition to the Metro network and promises to be the first of many similar secure bicycle parking areas around Metro.

Diverging diamond: Faster traffic, worse for pedestrians

Diverging diamond interchanges (DDIs) are designed to move cars more efficiently by reducing the number of signal phases at interchanges and allowing cars on freeway on- and off-ramps to move freely without waiting for signals.

To accomplish this, the surface street lanes (not the freeway) cross to the opposite (left) side of the center line as they to pass through the interchange.

Diverging diamond diagram from Wikimedia.

Pedestrians have to cross to the median and walk between concrete walls, forcing them to cross half of the through lanes at each side of the bridge. In the case of the Greenbelt Road/Kenilworth Avenue interchange, that would mean crossing 3 or 4 lanes (depending on the final configuration of the design) at each side of the bridge.

Alternatively, the design could accommodate pedestrians the outside of the roadway, but then they must cross the free-flowing left turn on- and off-ramps where drivers will be focusing on making the turn fast rather than looking for people crossing.

Incompatible with walkable vision for the corridor

What's most troubling is that the planning department is actually trying to create an urban, pedestrian environment immediately west of the interchange, yet they still proposed this design which does the opposite.

Early on in the presentation, planners showed before and after renderings of their visions for a walkable urban node where Beltway Plaza is today. They showed a suburban arterial transformed into a narrowed street with wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian lighting, and bike lanes. At previous meetings, they talked of building a street grid, of filling in parking lots with development, and making it easier and safer to walk in these new urban nodes.

They also talked of finding ways to link the different neighborhoods of Greenbelt that have been separated from each other by the various freeways in the area. They specifically mentioned finding better ways of linking the Golden Triangle office park with the Beltway Plaza area—two neighborhoods that are currently separated from each other by Kenilworth Avenue and its interchange with Greenbelt Road.

But planners are approaching rebuilding the Kenilworth/Greenbelt with the objective of moving more cars, faster. They are not thinking about creating a pedestrian-friendly environment in that space. They are not thinking about making cyclists feel welcome on the road.

And encouraging drivers to speed up as they approach what planners hope to be a walkable node is asking for trouble.

The cure is far worse than the disease

Today, Greenbelt Road crosses above Kenilworth Avenue at an interchange built in the 1980s. Most would agree that the intersection has its problems, mostly from the way the northbound ramps are offset and the close spacing of the north- and southbound off-ramps.

Image modified from Google Maps.

But the solution the county planners propose would be far worse than the current setup, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

It is questionable why the county wants to focus on this intersection to begin with. It's not "failing" by traffic engineer standards, and in terms of driver delay, it's not even the worst intersection in the corridor, according to a study conducted in conjunction with the Sector Plan. But of course, highway engineers like to "fix" things whether or not they're broken.

Strong Towns executive director Chuck Marohn narrated a video about a DDI in Springfield, Missouri. A traffic engineer involved in the design created the video, touting how a pedestrian can walk through the interchange, but Marohn points out how absurd it is to say that this is actually pedestrian-friendly.

Marohn notes that while a DDI provides a path for pedestrians and cyclists, it's nothing like the kind of interchange one would design if the goal from the start were to make a space friendly to people walking and biking.

Building walkable communities and complete streets has to be more than an engineer running down an accommodation checklist. If we're trying to create a neighborhood where walkability is a primary goal, then pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users have to be a top priority, not just get the leftover road space and the bare minimum listed in the design guide.

The nascent urban districts at White Flint and Tysons Corner are transforming from suburbs to more walkable spaces. And like the Beltway Plaza area, pedestrians in those areas face barriers in the form of interchanges. Prince George's can't simply get rid of their interchanges, but they don't need to make the pedestrian condition worse by recommending converting an interchange to one that's sole purpose is to move cars more quickly.

Fare's fair

That's more than any other system with a flat fare, and is significantly higher than the $1.60 off-peak and $1.95 rush hour base fares. What the flat fare really means is that people making shorter trips (often those living in the urban core) will be subsidizing those making longer trips (often those living in the suburbs). And that's simply not equitable.

If you're traveling farther, you should expect to pay more. Can you imagine if all taxis regionwide had a flat fare? Would it be fair to charge the same for a trip by taxi from Woodbridge to Rockville as for a trip from Logan Circle to 12th and K? Of course not.

Everybody else is doing it

As is often the case when subway fares are being discussed, some suggest that WMATA should move to a flat fare because most other subway systems use them. And if all subway systems and regions were the same, perhaps that argument would make some sense. But there are significant differences between our Metro and other subway systems in America.

Part of it is a technology issue. A fare structure like Metro's only works in systems with exit faregates, where a rider swipes the fare media to exit as well as to enter. Only Metro, PATCO in Philadelphia and New Jersey, the San Francisco Bay Area's BART, and Atlanta's MARTA have this technology today. It would not be cheap for systems like those in New York and Chicago to install new equipment to make variable fares possible.

Other systems also have momentum behind the flat fare. It's very difficult to build the will to allow such a change, even if the infrastructure allows it. A few years ago, MARTA installed new gates, new fare vending machines, and even got a new name for the fare system. Even though a distance-based fare is now technologically possible, Atlanta continues to use a flat fare, not necessarily because they've decided it's better policy, but out of momentum.

Metro is commuter rail and urban subway

Technology and history aren't all that separate Metro from many other systems. There's also the structure of the cities and the transit systems themselves. The older subways in the United States generally don't travel as far as the modern heavy rail systems. When all trips are shorter, it's not quite as inequitable to charge the same rate for everyone.

Metro is a hybrid between an urban subway and a suburban commuter rail operation. And as such it makes a good deal of sense to have a fare structure that reflects that.

It's true that all trips on the New York City Subway cost the same. But people traveling the distances that Metro travels might not use the New York Subway. For example, Port Washington is a similar distance from Penn Station as Shady Grove is from Metro Center. But a trip to Port Washington doesn't use the subway, it uses the Long Island Rail Road, and the peak fare is $10.00. The maximum you could possibly pay to go from Metro Center to Shady Grove is only $5.45.

Many people group Metro in with subways in New York and Chicago and Boston simply because they're all subways. But it's important to consider scale. The subway systems in those regions are generally compact and don't reach many places with the kind of suburban settlement patterns at the end of Metrorail lines.

In those cities, separate commuter and regional rail systems, which don't use flat fares, mainly serve suburban areas rather than the urban subway.

Let's compare some Metro lines to similar lines in other cities:

If we compare the Metro Red line in comparison with Boston's Red Line to Alewife and the MBTA Fitchburg Line, we can get a sense of scale.

Alewife is about as far from Downtown Crossing as Friendship Heights is from Metro Center. In Boston you'd pay $1.70 for that trip. Here, the fare would be just $1.60 off-peak or $2.70 during rush hour.

Bethesda is roughly the same distance from Metro Center as Waverly is from North Station. And in this case, Metro's $2.15/$3.15 fare is cheaper than MBTA's $4.25.

We can see similar trends if we compare our Orange Line to Philadelphia's Lansdale/Doylestown Line.

I chose Philadelphia and Boston because their metropolitan regions are about the same size as DC's. (Washington is the 7th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the nation, while Philadelphia is 6th and Boston 10th.)

Traveling along the Broad Street (in Philadelphia) or Route 2 (in Boston) corridors, a traveler going the distance of outside-the-Beltway stops in DC would not take the subway, but would ride commuter rail.

Our residents of places like Vienna, Rockville, Greenbelt, Franconia-Springfield, and soon Tysons Corner pay less than many would pay on commuter rail in those cities. Plus, they enjoy frequent, all-day, 7-day-a-week service. That has enormous benefits to our region, making walkable places like Rockville Town Center feasible and giving the DC region much higher transit ridership per capita than Boston or Philadelphia.

But just because Boston and Philadelphia's much smaller urban subways charge a flat fare doesn't mean it's unfair that a ride from Vienna to Metro Center costs quite a bit more than a ride from Rosslyn.

Partially inspired by England's garden city movement, the planners intended for Greenbelt to be a self-contained community surrounded by a green belt of parks, forests, and farms. Today, Greenbelt is not as isolated, but the historic center maintains its park-like setting. The federal government sold off most of the original green belt in the 1950s and it was developed in typical suburban fashion.

The planners who designed Greenbelt had big ideas about creating a new type of community. One of the most revolutionary decisions was how to deal with cars.

Greenbelt was designed with the automobile in mind, but it was not designed for the automobile. This is the largest and most crucial difference between Greenbelt and the prototypical post-war suburb. The community is walkable, traffic is calm, and despite being surrounded by sprawl, cars do not dominate the landscape.

Pedestrian path. Photo by the author.

The planners created two independent circulation systems in the town: one for pedestrians and one for automobiles. As a result, the community has been described as "inside out." Pedestrian pathways wind through the community, providing access to the interior of residential superblocks and connecting residents to commercial and civic spaces. Five underpasses were built under the major streets to allow pedestrians to move through the city without encountering cars.

One effect of this design is homes with two fronts. On the "garden side," the homes front on the pedestrian pathways, and often on playgrounds and other green spaces. On the "service side," the homes open to the street (or in some cases, the parking court).

At the heart of the city is the Roosevelt Center, the town's retail hub. This area includes a grocery store, a cinema, and several shops and restaurants. The businesses are oriented onto a plaza, with the parking in the rear.

Roosevelt Center at Sunset. Photo by the author.

The city is oriented on a crescent-shaped ridge, with a lake and woodlands in the center of the crescent. The city was originally surrounded by a large greenbelt, though most of this has been developed. A good deal of greenspace remains within the community, however.

And while Greenbelt did not become the prototype for the American suburb, it did inspire other communities, including Columbia, Maryland and Reston, Virginia.

The real legacy of Greenbelt, though is in its residents. The history of activism and social engagement that was brought by the pioneer residents during the Depression has continued to be a part of life in the community.

If you're interested in celebrating 75 years of Greenbelt, the symposium is on Friday, April 27 and Saturday, April 28 in the historic community center. I'll be speaking on a panel about transportation on Friday afternoon. The deadline to register for the event is tomorrow.

Additionally, for more information and a tour of one of the original homes, you can visit the Greenbelt Museum at 10B Crescent Road every Sunday from 1-5 pm.

Lance Wyman, the man who designed the original iconic map that has served the system for almost four decades, came back to revise this map. The new map, which shows the peak hour service patterns Metro has dubbed "Rush Plus," keeps many of the same elements as the original.

But there are some changes, both subtle and otherwise, since the last version in October of last year.

The National Mall is darker and labeled. The final version of the map shows the National Mall and West Potomac Park (and the White House grounds) in a darker shade of green than the other parks shown on the map. This subtle change might make it clearer to visitors which stations are close to the Mall.

Station names have changed. The new map also introduces a few name changes which the WMATA Board voted on them several months ago. At least one station is getting a longer name: Navy Yard-Ballpark. But this map shows the first effort ever at attempting to shorten names. Many stations will be getting subtitles, and the New York Avenue station will be losing a few characters.

Many other small changes. Metro fixed a few errors in the draft, like moving the bend in the Red Line back to between Van Ness and Tenleytown, and putting the dots on the eastern branch of the Blue and Orange Lines in the center of the lines where they belong. The transfer station symbol for the Silver Line at East Falls Church is gone, and the Red Line stations in Maryland on the Shady Grove side have gotten more spacing.

Below, you can see an image overlaying the October draft atop the final version. In addition to the changes listed above, you can see some shifts in some map elements along with other changes.

Eagle-eyed readers might notice that some of the station names are still closer to their lines than others, and the parking symbols somewhat inconsistently align with either the top or bottom of the text.

More changes are coming

This map will only serve Metro for about 2 years. Another revision will happen when the Silver Line opens in late 2013 or early 2014.

Metro elected not to show the yet-to-open Silver Line running through downtown with the Blue and Orange Lines because it might confuse visitors. Instead, the new map will only show the Silver Line west of its junction with the Orange Line.

But since the Silver Line will run all the way to Stadium-Armory on the east side of the city, Metro will need to redesign the map to add it to the Blue/Orange trunk line. Lance Wyman has already created a draft of that map, but it does leave hope that any bugs with this map can be fixed in the 2014 version.

Consider showing short turns

The initial draft released in September used small dots to show stations where trains sometimes turn, such as Silver Spring and Mount Vernon Square. The October version took these out.

Left: The first draft of the revised map. Right: The final version.

I've felt that WMATA should do more to highlight stations on the map that appear regularly on train destination signs. Customers unfamiliar with the system need to be able to quickly identify the station on the destination sign so they know whether or not the train will take them where they need to go.

Perhaps the forthcoming next version can find a way to show this information that enlightens rather than confuses riders.

What do you like about the Rush Plus map? What would you change?

The regional average of Metro's 86 stations is 72.1. As one would expect, the District of Columbia is the top-scoring jurisdiction, with an average of 81.6. The remainder of the "diamond," Arlington and Alexandria, is a clear second place. Montgomery is in the middle, with Fairfax and Prince George's trailing well behind.

A few Metro stations are right on the borders of jurisdictions: Friendship Heights between DC and Montgomery, and Capitol Heights and Southern Avenue between DC and Prince George's. This analysis counts each toward the score of both jurisdictions.

Nationally, the District and Arlington/Alexandria score favorably. The DC Metro stations by themselves fall just behind Chicago and Boston.

Unfortunately, Fairfax and Prince George's fall to the bottom of the pile. Fairfax's low score is somewhat understandable since it has only 5 stations, most of which serve mainly as park and rides.

But Prince George's has 15 stations, more than any other jurisdiction aside from the District. The county is at a disadvantage because of the placement of many stations. But even so, Prince George's has not committed to transit-oriented development around its stations. It also has a history of allowing development on the fringes of the county to short-circuit demand for offices and retail near Metro.

Fairfax, on the other hand, is working to reinvent Tysons Corner as a walkable urban place around 4 new Metro stops. Interestingly, adding the 5 stops on the Silver Line already under construction would raise Fairfax's average to 61.8.

While Walk Score is not a perfect measure of walkability, the fact that Tysons already has some pretty good scores bodes well for efforts to transform the employment center into a bona fide urban center.

I analyzed the 11 heavy rail systems in the United States. Some of these cities also have light rail, commuter rail, or other transit systems, but I didn't count those. That means in Boston, I looked at stations on the Red, Blue, and Orange lines, but not Green. (Why?)

I also combined heavy rail stations from multiple operators in the same region. For example, the Philadelphia score counts both SEPTA and PATCO heavy rail stations. New York's includes PATH and the Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

And the winner is... Los Angeles?

I was surprised by the results. Los Angeles scored the highest! I certainly did not expect that. Though in hindsight, it makes a good deal of sense.

Los Angeles has only 2 heavy rail lines, the Red and Purple lines. Those lines are confined to a relatively small area in the LA Basin, with the exception of 2 stations on the Red Line in the San Fernando Valley. And while Southern California has a reputation for being sprawling, the LA Basin is actually fairly dense, especially where the Metro has been built. As a result, its score isn't dragged down by suburban park and ride stations.

In the same respect, I was surprised that BART scored better than WMATA. Large portions of the DC system serve areas that are urban or urbanizing. In contrast, BART's system is much more suburban-oriented and has very little in the way of urban circulation.

Also surprising is that New York is not an outlier. It does come in a close second to Los Angeles, but I really expected it to be off the charts compared to everyone else. The New York City Subway alone scores 90.47 without PATH and SIRT, still just below LA; SIRT averages 71.45 while PATH is higher, 92.23, but its relatively small size (13 stations) means it doesn't change the New York average even a tenth of a point.

What is not very surprising is that the sunbelt cities (except LA) score more poorly than the more urban older cities (except for Cleveland). Cleveland is at a disadvantage because of the structure of its transit system. The system only has one stop in the central business district, and that station's score isn't that impressive anyway, which harms the average.

Distribution matters

The chart above shows how Walk Scores for stations in each system are distributed. The green bars give the average score. The rectangle shows the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the lines with dots at each end show the highest and lowest Walk Scores for any station in that system.

At the high end, several cities had at least one station (sometimes several) with perfect 100-point scores. The lowest score for any station nationwide was 28 points. Two stations in the Washington region—Arlington Cemetery and Morgan Boulevard—and one station in San Francisco—North Concord/Martinez—had that score.

The distribution is important in understanding how well distributed the well-scoring stations are in the system.

In Washington, the distribution is weighted more toward good-scoring stations, but there are still a lot of poor-scoring stations, too.

Compare that to San Francisco's BART, where there are fewer poor-scoring stations. Instead, there are a large quantity of stations in the middle of the distribution.

New York and Cleveland offer contrast to each other. While most New York stations score very well, Cleveland's don't rank above medium.

Limitations

The Walk Score algorithm is not perfect. It works by calculating the quantities and distances of various amenties. There are other factors which it does not measure that help to define the walkability of an area.

For example, a street grid makes an area much more walkable than a sprawling network of superblocks and culs-de-sac. The quality and proliferation of sidewalks also influences walkability. But these factors aren't currently part of Walk Score; there's no good data file for Walk Score to use that shows where there are and aren't good sidewalks, for example.

Regardless, Walk Score gives us a standard and fairly good measure to compare transit stations (and systems) to each other.

The study looked at 4 options for widening the parkway in addition to a no-build alternative. Two alternatives looked at adding a lane in each direction in the median. The other two alternatives studied adding a lane in each direction to the outside of the roadway. Space constraints mean that any widening requires a combination of both inside and outside widening as well as rebuilding numerous overpasses and underpasses.

The difference between the two inside and two outside designs is in design standards. For each type of widening, the consultants looked at AASHTO-compliant standards and National Park Service standards.

The AASHTO options called for adding a 12-foot wide travel lane, a 10-foot wide outside (right) shoulder, and a 10-foot wide inside (left) shoulder. The NPS options included adding a 12-foot wide travel lane, an 8-foot wide outside shoulder with curb and gutter, and a 3-foot wide inside shoulder with curb and gutter.

Estimated costs ranged from a high of $565 million for the AASHTO outside widening option to a low of $343 million for the NPS inside widening option.

Despite the investment, though, the study shows that the Parkway would be just as congested as it is today by the year 2040. FHWA expects any increase in capacity to be matched by a corresponding increase in vehicle trips. A widened parkway would carry more cars, but it ultimately wouldn't shorten people's trips.

Widening the parkway is the wrong approach from a growth perspective, too. Prince George's County has long had a problem focusing growth in the "developed tier." Adding freeway capacity will only increase the pressure to build in parts of the county and the region that do not have the infrastructure for it.

Adding lanes to the parkway would also hurt the developed communities it passes through. In many places, it already forms a significant barrier between neighborhoods. More traffic and more pollution along the roadway will hurt many residents and the pastoral image the National Park Service believes the Parkway should exude.

Staff at the meeting stressed that further studies would need to look at options beyond just widening the parkway. Other options could include improvements to transit, other roadways, or spot "improvements" along the BW Parkway.

If any money were available for widening, it would be better spent on improving transit between Baltimore and Washington. Maryland could speed up trains on MARC and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and add capacity for more trains, extend Metro's Green Line, or create incentives for carpooling.

As the region continues to grow, we need to focus on building livable and walkable communities. Widening a freeway encourages traditional sprawl, and it sends the wrong message about the region's priorities.

Comments on the study are still being accepted, though only for the next 2 to 3 weeks. If you have thoughts on whether the parkway needs extra lanes, you can submit written comments on the project's website.

The next step for the project team is to finalize a report to Congress showing the estimated costs, benefits, and impacts of adding a third northbound and third southbound lane to the roadway. Beyond that, it's up to Congress to decide whether to leave the Parkway as-is, undertake further study, or begin to plan for construction.

Under Metro's proposal, riders could choose from two differently-priced 28-day passes, good for trips up to $3.25 or unlimited. Any trip of the pass value or less would be free. If customers use a pass for a more expensive trip than the cap, they'll pay the difference.

Passes need to be on SmarTrip

Metro's pass proposal calls for using paper farecards, at least initially, for the monthly pass. But that will depress use of the passes, as it does with the two existing weekly passes.

The weekly rail fast pass and short trip pass are not popular, in part because paper farecards are inconvenient and relatively fragile. The short trip pass is especially inconvenient since it requires Metro customers to carry exact change for every ride that is more than $3.25. With a Smartrip card, this extra fare could be automatically deducted from stored value.

The risk of damaging the card combined with the need to carry a bunch of coins for more expensive trips tilts the field away from using passes. And the calculus is even worse for a pass that needs to last a full month rather than a week. If the new passes are paper-only, customers likely won't buy enough of them to make the new passes worthwhile.

Add a 3rd tier for the shortest trips

While a choose-your-own-value pass is ideal, Metro believes it's too technically complex to implement. But they could improve upon their proposal by adding a third tier for shorter trips.

The two existing passes are good for trips up to $3.25 and up to maximum fare. This offers a good deal for customers that regularly take medium and long-distance trips, but is not a very good deal for customers that live closer in and rarely take a trip that long.

The new pass should be good for trips costing up to $2.10. Any additional fare would automatically come out of the stored value in the customer's Smartrip account. Metro should encourage customers to buy higher-tier passes by adjusting their prices. The higher-tier passes should be slightly cheaper in comparison.

Price 28-day passes differently than weekly passes

Under the current proposal, the "monthly pass" would actually be a 4-week pass, and it would cost exactly 4-times the amount of the weekly pass.

Mathematically that may make sense, but it doesn't make sense from a customer service perspective. Considering the added risk of losing or damaging a farecard, or of not using it on vacation or sick days, customers would have little incentive to purchase a monthly pass instead of 4 weekly passes.

The monthly version would be a greater risk, and would offer no corresponding greater deal to compensate. So why buy it?

If WMATA wants customers to pay more up front, there will have to be some added incentive to do so. One option might be to make the 4-week pass a true monthly pass, which would essentially make the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of each month free to pass holders. Another option might be to reduce the cost of the 4-week pass, to be slightly less than 4-times the cost of a weekly pass.

Based on these ideas, Here's table showing suggested passes and prices:

WMATA deserves praise for considering more flexible payment options, but needs to more carefully consider its pricing structure. If monthly passes don't offer a stronger incentive, customers will probably not use them. That should not be taken as a sign that monthly passes aren't needed, only that the math isn't working for customers.

Maxwell von Stein is a graduate of the Cooper Union, where he designed a flywheel to use regenerative braking for a bike. The flywheel, which was originally in a Porsche, sits on the frame between the rider's legs.

When the cyclist wants to slow down, say at a red light, he or she can shift gears so that the motion of the cycle is transferred into the flywheel. When the light turns green, shifting will give a "kick" of speed to the bike.

Von Stein says it's cool to get your own energy back, that you've already put in, instead of just wasting it. He actually hopes to use these principles and apply it to cars.

I hope he (or somebody) though will market this. I wouldn't mind an extra 15 pounds on my bike if it meant a power boost when getting started.