Posts about Transit

Montgomery County is growing, and residents need to be able to travel around without worsening traffic. But there isn't room to keep widening arterial roads, and that's not a sustainable approach in any event.

Outside the dense Silver Spring-Bethesda area and along the existing Red Line corridors, there isn't the density or the density isn't linear enough to make rail worthwhile. Maryland needs to build the Purple Line, but the future of transportation elsewhere likely lies in high-quality bus transit.

What is a "world class" system?

The report calls for this to be a "world class" system. They've set out a clear principle in the report that the service must run in dedicated lanes, and even call it "the most important principle":

To the maximum extent possible, having physically separated, dedicated RTV lanes THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, so the system's RTVs would not become commingled into mixed general traffic.

The question will be, where does the space for these lanes come from? The report also says, "This preference for, and weight given to, RTV use within the maximum potentially available right-of-way should not be interpreted as being hostile to the on-going requirement for effective automobile use ... The Task Force does not advocate for the elimination of a large percentage of current automobile lane use."

But what about a small percentage? Will Montgomery dedicate some car lanes for buses even in some places? That remains to be seen, and could be a critical factor in whether the countywide RTV system succeeds. The Montgomery DOT has been reluctant to change even a single car lane thus far.

Potential BRT vehicles (left) and stations (right).
Images from the Transit Task Force report.

The report also calls for "unique branding" to further emphasize that this system is "world class" and not just a bus, and sets out a number of other distinguishing factors as absolute "must haves":

• RTVs must be sleek and stylish.
• RTVs must have multiple wide doors on both sides of the RTVs.
• RTVs equipped with WiFi capabilities and electronic real-time messaging.
• Stations must be of a consistent and distinctive style.
• Stations must be safe, wide, and weather-protected.
• Stations must have level platform boarding with handicap accessibility.
• Stations must be equipped with real time data and with user-friendly maps.
• Stations must provide off-vehicle fare collection.
• Peak-peak period frequency of 3-5 minute headways.
• Off-peak period frequency of 5-7 minute headways
• Lanes with intersection improvements and coordination with other modes of transportation.
• Multi-modal integration (pedestrians, bicycles, Zipcars®, taxi service, Ride-On and Metrobus, shuttle buses and neighborhood circulators).

Other factors, like stations set slightly away from the road, late-night service, and photo enforcement are also recommended but less critical.

Do we call it a bus? Does it matter?

These elements come directly from ITDP's report on BRT where they try to define a LEED-like rating system to classify BRT systems as "gold," "silver," etc. That's because the term "BRT" has often gotten watered down in jurisdictions that skimped on one or more elements in what Dan Malouff calls "BRT creep."

It's gotten so bad that this report actually disavows the terms "BRT" and "bus" as well. "We are not building a bus system, we're building a transformational transit system," said task force member David Hauck at today's press event. The report states,

These systems are frequently referred to as bus rapid transit ("BRT") systems. However, the Task Force has deliberately elected to refer to it as an RTV [Rapid Transit Vehicle] system because the nature, appearance and performance of the system will be qualitatively different from what is typical of BRT systems in the United States or abroad, which do not offer transformative qualities to be considered transportation solutions of choice.

This is a little ironic because the term "BRT" originally was supposed to distinguish these high-quality systems, similar to light rail only without the tracks, from regular bus service. Whatever they call it, Montgomery County will have to make a strong commitment to avoid its own BRT creep, or RTV creep.

Today's BRT announcement. Photo by CSG.

BRT system could set standard for other cities

If the county can build it, the system could be both transformative and groundbreaking. No US metropolitan area has such a large system; others are generally a small number of lines in smaller cities. If it succeeds, other metropolitan areas that mix lower and higher densities might be able to start meaningfully expanding transit.

Montgomery is also a wealthy enough county to be able to afford to build the system and create a model for others. The report acknowledges that little federal money is possible, given both cuts in support to transit, the failure to raise the gas tax, and higher priorities for state money like the Purple and Baltimore Red Lines and Corridor Cities Transitway.

The report suggests a fairly modest increase in property tax, focused around areas near the lines. Supporters have built a strong coalition with businesses, neighborhood activists, and transit advocates.

They all agree that, coupled with the light rail Purple Line, this could be Montgomery County's future. There will be many challenges and disagreements to make it a reality, but there's really no other option.

In late 2010, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie rejected $6 billion in funds from Federal and other non-state sources to build a new commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River into Manhattan. The project would have provided tens of thousands of jobs now and in the future, created over $100 million of business activity per year, increased the value of homes nearby, created huge amounts of tax revenues for the State of New Jersey, and eased the commute for hundreds of thousands people who have to get in to Manhattan from Northern Jersey every day.

And the independent Government Accountability Office confirmed these lost benefits just last month in a well-researched and detailed report.

Despite those cold, hard facts and the fact that New Jersey would have been on the hook for only about 14 percent of the project's total cost, the New Jersey Governor killed the project. The Governor veiled his anti-transit actions in the ideology of austerity—itself a harmful ideology in a time of recession when government's focus should have been directed toward increasing employment instead of cutting deficits.

A closer look at the facts reveals that Governor Christie falsely inflated the short-term economic cost of the project in his mission to kill a well-funded, well-planned, and hugely beneficial public transit project. Now that his assertions about funding have been largely debunked, we can see what anti-transit forces have attempted to hide: an ideological opposition to transit itself.

Simply put, there is a vocal movement that rejects the notion that public transit has or should have a place in our development, let alone a place of priority. And some politicians are responding to that movement.

Now, anti-transit forces in Virginia are also pursuing a similar veiled anti-transit ideology as they attempt to kill phase 2 of the Metro Rail extension to Dulles Airport.

The project is the largest expansion of Metro rail lines in the D.C. Metropolitan Area since Metro was built in the 1970s. Like the Hudson River tunnel in New Jersey, the Silver Line would move thousands of people a day by rail through one of the most congested areas in the United States. It would (and has already) created jobs and other economic benefits. The project is being managed by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and is currently in Phase I, which extends the rail from East Falls Church through Tysons Corner.

Phase I has been an unqualified success. It is scheduled to be completed on time and it is on budget. The project also has an exemplary safety record—incredibly important for a project being performed as commuters zoom around nearby and underneath. Because the first phase was so successful, the Airports Authority decided to largely replicate the model it is used on Phase I to implement Phase II of the rail extension. It voted to approve a bidding process and Governor McDonnell gave his blessing to that process.

Then anti-transit forces stepped in and Governor McDonnell changed his mind, threatening to withhold funding unless the Airports Authority changed the requirement that the biggest contractors on Phase II use the same union hiring halls that were used to staff Phase I—i.e., the same workforce that is successfully completing Phase I.

To avoid a fight, the Airports Authority was flexible and it changed the bidding to accommodate Governor McDonnell's request, implementing a system that would give bidders using the same hiring halls from Phase I extra points in the competition for the contract but not requiring their use.

Apparently this hasn't appeased Governor McDonnell's anti-transit donors because the Governor is now threatening to kill the project unless the preference system is dropped entirely.

Anti-transit forces in Virginia have now created a full-blown crisis on account of their ideological opposition to using union labor on any project—another dangerous ideological position designed to destroy key progressive constituencies. Headlines now scream that Phase II of the project is "in doubt."

Transit advocates should be wary of the stated ideological reasons given for killing these projects because they veil another ideology that fundamentally opposes the expansion of public transit.

The Virginia and New Jersey cases—not to mention House Republican's continuing efforts to kill high-speed rail in the U.S. Congress—provide evidence of such an ideological anti-transit war. Instead of seeking practical solutions to improve public transit in neglected or over-trafficked areas, anti-transit politicians have sought to kill rail projects on other questionable grounds. And they have done so even where those projects have minimal costs and maximum benefits for the regions in which they operate.

Anti-transit ideologues veil their opposition to transit projects with other ideological memes that incite their base—in Virginia it's union boogey men, in New Jersey it's misstatements about "debt" and "overspending." These ideological memes are as dangerous to progressive values as the anti-transit ideologies they mask.

But make no mistake, if the anti-transit ideologues had any predisposition to implement real transit solutions, they would cast aside those ideological battles in favor of the compromises and heavy subsidies they have been offered to move the transit projects forward.

Their absolute refusal to do so in favor of other pet ideological battles—"hostage-taking" as Pearlstein calls it—indicates a broader ideological opposition to the transit projects themselves. If robust public transit is to become a priority in this region (and everywhere), transit advocates and their allies must expose and defeat these ideologies.

Service improvements in the proposal

MARC's proposal increases service to Montgomery County, which not only contributes an increasing share of current riders but will account for still more in the future through transit-oriented developments around MARC stations.

At least one more train would stop at each of the county's stations except Silver Spring and Rockville, where all trains already stop, and Metropolitan Grove. The additional service would also benefit riders who work in Germantown, Gaithersburg, and Kensington. This is a good and needed change, and MARC should make sure it stays in the final schedule.

Also, the proposal adds a PanTran bus connection to West Virginia for the first daily westbound train. This would increase flexibility for riders from West Virginia stations who might need to go home early.

Finally, the proposal adds a third morning train from West Virginia. The train would leave Martinsburg at 6:00 am, between the two current departures.

West Virginia westbound service changes

In this schedule proposal, westbound train service to West Virginia would begin and end earlier. Instead of the 3 West Virginia-bound trains that currently leave Union Station at 4:55 pm, 5:40 pm, and 7:15 pm, there would be 3 trains leaving at 4:15 pm, 5:15 pm, and 6:15 pm. The last westbound Brunswick Line train (the current 7:15 pm departure) would end in Brunswick instead of Martinsburg, and West Virginia riders would transfer to a PanTran bus.

MARC says that West Virginia riders have asked for an earlier departure, so the proposed 4:15 pm train might be an improvement. However, a bus transfer would not be a welcome change for riders who now take the last train.

In addition, riders who are not from West Virginia would have longer gaps between evening rush-hour trains because of the shift to earlier West Virginia service. This is because the 4:55 pm West Virginia train would become a 4:45 pm Brunswick train; the 5:15 pm departure would go to West Virginia instead of Frederick; the 5:40 pm departure for Brunswick would become a 5:35 pm departure for Frederick; and the 6:00 pm Brunswick-bound train would become the last West Virginia train, leaving at 6:15 pm.

For Frederick branch riders, the 85-minute gap between the trains leaving Union Station at 3:50 pm and 5:15 pm would increase to a 110-minute gap between trains leaving at 3:45 pm and 5:35 pm.

For Brunswick and Point of Rocks riders, there would be 2 evening rush trains (leaving at 5:15 pm and 6:15 pm) instead of 3 (leaving at 4:55 pm, 5:40 pm, and 6:00 pm).

And for Montgomery County riders, the 20-minute gap between trains leaving at 5:40 pm and 6:00 pm trains would increase to a 40-minute gap between trains leaving at 5:35 pm and 6:15 pm.

The magnitude of these confusing changes, the extra effort of arranging interstate connecting-bus service to the West Virginia stations, and the fact that the previous schedule proposal also had the last westbound train ending in Brunswick, all combine to suggest that ending the last train in Brunswick instead of Martinsburg is very important to MARC. Why?

Does MARC want to reduce service to the West Virginia stations because West Virginia does not contribute to MARC funding? If so, why do both proposed schedules add a third eastbound train from West Virginia?

Or does CSX want MARC trains off their tracks earlier? The last train now deadheads back to Brunswick after its 9:14 pm stop in Martinsburg. Storing the train in Martinsburg would get it off earlier. But ending the train in Brunswick at 8:58 pm, as MARC now proposes, would get it off earlier still.

Other issues

There are 3 other big issues: the end of the super-express, the absence of new trains, and the non-restoral of daily service for the first westbound train.

First, the proposed schedule would end westbound-service on the historic
super-express, which now leaves Union Station at 4:55 pm and stops only in Silver Spring, Rockville, Point of Rocks, Brunswick, and the 3 West Virginia stations. MARC explains that "with growing ridership in Montgomery County, we can no longer skip these stops when the demand exists."

Second, the proposed schedule does not add to the Brunswick Line's current 18 daily trains. MARC explains that CSX will not allow MARC to add trains until the State of Maryland builds a third track. However, MARC has nonetheless asked CSX for permission to add 1 morning and 1 evening train. CSX might even agree, given federal and state funding of CSX's National Gateway Project.

Third, the proposed schedule does not restore daily service for the first westbound train. This Brunswick-bound train currently leaves Union Station at 1:45 pm on Fridays only. Daily service ended in 2009 when the Maryland Transit Administration cut service due to budget shortfalls.

What now?

MARC has stated that "[t]here is no target date for implementation—we want to first gather further feedback from our customers."

As they did the last time, MARC has set up an on-line survey for people to comment on the proposal.

MARC will also hold "town hall" meetings in Charles Town on Saturday, May 19; Rockville on Tuesday, May 22; and Frederick on Wednesday, May 23.

In addition, MARC staff will be at Brunswick Line stations to gather feedback in the afternoons/evenings between May 1 and May 17. MTA will send out e-mail alerts with specific stations, dates, and times.

"With gas prices expected to hit new highs, more people are riding transit, walking and biking to save money. And being able to leave your car at home more often is great for your wallet, your waistline and the environment," he said.

The company generates Transit Scores using data provided by transit agencies, and takes into account the number of nearby transit routes (weighted differently by mode), how often those routes run, and how far away the stations are from any given point. A city's score is based on a population-weighted average of all individual point scores. For an excellent discussion of the Transit Score methodology, check out this exchange between transit expert Jarrett Walker and Walk Score's Matt Lerner from early 2011.

Overall, it's fair to say that few American cities score well on the system. Of the 25 largest cities that make their transit data available to the public, only ten topped a Transit Score of 50, which is the lowest score qualifying as "good transit," described as "many transit options nearby." Most (14) fall into the "some transit" bracket, and the 25th-highest Transit Score among the cities evaluated—Raleigh, NC—is a 23, the upper end of "minimal transit."

The scale is non-linear; that is, raising a city's Transit Score from 70 to 80 would take much more work than raising it from 60 to 70. Because of the population weighting, the more people who live in a city, the harder it is to raise the score: As the Walk Score website explains, one additional bus route means a lot more for a small town than it would for a big city.

Furthermore, rail transit (including subways and light rail) is weighted at twice the value of a bus route, with ferries, cable cars, and other modes splitting the difference between the two. These numbers weren't pulled out of thin air—they reflect research that shows a range of effects of different transit modes on the value of surrounding land.

Because of this, Transit Scores will tend to be higher in the center of cities where multiple rail lines converge, but where residential population may not be at its densest. It's not hard to see how development near rail stations could make or break a city's Transit Score.

No doubt, Transit Score is a useful way to compare different neighborhoods within a city, and now entire cities as a whole. But it primarily reflects how easy it is to get to transit, rather than where you can go and what you can do with transit once you're on it.

Cross-posted at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

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?

Vienna and Paris, Luxembourg, and many other European cities have come up with an elegant solution for tourists: an all-in-one card. One purchase gets you a no-hassle pass that works on all forms of local transportation—no fumbling with fare cards, hoarding spare change, or figuring out complex local fare plans.

The same card works for admission to local museums and sights, encouraging visitors to get their money's worth by visiting as many local attractions as they can. Often, the card also offers a discount at museum stores, restaurants, and other local businesses.

Passes are usually available at hotels, the airport, subway stops, tourist information bureaus, and even as a pre-trip online purchase. The duration often ranges from 24 hours to one week. They always come with a map or guide (like this one from Helsinki, for example) that touts the benefits of the card, lists all local attractions, and gives local businesses the chance to advertise directly to tourists.

Would it work in Washington? True, all the Smithsonian museums are free. Yet adult admission to places like the Newseum ($21.95), Corcoran ($10), Phillips ($12), Spy Museum ($19.95), Mount Vernon ($15), and the Building Museum ($8) can add up quickly.

Transit brings that total even higher: $6 rail trips around town, the $18 round trip to Dulles on the Washington Flyer, and whatever the replacement for Tourmobile decides to charge can make a Washington vacation an expensive affair. If the card is marketed well enough and sold at the right price point, tourists are likely to jump at the chance to save money, see more, and make their visit more convenient.

While the existing infrastructure surrounding Smartrip cards provides a good jumping off point for an all-in-one tourist card, the cost of adapting Smartrip to a new use could be significant. Beyond the technological hurdles, there's also the issue of coordinating and deconflicting the needs of stakeholders in the local tourism market—not an easy task to be sure.

Yet the long-term benefits for the region are clear. The card would broaden the distribution of tourist dollars by encouraging visitors to see the sights beyond the National Mall. Sales of the card could provide a more predictable source of income to local sights.

Metro would benefit by locking in a larger share of the local tourist market. And tourists would be freed to soak in the sights of Washington rather than worry about costs or logistical hassles.

If Luxembourg can make it happen, surely we can.

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.

The fact that large majorities of people don't want new highways and are closely split on widening existing ones shows the effect of our region's decades of debate on these issues. Residents realize that new roads actually don't make their lives better, since new vehicle trips just fill up the new capacity within a few years, and the existing driver faces the same traffic as before.

About two thirds of residents thought new bridges across the Potomac River were a good idea, though it's less clear what those bridges would connect to, since many of the same respondents apparently don't want to increase road capacity on each end.

Also not surprisingly, people don't want to pay for any transportation projects. They oppose both tolls and higher gas taxes.

Given this, it's sad that Governor McDonnell keeps pushing the Outer Beltway, and Maryland continues to put the $3 billion I-270 widening ahead of the Purple Line in its priority list for how to spend future federal funds. That's because 82% of respondents "agree with the strategy of locating growth around existing employment centers," while large numbers (about half of respondents regionwide) oppose growth in rural areas. Yet the big-ticket transportation priorities of both states would push rural growth over strengthening today's job centers.

Smart growth is what the region wants. We should focus on transit, expanding walkable neighborhoods and building more, and putting new housing and jobs in existing dense areas and near underutilized transit stations. That's the only way to add more people to the region and help everyone get to and from work without the massive highway expansions which many people don't want and very few want to pay for.

Correction: I listed some of the numbers as reflecting public support for widening existing highways that are actually the levels of support for new highways. The post has been updated.