Should Transit Be Practical or “Fun”?
- Thread starter CHamilton
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
If transits are practical enough more drivers will leave their cars at home.
I'm hoping there was more to the debate than what's reported here, because in reading it, Mr. Nordahl doesn't seem to have a clue about what he's talking about. Turning a transit bus into a sightseer lounge will not attract ridership. (It would also be nice if the writer of the article would have read the first sentence of the second paragraph, to realize that she incorrectly stated that Mr. Walker was taking the latter position, when he really was supporting the "former" position; but I guess quality writing for news articles isn't something we can expect in the days of post-it-now website news reporting.)
When transit systems have networks such that it takes 60 minutes to make a trip that people in automobiles can do in 15, it ain't the lack of coolness of the bus that's the problem.
Here in Chicago, on the other hand, we have bland, boring-looking boxy white buses that are packed to the gills, running minute or two during rush hour on certain streets. There's no such thing as "lots of room to stand, move around, and interact with other passengers." There's barely enough room to close the door behind you.
Now, for transit systems that have the "luxury" of doing so, there are a few small things they can do to improve the on-board riding experience. Systems that don't have a lot of ridership can afford to put nicer seats in, because they get less use, and therefore won't need as much maintenance. If you're constantly seeing crush loads, however, you need to go with stuff that's as low-maintenance as you can. However, even there, newer seating designs are combining low-maintenance with some style (comfort is a matter of individual opinion).
Anyway, what a lot of these discussions tend to fail to recognize is that good transit goes hand-in-hand with good city planning. There's a reason transit works in New York and Chicago. There's a reason transit doesn't work in Arlington, TX, or Jacksonville, FL. There's also a reason transit works better in downtown Chicago than it does in Naperville, IL.
For transit to really work, you need a network of streets that's laid out essentially on a grid, with maybe a few diagonals radiating out from the city's core. If you want a good bus route network (with the exception of New York...and possibly Washington, DC, not sure about the latter, bus networks do the bulk of the transit lifting in US cities and connect a lot more areas than rail), you can't try to design it so that everyone can get a one-seat ride to everywhere. What's more important is providing frequent, straight-shot service (unless there's some specific travel pattern or destination that makes a winding route with a lot of turns a viable option) offering connectivity to frequent, straight-shot service on cross streets.
This type of route design not only makes it easier to provide higher frequency service on a street at lower cost, but it also makes it easier for the potential rider to understand.
You also need zoning laws that don't make good design illegal (examples such as requiring that all buildings be set back 20 or 30 feet from the edge of the lot, requiring that sufficient off-street parking be built, etc.). While there may have been some good intentions behind those rules, they make for a very automobile-centric society.
Take, for example, rules requiring that there be a certain amount of off-street parking. That means that the developer either has to build a parking garage (expensive construction), or they need to buy a larger plot of land to have surface parking. If they don't have the money to build the garage, then they'll just go where land is cheap. Where is land cheap? Out at the edge of town. Where is it most difficult for transit to serve destinations effectively? Out at the edge of town.
It's no surprise, then, that a lot of places aren't served (or, not served very well) by transit.
Taking this a step further, if you have to build a parking lot, that means you have to build your building farther away from other buildings (unless they share parking lots). This, combined with zoning that has historically prevented mixed uses, meant that everyday destinations like grocery stores had to be built away from everyday locations like houses and apartments where people live. So, how do people get to the store? They drive there. Why does everybody drive there? Because it's too far away to walk. Why is it too far away to walk? Because they need room for lots of parking. Why do they need room for lots of parking? Because everybody drives there.
This cycle repeats itself over and over and over again, for every type of destination from grocery stores, to department stores, to shopping malls, to office parks, to even schools.
This makes it very difficult for transit to serve an area effectively, even if they do have a grid street pattern.
Let's take a hypothetical street where you have lots of big-box stores and office parks that are set back from the road amidst a sea of giant parking lots. Development like that tends to demand wide roads (to accommodate all the traffic; but then wide roads tend to induce more traffic). The bus can either stay on the street, forcing the passengers to walk across the parking lot (which is almost always designed for cars and not people; I mean, it's a parking lot, right? It's for cars, right?) to get to their destination, and when they're going back, they have to cross the busy street (and these types of streets tend to have poor pedestrian accommodations; I mean, streets are for cars, and not people, right? And everybody drives there anyway so why should we have sidewalks and crosswalks?) to get to the other side to catch the bus going back. Or, assuming there aren't any objections or complications, they could have the bus pull into and out of every parking lot for every business, providing the riders with front-door access, but slowing the ride down considerably (and, there almost always are objections to this, because buses bring in "those people," and even though businesses will gladly take "those people's" money, they don't want "those people" lingering around their front door waiting for the bus; so side of the road it is).
Compare that to where I live on the western edge of downtown Chicago. Tons of automobile traffic, to be sure, but the grocery store is a block and a half away. I can walk or take transit anywhere, and it runs on a frequent schedule. Some of my trips require transfers (actually, most of them do, because the trips that are direct enough to be done on one bus are usually short enough for me to walk; I have a particularly long walking range). If I want to wait for a bus, I'm not waiting on a deserted patch of gravel on the side of a busy highway.
The buses don't look fancy, and I don't care. Nor do the million other riders who take CTA buses every weekday.
Of course, there are dozens of other points, and if this discussion lasts long enough, maybe I'll bring them up, but I'm sick of typing right now.
When transit systems have networks such that it takes 60 minutes to make a trip that people in automobiles can do in 15, it ain't the lack of coolness of the bus that's the problem.
Here in Chicago, on the other hand, we have bland, boring-looking boxy white buses that are packed to the gills, running minute or two during rush hour on certain streets. There's no such thing as "lots of room to stand, move around, and interact with other passengers." There's barely enough room to close the door behind you.
Now, for transit systems that have the "luxury" of doing so, there are a few small things they can do to improve the on-board riding experience. Systems that don't have a lot of ridership can afford to put nicer seats in, because they get less use, and therefore won't need as much maintenance. If you're constantly seeing crush loads, however, you need to go with stuff that's as low-maintenance as you can. However, even there, newer seating designs are combining low-maintenance with some style (comfort is a matter of individual opinion).
Anyway, what a lot of these discussions tend to fail to recognize is that good transit goes hand-in-hand with good city planning. There's a reason transit works in New York and Chicago. There's a reason transit doesn't work in Arlington, TX, or Jacksonville, FL. There's also a reason transit works better in downtown Chicago than it does in Naperville, IL.
For transit to really work, you need a network of streets that's laid out essentially on a grid, with maybe a few diagonals radiating out from the city's core. If you want a good bus route network (with the exception of New York...and possibly Washington, DC, not sure about the latter, bus networks do the bulk of the transit lifting in US cities and connect a lot more areas than rail), you can't try to design it so that everyone can get a one-seat ride to everywhere. What's more important is providing frequent, straight-shot service (unless there's some specific travel pattern or destination that makes a winding route with a lot of turns a viable option) offering connectivity to frequent, straight-shot service on cross streets.
This type of route design not only makes it easier to provide higher frequency service on a street at lower cost, but it also makes it easier for the potential rider to understand.
You also need zoning laws that don't make good design illegal (examples such as requiring that all buildings be set back 20 or 30 feet from the edge of the lot, requiring that sufficient off-street parking be built, etc.). While there may have been some good intentions behind those rules, they make for a very automobile-centric society.
Take, for example, rules requiring that there be a certain amount of off-street parking. That means that the developer either has to build a parking garage (expensive construction), or they need to buy a larger plot of land to have surface parking. If they don't have the money to build the garage, then they'll just go where land is cheap. Where is land cheap? Out at the edge of town. Where is it most difficult for transit to serve destinations effectively? Out at the edge of town.
It's no surprise, then, that a lot of places aren't served (or, not served very well) by transit.
Taking this a step further, if you have to build a parking lot, that means you have to build your building farther away from other buildings (unless they share parking lots). This, combined with zoning that has historically prevented mixed uses, meant that everyday destinations like grocery stores had to be built away from everyday locations like houses and apartments where people live. So, how do people get to the store? They drive there. Why does everybody drive there? Because it's too far away to walk. Why is it too far away to walk? Because they need room for lots of parking. Why do they need room for lots of parking? Because everybody drives there.
This cycle repeats itself over and over and over again, for every type of destination from grocery stores, to department stores, to shopping malls, to office parks, to even schools.
This makes it very difficult for transit to serve an area effectively, even if they do have a grid street pattern.
Let's take a hypothetical street where you have lots of big-box stores and office parks that are set back from the road amidst a sea of giant parking lots. Development like that tends to demand wide roads (to accommodate all the traffic; but then wide roads tend to induce more traffic). The bus can either stay on the street, forcing the passengers to walk across the parking lot (which is almost always designed for cars and not people; I mean, it's a parking lot, right? It's for cars, right?) to get to their destination, and when they're going back, they have to cross the busy street (and these types of streets tend to have poor pedestrian accommodations; I mean, streets are for cars, and not people, right? And everybody drives there anyway so why should we have sidewalks and crosswalks?) to get to the other side to catch the bus going back. Or, assuming there aren't any objections or complications, they could have the bus pull into and out of every parking lot for every business, providing the riders with front-door access, but slowing the ride down considerably (and, there almost always are objections to this, because buses bring in "those people," and even though businesses will gladly take "those people's" money, they don't want "those people" lingering around their front door waiting for the bus; so side of the road it is).
Compare that to where I live on the western edge of downtown Chicago. Tons of automobile traffic, to be sure, but the grocery store is a block and a half away. I can walk or take transit anywhere, and it runs on a frequent schedule. Some of my trips require transfers (actually, most of them do, because the trips that are direct enough to be done on one bus are usually short enough for me to walk; I have a particularly long walking range). If I want to wait for a bus, I'm not waiting on a deserted patch of gravel on the side of a busy highway.
The buses don't look fancy, and I don't care. Nor do the million other riders who take CTA buses every weekday.
Of course, there are dozens of other points, and if this discussion lasts long enough, maybe I'll bring them up, but I'm sick of typing right now.
You just raised a question: Would it be worthwhile to pursue a development rule that actually capped setbacks at a set distance behind the "frontage properties" in shopping centers and that required extra parking to go either to the side or behind the buildings?
Anyhow, onto the transit stuff proper: It's not a matter of "fun", but I think there are a few places where "dressing up" the buses can help a bit. For whatever reason, a "bus" has a bad name but a "trolley" or "streetcar" has a good name with a lot of folks, so making the bus look different (maybe drawing on the PCC design a little bit) can help. It might, I hate to say, help with the "those people" problem if
But beyond that, areas with 30 minute bus cycles (or worse; I've been stuck at bus stops for 45 minutes up in Montgomery County, Maryland waiting for a transfer off of the Metro) simply run into convenience issues. These compound when the bus stops running in the middle of the evening (I've had several friends get stranded by late shifts and early-ending bus services in different cities). The result is that even if the bus is an efficient option, time-wise, lousy service frequencies can kill ridership.
Anyhow, onto the transit stuff proper: It's not a matter of "fun", but I think there are a few places where "dressing up" the buses can help a bit. For whatever reason, a "bus" has a bad name but a "trolley" or "streetcar" has a good name with a lot of folks, so making the bus look different (maybe drawing on the PCC design a little bit) can help. It might, I hate to say, help with the "those people" problem if
But beyond that, areas with 30 minute bus cycles (or worse; I've been stuck at bus stops for 45 minutes up in Montgomery County, Maryland waiting for a transfer off of the Metro) simply run into convenience issues. These compound when the bus stops running in the middle of the evening (I've had several friends get stranded by late shifts and early-ending bus services in different cities). The result is that even if the bus is an efficient option, time-wise, lousy service frequencies can kill ridership.
Long headways can definitely be a deterrent to using transit - its all nice if you have a bus going where you want to go, but if you end up having to wait more than 15 minutes or so it becomes a less appealing option. I know it is for me in Ann Arbor - even though I don't drive, I find myself not making pleasure trips I would like to do because of 30-minute or more headways on routes (not to mention the lack of weekend evening service).
However, weather can also play a key role here - if it is extremely cold (or hot) outside, one's tolerance for waiting for buses or other transit is going to be less absent a heated place to wait. For example, waiting for a bus for 30 minutes in San Diego in January is likely far more tolerable for most people than waiting for a bus outside for 15 minutes in January anywhere in the Northeast or Midwest. I know for me it is - when I've visited there before, I've taken transit even when it has entailed longish waits that would be completely intolerable the same time of year in Michigan. Heated bus stops and waiting areas can help here, but it isn't really possible to get these everywhere.
However, weather can also play a key role here - if it is extremely cold (or hot) outside, one's tolerance for waiting for buses or other transit is going to be less absent a heated place to wait. For example, waiting for a bus for 30 minutes in San Diego in January is likely far more tolerable for most people than waiting for a bus outside for 15 minutes in January anywhere in the Northeast or Midwest. I know for me it is - when I've visited there before, I've taken transit even when it has entailed longish waits that would be completely intolerable the same time of year in Michigan. Heated bus stops and waiting areas can help here, but it isn't really possible to get these everywhere.
