BRT and Congestion

The principle of equilibrium assignment suggests that it is unlikely that congestion will change much on the corridor. If BRT successfully reduces automobile congestion on the corridor, travel will be faster in that corridor, and Down’s ‘triple convergence’[1] from alternate routes, times and modes will occur. In that context, the amount of congestion experienced by automobile drivers on the BRT corridor is unlikely to change significantly. However, from a system user perspective, the BRT may provide substantial benefits by actually reducing the amount of diversion (and out of direction travel) that is currently occurring. If this is so, it would be reasonable to expect a drop in volumes along the diversion corridors. It seems likely that the combination of ITS features and dedicated transit guideway will serve to increase the overall capacity of the roadway, and that a drop in traffic volumes on the diversion corridors is a reasonable hypothesis.

However, if congestion increases, a ‘triple divergence’ to alternate routes, times, and modes will occur. How much diversion occurs will depend on how attractive the alternatives are. Assuming no significant addition in roadway capacity on alternate corridors, diversion to alternate routes will result in a slight worsening in overall congestion. Diversion to alternate times will make the ‘peak hour’ longer (AKA ‘peak spreading’). Diversion to other modes may or may not reduce 

congestion.

Buses in general traffic lanes reduce capacity and increase congestion, a phenomenon well asserted both by the literature and by experience. The core principle of making transit ‘rapid’ is removing transit vehicles from general traffic lanes. This serves to both remove the effect of their operations on automobile traffic, and remove the effect of automobile congestion on transit vehicles.

As a thought experiment, assume the BRT is very attractive (in terms of time or cost), and attracts a large number of riders. This reduces automobile congestion along the alignment, making it faster. Drivers diverge from other modes and other routes, and the corridor becomes congested again. But only for automobiles--due to exclusive guideway, the BRT is less affected, and remains an attractive alternative. For drivers on the BRT corridor, there is no net benefit. For transportation system users, there are two classes of beneficiaries: BRT riders, and drivers on the diversion corridors.

A caveat to the benefits to drivers: The benefits to drivers on the alternate routes is going to get ‘lost in the noise’. They will be dispersed over a large number of roads, and reflected in small changes in the duration of peak periods, or in minor traffic volumes in a large number of roads. Provo-Orem is a rapidly growing metropolitan area, with substantial development taking place both north and south of the study area. Any minor advantage from the BRT to drivers will be rapidly eroded by additional land use changes.

A caveat to the benefits for riders: ‘rapid transit’ implies exclusive guideway; most BRT systems are only ‘semi-rapid’. While provided with transit signal priority, time separation (at intersections) provides a reasonable analogue to rapid transit conditions. However, the Provo-Orem BRT has only 51% exclusive guideway. Where the BRT lacks dedicated guideway, it will be exposed to the effects of congestion. In ideal circumstances, this guideway will be placed in the most effective location; where congestion is most intense. Congestion also tends to be greatest near intersections. Thus, roadways tend to be widest at intersections, where the road shoulder is used to provide turn lanes. Many worthwhile BRT projects have been subjected to the ‘death of a thousand cuts’; minor sacrifices made in the name of preserving automobile capacity (or worse:maintaining on-street parking).

However, given the number of routes that the also service parts of the BRT corridor[2], it is unlikely that all of the delay induced by local buses will be eliminated. In the context, it seems likely that the corridor will stay at a very similar level of congestion. 

---

[1] https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3sh9003x#page-4

[2] http://www.rideuta.com/-/media/Files/System-Maps/2016/Utah-County-System-Map.ashx

Rapid Transit In North America

Montreal Metro
Toronto Subway
Vancouver

Chicago L Train
RTA RapidTransit
Baltimore Metro
Boston 'T'
NYC Subway
Philly Subway
PATCO Speedline
San Fran's Muni-Metro

LA Metro

Transit Phases

Urban Transit in the United States has six major phases**:

1. Street Railroads
2. Subways/Elevated
3. Street rail
4. Bus-titution
5. M/ART
6. Light Rail

Street Railroads is exactly as advertised: Railroads reaching the city center, run on city streets. Noisy and dangerous, they are largely extinct. Most cities relocated several of them to a common corridor (typically as part of a Union Station effort). Building a 'viaduct' over them was a popular addition after WW2. Never electrified, they belched smoke and scalding steam as they traveled

Subways/Elevated were the first round of solutions to street railroads. Two solutions emerged: elevating them, and under-grounding them. As elevating is cheaper than excavating, it was the preferred alternative. (And railroads already knew how to build viaducts). Manhattan once had elevated rail-lines running down second and 9th avenue (of which the High line is the remainder). London forced another solution. The 'City of London', the original Roman square mile inside the greater metropolis of London has its own municipal government. Disliking the nuisance effects of railways, they simply banned them on city streets. (And now you know why London has so many railroad stations). But the value of bringing a rail-line INTO the center of London was simply too great, and so the Under-grounding began, in 1863. Chicago, with it's plethora of railways, still maintains its elevated stations ('The El').

Street rail: Everyplace with even a presumption of being a 'city' built a street railway. Using railroad track, these were smaller, lighter vehicles called 'trolleys'. There were a handful of attempts to draw them using engines, but electrification (using the pantograph) became endemic.* 

Inter-Urbans: A hybrid streetcar/railroad deserves a passing mention, if only for it's later importance for light rail. Combining street-running sections in urban centers, and railroad right of way between cities, they filled a niche market, typically by connecting urban destinations to entertainment or educational institutions. Some used trolleys, and some were special 'school trains'. 

Bus-stitution represents the dark age of urban transit. (To those who love trains, at least). Worn out trolleys were replaced were shiny new buses. (Cue Roger Rabbit). Streetcars were already in decline beforehand. The only rail routes to survive were underground/elevated systems, or places with awkwardly narrow tunnels. 

M/ART refers to the period between WW2 & the advent of light rail in the United States.  But in 1970, we recognized we had 'an urban transportation problem', which is the preferred euphemism for the explosive growth in traffic congestion.
Transit was the clear solution. But even the solution was a problem. Private companies had built most of the transit infrastructure before 1928, and municipalities getting into the game only in response to their failure. But no private entity was willing to build transit in 1970--competition from the automobile was just too fierce. Conservative pundits love to argue that this reflects the innate attractiveness of the automobile. They also love to ignore the billions of dollars in Federal subsidy provided for the Interstate Highway system. So, it order to compete with the automobile, transit projects required a subsidy. Given that the 70's were sort of the high-water mark of 'big government' and centralized planning, it became a Federal project.


None of them did terribly well, at least at first. They had very high costs per rider. For some of the systems, for some years, it would have been better to either a) buy everyone a cheap car, or b) put all of the money into buses. They've done better over time, as traffic congestion has worsened, and developers have responded to the accessibility premium of locations near them, so more things are near them. BART won its spurs when the Bay Bridge collapsed. The DC metro has become the most-ridden transit system in the US.

Light Rail The return of the inter-urban! Known as 'City-Rail' (Stadtbahn) in Germany, it made use of freight right of way, with street running portions in the center of cities. APTA called them 'light rail' so suburbs would accept them. Successful, at least judging by their popularity.  They make use of a variety of types of running-way.

Streetcars are history repeating itself. They are street-rail come again--trolleys operating in mixed traffic.  Portland has made them famous, and their use as a successful economic development project means that every major city in America is either building one, or planning to. The dividing line between street cars and light rail is not a clean one. (Salt Lake has a 'streetcar' in its own railroad corridor, and a 'light rail' on a city street'.)
Both make use of all types of running way. Streetcars generally have shorter lines, smaller vehicles, lower speeds, and more frequent stops. My analysis showed that average stop spacing is most distinctive. Portland, Tucson and the Tacoma Central Link all have an average stop spacing about half that for other systems. 

*Yes, cable-cars existed. Yes, a number of hilly places used them, most notably San Francisco. But even more places used funiculars, and I'm not mentioning them. Today, they are both simply exotic survivals. 

**BRT will require discussion elsewhere

**CRT too. 

1970's Rail

There were five Federally funded heavy rail transit systems*** built in the 1970's: MARTA, BART, MetroRail, and the Washington DC METRO

In the history of rapid transit the United States, almost nothing was built between 1928 and the 1970s. (Cleveland's heavy rail the noted exception*). And for good reason--demand for transit collapsed.  But in 1970, we recognized we had 'an urban transportation problem', which is the preferred euphemism for the explosive growth in traffic congestion.

Transit was the clear solution. But even the solution was a problem. Private companies had built most of the transit infrastructure before 1928, and municipalities getting into the game only in response to their failure. But no private entity was willing to build transit in 1970--competition from the automobile was just too fierce. Conservative pundits love to argue that this reflects the innate attractiveness of the automobile. They also love to ignore the billions of dollars in Federal subsidy provided for the Interstate Highway system. So, it order to compete with the automobile, transit projects required a subsidy. Given that the 70's were sort of the high-water mark of 'big government' and centralized planning, it became a Federal project.

None of them did terribly well, at least at first. They had very high costs per rider.** They've done better over time, as traffic congestion has worsened, and developers have responded to the accessibility premium of locations near them, so more things are near them. BART won its spurs when the Bay Bridge collapsed. The DC metro has become the most-ridden transit system in the US.

Many of the characteristics of these systems would carry over into later light rail planning and systems.

________________________________________________________________________

*Planned 1920, partially built 1929-1930, finished 1955-1958.

**For some of the systems, for some years, it would have been better to either a) buy everyone a cheap car, or b) put all of the money into buses.

***DART, despite the similarity of names, is not actually part of the M/ART transit cycle, but part of the 1982+ light rail cycle, starting operation only in 1996. (Initial efforts to fund it began in 1983).

Type of Right of Way: separated, exclusive, dedicated and mixed

For the purpose of argument, consider these the basic types of guide-way for urban transportation: Separated, Exclusive, Dedicated and Mixed.

Separated means grade-separation, either elevated or underground. There is also at-grade seperation, which is what freight lines (and most light rail systems) use, railroad gates are used to provide time-separation where roads and railways intersect.

Exclusive means 'transit only', a prohibition enforced with physical separation, typically in the form of either a Jersey barrier or a curb.

Dedicated also means 'transit only', but without the physical separation of a barrier. Typically, this is what is used for bus-lanes. Lacking physical barriers preventing entry and exit, enforcing it is more difficult. It gets used because it is a) cheap, and b) emergency response agencies oppose physical barriers that limit their ability to make U-turns across streets.

Mixed is 'mixed traffic', where the transit vehicle operates like a private vehicle.

There are some other, more exotic variants, but most of those aren't relevant, so I'll cover them in another post.

My comments on the Salt Lake City Draft Master Transportation Plan

The Plan (Draft)

The map

My comments:

Reducing local bus stop frequency would be a virtue. Fewer stops would mean faster transit and more money to be sent per station, so there is (minimally) someplace to sit, rather than 'a pole in a mud-puddle'. The new places along 200 south have been really nice. Arguably, even local buses should not stop more often than 1/4 a mile. The high-stop density in downtown makes riding a bus across downtown miserable--far faster to bike. The couple of minutes walking the larger number of stops saves a few people is outweighed by the delay is causes people still on the bus. Harm to those with walking difficulties can be mitigated by better bus stops, available seating, and improved walking conditions for sidewalks near bus stops.

Very pleased to see a 200 south connection direct to FrontRunner--getting between the FrontRunner and the U is almost astonishingly difficult. The University connection between main and 400 west has been on the books for decades, without success, and it's a pleasure to see an alternative under consideration. Upgrading an already successful line is a best practice in transit planning.

The new transit centers near the hospitals and at 2nd&7th are welcome. I might suggest the addition of a 'transfer center' at State and 200 East, to take advantage of the connection between the future State BRT/Bus+. I've heard Carl's Junior mooted as a site, or the use of Gallivan center, with a bit of a walk to transfer to Gallivan station. It's a long way to ask people to walk, but might be feasible.

Transit Signal Priority, segments of dedicated lane, and improving stops into level-boarding stations are all welcome and effective improvements. The emphasis on the creation of better bus corridors through ongoing capital spending rather than on high capital cost streetcars is welcome. The mooted continuance of the Sugarhouse streetcar along 1100/900 East (11c) seems more feasible as a bus. Connecting Westminster to Sugarhouse and the TRAX line is a surefire strategy for success.

I applaud avoiding Research Park along the the Foothill BRT/Bus plus (line 12). The lack of a I-215 NE means that some combination of Foothill and 13th East have to handle the traffic demand of a major freeway. Given the difficulty and cost of widening either street, using higher capacity alternative to make more efficient use of limited ROW is an excellent idea.

If a TRAX extension is in the works, a line along 400 West from 200 South to 700 South and eastward to 200 West is suggested. It would require only about a mile of new track, serve Pioneer Park and Pierpont, and free up much needed capacity along the main street line. Much of the median ROW is already preserved, so there would be no need to take traffic lanes. The greatest conflict would be with automobile traffic at 500 and 600 South.

Reducing local bus stop frequency would be a virtue. Fewer stops would mean faster transit and more money to be sent per station, so there is (minimally) someplace to sit, rather than 'a pole in a mud-puddle'. The new places along 200 south have been really nice. Arguably, even local buses should not stop more often than 1/4 a mile. The high-stop density in downtown makes riding a bus across downtown miserable--far faster to bike. The couple of minutes walking the larger number of stops saves a few people is outweighed by the delay is causes people still on the bus. Harm to those with walking difficulties can be mitigated by better bus stops, available seating, and improved walking conditions for sidewalks near bus stops.

Very pleased to see a 200 south connection direct to FrontRunner--getting between the FrontRunner and the U is almost astonishingly difficult. The University connection between main and 400 west has been on the books for decades, without success, and it's a pleasure to see an alternative under consideration. Upgrading an already successful line is a best practice in transit planning.

The new transit centers near the hospitals and at 2nd&7th are welcome. I might suggest the addition of a 'transfer center' at State and 200 East, to take advantage of the connection between the future State BRT/Bus+. I've heard Carl's Junior mooted as a site, or the use of Gallivan center, with a bit of a walk to transfer to Gallivan station. It's a long way to ask people to walk, but might be feasible.

Transit Signal Priority, segments of dedicated lane, and improving stops into level-boarding stations are all welcome and effective improvements. The emphasis on the creation of better bus corridors through ongoing capital spending rather than on high capital cost streetcars is welcome. The mooted continuance of the Sugarhouse streetcar along 1100/900 East (11c) seems more feasible as a bus. Connecting Westminster to Sugarhouse and the TRAX line is a surefire strategy for success.

I applaud avoiding Research Park along the the Foothill BRT/Bus plus (line 12). The lack of a I-215 NE means that some combination of Foothill and 13th East have to handle the traffic demand of a major freeway. Given the difficulty and cost of widening either street, using higher capacity alternative to make more efficient use of limited ROW is an excellent idea.

If a TRAX extension is in the works, a line along 400 West from 200 South to 700 South and eastward to 200 West is suggested. It would require only about a mile of new track, serve Pioneer Park and Pierpont, and free up much needed capacity along the main street line. Much of the median ROW is already preserved, so there would be no need to take traffic lanes. The greatest conflict would be with automobile traffic at 500 and 600 South.

Salt Lake City Draft Master Transportation Plan

Check it out!

http://slcrides.org/documents/

Thrift Stores

Tried to visit the new 'Our Store', a thrift-shop I favor that was previously located at 300 East and 350 south. About a year past, it attempted a relocation to a much large building on North Temple and 900 West. Visiting it around Christmas, it was clear all was not going well, and it was overdue to open. Dropped by today, to find that location vacant, but the thrift store had opened at a new location about a half block away, of about the same size as their original store. 

It occurs to me that in their relocation, they may have inadvertently 'traded down'. For economic success, thrift stores (counter-intuitively) want to be located in affluent areas. Counter-intuitive. Arguable, to effectively benefit the 'working poor', who make the most use of thrift stores, they should be located in low income neighborhoods, so as to be be more accessible to low-income families. But that means that such thrift stores also draw from the same population.  

Assuming donations follow the same patterns as retailing, people visit the nearest location, donation drop-offs being largely indistinguishable in terms of the 'product' offered to those making the donation. So thrift stores receiving donations from low-income neighborhoods only receive things that were cheap to purchase in the first place. Low quality clothing, knick-knacks, and flawed furniture (chipped, scratched, heavy, etc).

In contrast, thrift stores located in higher income neighborhoods receive higher quality goods, which they then sell at a discount. For such stores, the primary cost is space. The goods they sell cost them almost nothing, so such stores have an incentive to maximize throughput-sell everything they can, as fast as they can. This is certainly to their customers benefit. 

However, even thrift stores in wealthier environments have a lot of crap on the shelves. This is a result of selection bias. When all jeans cost $10, the best jeans are bought first. Eventually, only the crap remains. In urban contexts, this effect is magnified by 'pickers' from second-hand 'boutique' clothing shops. With enhanced knowledge of brands and materials, they mine all the nearby thrift stores for the best stuff (durable, stylish, branded, quality, condition, etc).

(Speaking of retail geography, I note that the less convenient a thrift store is to access, the better the stuff it has, all else equal. With limited space, and minimal turnover, such stores can only afford to keep the best stuff on the floor. You'll never see vast racks of printed cotton t-shirts in such stores.) But they also experience low turnover, and are inaccessible to the same people who would naturally purchase from them. 

These relationships can be summarized as follows: 

........................Good Access..........| Poor Access................|

Affluent Area.|Space is expensive.|Customer's Can't reach| 

Poor Area.......|Picked over ...........|No Good to Anyone....|

In this context, the optimal strategy for a thrift store might be to divide collection and sales. Put a small footprint location in an affluent area, and then put a larger sales floor in a low-income area. And hire some pickers and make the highly accessible location into their own boutique. 

One of the reasons I liked 'Our Store' was that it was a combination thrift store and social service provider. It provided groups space and some counseling in the front room. (And likely employment training and income). And it was in a highly accessible location, about a block and a half from library TRAX. 

Crossings

Offhand, there are bare handulf ways for a transit line to cross a roadway.

• Grade-separated
• Overpass/viaduct/elevated structure
• Underpass/tunnel/escavation
• Level-crossing
• Time separated
• Railroad Gates
• Traffic Signal

• A metro is a system where both the running way and crossings are grade-separated. 
• A pre-metro is a system (or line) where only the crossings are grade separated. 
• 'Rapid Rail' is the pupae form between metro and pre-metro, where the most urban sections have all their right of way grade separated. The M/ART systems did this.
• 
  

Both tend to be heavy rail systems. Or rather, heavy rail systems tend to be either metros. While its well known that 'you can't steer a train', it's less well known 'You can't stop a train' (at least in any reasonable period of time. Ie, if you park a vehicle on the tracks, by the time the driver sees it, it is too late to stop. "With so much steel and steam, I won't slow it down at all". This has been the cause of a number of memorable train crashes, and much conductor trauma. 

And that is the problem with level crossings. Grade-separated crossings remove the 'conflict' between things, with certainty, but are costly to construct. (They have to be able to support a bridge filled with full-loaded semi-trailer trucks, while never exceeding a 5% grade, and being as wide as the roads leading to them). 

Level crossings are much much less safe. Rather than being grade-separated, they are time-separated. When two moving vehicles could be in the same place, this is known as a 'conflict'. When two vehicles attempt to be in the same place, this is known as a 'crash'. Playing 'chicken' with a train ends badly--the train is never going to swerve. Yet drivers managed to run red-lights, and drive around lowered freeway gates with depressing frequency. (It is rare for the driver to survive). 

Transit Ridership History in the US

From here

Puts things in context, eh?

Heavy rail remained remarkably constant across all time periods, though. In many cases, for many destinations, heavy rail transit is simply better than the personal automobile.

One issue I have with this graph is that it lumps 'light rail' in with trolley. They aren't quite the same animal. Trolleys are uniformly street-running, in mixed traffic. What APTA calls 'light rail' (post 1980) typically uses that type of Right of Way for only a portion of it's running-way. Most light rail systems use a mix of separated, exclusive, and mixed. A portion of freight railway, or the median of a freeway provides separated part, and exclusive and mixed right of way on public roads provides the rest.

 As Meyer/Kain/Wohl pointed out in the Urban Transportation problem (50 years ago), using a freight line with railroad gates is functionally equivalent to a heavy rail. The big different between the two is that heavy rail systems use tunnels and light rail doesn't.

A paen to accessory dwelling units (ADU)

As households age, household sizes fall. And more and more homeowners are finding themselves in need of less house, and less yard. While it often serves as a 'nest' for 'boomarang' offspring (and their children), at some point, at some point the rental income from renting out a basement or an accessory dwelling unit becomes very attractive. Things like AirBnB only make this more tempting.

Even without permitting the construction of tiny houses as ADU's, you are going to get a lot of 'stealth duplexes' over time. They work out tolerable well while the owner is still resident*, but become problematic when the owner moves on, and an absentee landlord rents out both units (The problem is endemic in SLC). Regulations against this are difficult to enforce, as the change is often difficult to detect. 

Long term, you are going to have the problem with 'stealth duplexes' whether you permit tiny houses as ADU's or not. Permitting them means people will actually pull permits, which means better conformity to building code for what gets built. 

It also represents an opportunity for existing residents to 'age in place' without leaving the neighborhood. They could build a 'tiny house' ADU on a single story for an aged couple or widow/widower, and then rent out the main house for income. 

Discussing them with Mike Malloy at SLC, he said the biggest issue they had run into was sewerage--where the units had to have their own connection to the mains, or could 'count' as part of the original dwelling unit--something the article in Ogden also mentions. 

*Some places have elected to permit secondary units only where the owner is also resident. It does seem to help mitigate the problem. Violators (two tenants, absentee landlord) are legally vulnerable, which tends to cut down on problem tenants.