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.