“Crediblity Machine”, a transit planning model

This is a presentation I did at the Podcar City conference in San Jose, CA, October 2010.

CredibilityMachine (pdf)

Tysons Corner PRT Route Design

I said on a list that this design was scary, and was challenged to make another design, so here it is. In the attached PDF is a map of Tysons Corner and the procedure used to determine the PRT route.

TysonsCornerPRT (PDF)

Getting rid of the Box – comments to DOT

Comments to RITA docket 2009-0005-0001

In addition to research on technology, case studies, and detail strategies and metrics, there also must be some more macroscopic study on waste and stagnation. There have been many attempts to describe the elements of efficient and safe macro urban designs, such as TOD, on-demand transit, integration with bike/pedestrian, coordinated land use, and so on, yet as the decades pass, we are still building primarily auto-exclusive zone-segregated places, driving more and more, and not even coming close to meeting the stated federal goals.

Clearly the way planning is carried out at the federal and state levels cements this technology and policy stagnation. Nearly all studies are scoped, meaning they define what is to be studied – a truism in government, but not a necessity. The scoping creates the box that one is to think inside of. In order to unblock the process, one must think outside the box, and to do that, one must not have a box – that is, no scoping.

Study is needed on how to remove the scoping box from government struture and let flow the natural creativity that is harnessed by the private sector, in order to make it possible to meet any of the goals. This study should include advice on the next congressional transportation authorization.

One page on why to use goal oriened planning in long range MPO plans

In this one-pager, I try to distill as clearly as possible why MPOs (Metro Planning Organizations) should adopt goal-oriented planning: because it is a conscious choice about the future.

handout200910

How to get transit to 10%, 20%, then 30% market share

Our metro region essentially does not do long range transportation planning. We react to conditions, we allocate funds, and do studies, but we don’t plan in the sense of thinking through alternatives and crafting a plan whose parts work together towards some greater effect. Highways, transit, land uses, water, and schools are all planned separately. Fundamental questions, like what is the optimal highway network for the next few decades, are never asked and never answered. Yes, we do detailed traffic models and we can predict with some accuracy that we will have worsening traffic conditions, but we fail to take the results of those predictions to heart and design the system differently to improve conditions. People are dying every year in accidents and families are shattered, and we know that how we plan the future has the potential to save lives, yet we don’t follow through and find the future scenario that saves the most lives. Our failed politics is literally killing us. We define highway expansion in terms of “need” for capacity, which is circular logic because it is precisely the way we design our auto-dependent future that creates the “need”. Transit plods along serving 1% of regional trips, with no long term vision for improving that dismal performance record. The most “visionary” idea in the last few years is to add 8-mph streetcar service to Central Ave, a project that will have no effect on system wide ridership due to its insignificant speed. We should be discussing high speed backbone services that will attract major ridership gains, but that discussion is not on the table. The fact that a few 100+ M$ interchanges might not be needed if we had higher transit ridership in not on the table either, because remember: the people who plan highway interchanges don’t work with the people who plan transit. The fact that zoning and other details that shape developments have major impacts on transportation demand is well known, but again those things are not planned together.

Comments to RITA on structuring ITS goals to ensure transformational change

Abstract: It’s one thing to say we want transformational change, and quite another thing to structure a program to ensure that it happens. The built-in incentive for all players in government sponsored research is to string out the research money and keep the organizations afloat, without ever “finishing”, and this dynamic can put a cap on any real change that affects the stated goals. ITS has been around a long time, and despite all the important research that has been done, Americans still drive ever longer distances and are stuck in worsening traffic conditions, and the gains made in environmental, economic and safety fronts are marginal. The current proposed statement of goals and objectives would allow a research program to be devised that fulfills them to the letter, but does not represent any real change in the economy, the environment, or everyday life of Americans on any significant scale.

These comments are aimed at the structure of goals, objectives, and funding, to request that they be set up a little differently, to ensure that the ITS program is effective.

Transit topology discussion handout with “why chart”

This 2-page handout can be used as a discussion starter on why one metropolitan transit topology might be better than another, and what design points should be considered with respect to route planning.

topology discussion

Transit 2.0

Attached paper written for consideration by ATRA as a way to state the mission of the organization.

Summary: A complex set of current conditions including traffic congestion, global warming, national security, and the highway fatality rate have prompted several national strategy papers and technology roadmaps from inside and outside of government. Frequently cited points include a new wave of construction of the interstate highway system, re-inventing high speed rail, accelerated construction of urban rail, alternate fuels, and intelligent traffic management systems. … But no one offers a compelling vision of the future; all sides seem resigned to the assumption that the main options for surface passenger transport are privately owned cars and mass transit (buses and trains). That amounts to having only two blunt tools in the toolbox.

There is a third option, called lean transit or innovative transit – a collection of improved technologies that can be put together to form a high-performance, largely automated, and super-efficient ground transportation network. The thrust of the next-generation transit network – or “transit 2.0″ – is to attract a large share of car trips by achieving much higher speeds, convenience, connectivity, and efficiency than can be achieved with conventional transit. Because of the efficiency potential, the cost of lean transit on a large scale should be less than the cost of transportation today.

Transit 2.0 (PDF)

Transportation Research Board proposal for high level planning software

The following proposal to the Transportation Research Board was submitted and not funded. Briefly, it claims that transit agencies may skip high level alternatives analyses and spend a lot of money investigating details of a transit proposal, missing the big picture. The proposed research should produce software, spreadsheets and/or other analytical and simulation tools, information, and procedures that can be used by planning agencies to perform high level “reality check” analyses of a large number of alternatives.

Proposed long range transit planning bill

 

This draft bill would mandate a long range transit plan in a goal-oriented way, as laid out in www.abqtransp.org.

==

Whereas

• The threat of global climate changes requires a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector,
• Higher transit ridership is generally correlated with lower greenhouse gas emissions,
• Higher transit ridership is generally correlated with saving lives,
• Higher transit ridership is consistent with the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan,
• Some transit system concepts are more effective than others in their contribution to City goals,
• Past City policies have led to a transit system with lower ridership than other cities of comparable size,
• The local transportation system is largely controlled by the policies of the City of Albuquerque,
• An opportunity exists for the City to advance its transit system to help meet City goals including climate change goals.

Therefore

The Albuquerque transit department shall develop a long range transit plan. The planning process shall have four stages.

The first stage shall be the development of goals. The department shall choose between two and eight goals from among those published by the Indicators Progress Commission, and must include among those the goal of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. Each of the goals shall be reducible to measurement or projection based on evidence. The City Council shall approve the statement of goals before proceeding to the second phase.

The second phase shall be the identification of alternatives. The department may develop alternatives internally, shall also accept alternatives from any City resident, and shall make known the opportunity to submit alternatives. The period of accepting alternatives shall be nine months. In order to be considered, alternatives must include the specific services offered, specific routes, fares, size and type of vehicles, operating hours, and any changes made to fixed infrastructure. The department may only reject alternatives based on incompleteness, but not for other reasons. In particular, the alternatives (1) need not be limited to buses, (2) need not be cost-constrained, (3) may include policies and expenses that are not normally defined as transit services, such as demand reduction or development strategies. The department shall summarize the submitted alternatives in a public City Council meeting before proceeding to the third phase.

The third phase shall be the projection of cost, revenue, ridership, and benefits of each of the alternatives. The costs shall be presented as an estimated range of capital costs plus thirty times the current-year annual operating cost. The revenue shall be presented as thirty times the annual revenue. The ridership shall be projected using a mode-split analysis that assumes current-year travel demand and current road conditions, and is based on end-to-end travel time and other disutilities of transportation. The benefits shall be stated as the numerical extent to which each of the alternatives meets each of the goals identified in the first phase. The projections may assume that the alternative system is fully built in the current year. The department shall present the projections in a public City Council meeting before proceeding to the fourth phase.

The fourth phase shall be the selection of alternatives for further study and development. The department shall hold public meetings, then recommend one alternative, a combination of alternatives, or no action. The selection shall be based on a combination of the factors: (1) cost and benefits identified in the third phase, (2) risk, (3) public input. The recommendations, justification, and summary of public meetings shall be presented to City Council.

All work, alternatives, recommendations, and analysis shall be available to the public throughout the planning process. The requirement to provide transit service to within any minimum distance from any household is no longer in effect.

 

Whereas The threat of global climate changes requires a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, Higher transit ridership is generally correlated with lower greenhouse gas emissions, Higher transit ridership is generally correlated with saving lives, Higher transit ridership is consistent with the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan, Some transit system concepts are more effective than others in their contribution to City goals, Past City policies have led to a transit system with lower ridership than other cities of comparable size, The local transportation system is largely controlled by the policies of the City of Albuquerque, An opportunity exists for the City to advance its transit system to help meet City goals including climate change goals. Therefore The Albuquerque transit department shall develop a long range transit plan. The planning process shall have four stages. The first stage shall be the development of goals. The department shall choose between two and eight goals from among those published by the Indicators Progress Commission, and must include among those the goal of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. Each of the goals shall be reducible to measurement or projection based on evidence. The City Council shall approve the statement of goals before proceeding to the second phase. The second phase shall be the identification of alternatives. The department may develop alternatives internally, shall also accept alternatives from any City resident, and shall make known the opportunity to submit alternatives. The period of accepting alternatives shall be nine months. In order to be considered, alternatives must include the specific services offered, specific routes, fares, size and type of vehicles, operating hours, and any changes made to fixed infrastructure. The department may only reject alternatives based on incompleteness, but not for other reasons. In particular, the alternatives (1) need not be limited to buses, (2) need not be cost-constrained, (3) may include policies and expenses that are not normally defined as transit services, such as demand reduction or development strategies. The department shall summarize the submitted alternatives in a public City Council meeting before proceeding to the third phase. The third phase shall be the projection of cost, revenue, ridership, and benefits of each of the alternatives. The costs shall be presented as an estimated range of capital costs plus thirty times the current-year annual operating cost. The revenue shall be presented as thirty times the annual revenue. The ridership shall be projected using a mode-split analysis that assumes current-year travel demand and current road conditions, and is based on end-to-end travel time and other disutilities of transportation. The benefits shall be stated as the numerical extent to which each of the alternatives meets each of the goals identified in the first phase. The projections may assume that the alternative system is fully built in the current year. The department shall present the projections in a public City Council meeting before proceeding to the fourth phase. The fourth phase shall be the selection of alternatives for further study and development. The department shall hold public meetings, then recommend one alternative, a combination of alternatives, or no action. The selection shall be based on a combination of the factors: (1) cost and benefits identified in the third phase, (2) risk, (3) public input. The recommendations, justification, and summary of public meetings shall be presented to City Council. All work, alternatives, recommendations, and analysis shall be available to the public throughout the planning process. The requirement to provide transit service to within any minimum distance from any household is no longer in effect.