Federal safety regulation of local transit systems

In response to the massive failures of WMATA to provide a safe transit system--which resulted in the catastrophic accident in June which killed 9 people and injured many others--the federal government is about to put forward legislation to take responsibility for the specific regulation of local fixed rail transit operations. See "Fed safety oversight of transit systems proposed" from the Post.

I do think that there need to be national standards and systems promulgated for how transit systems are regulated. Clearly there are big gaps across the country. California's Public Utilities Commission demonstrates it is possible to provide excellent regulation of local rail transit. From their website:

The PUC's Rail Transit Safety Section is responsible for overseeing the safety of public transit guideways. The Commission's program ensures that transit agencies have and follow system safety programs that integrate safety in all facets of transit system operations. Every three years staff audits the transit agencies on the agencies' adherence to the system safety programs. Commission staff also review the design of new systems and system extensions, work with transit agencies to mitigate safety hazards, inspect construction to ensure conformance with applicable standards, and audit the safety certification practices of transit systems. Commission staff oversee the safety of operations, including accident investigations and resolution of safety related complaints.)

I agree that local systems need to be regulated. I'm just not sure that I think having the federal government do it is the best way. I wonder how much attention they'd pay to each system, and if the regulatory regime would be more political, or subject to other machinations when an anti-transit Administration is in power.

In our region, I would recommend that DC, Maryland and Virginia set up a supra-regulatory committee as a joint venture, one that operates within the utilities oversight body of each jurisdiction, tasked with the regulation of rail transit systems. That would mean subway and light rail in Baltimore, passenger railroad services in Maryland and Virginia, heavy, light rail, and streetcar service in Metropolitan Washington, and light rail in Hampton Roads in Virginia.

Dangerous minds...

It's not original thinking to put rail transit on freeways. Even if the New York Times thinks it is and deemed it necessary to run this not very interesting op-ed, "Revolutionary Road." But it's dangerous thinking. Freeways allow people to get to and from places, but generally they don't connect activity centers and neighborhoods very directly.

From the article:

WITH the unemployment rate at 10.2 percent and job creation creeping along despite increased spending on infrastructure, we should look with new eyes at a resource we’ve failed to take full advantage of: the Interstate highway system.

Much of President Obama’s stimulus package has gone to maintaining our roads, and rightly so. But as we invest in the highways that accelerated suburban sprawl and deepened our addiction to oil, we should use the opportunity to invent new uses for the almost 47,000-mile long Interstate system.

Consider it a kind of adaptive reuse: the old foundry reborn as a luxury loft building, the abandoned industrial bakery transformed into a chic urban mall. It’s been a long time since we’ve been able to see beyond the traffic and the exhaust fumes. But if we expand the highway system’s uses in anticipation of a time when we are no longer dependent on the internal combustion engine, we may also appreciate the beauty in its graceful overpasses, lofty bridges and complex cloverleaf interchanges.

The real lesson is that deconcentrating land use is expensive. It doesn't make sense to concentrate around deconcentrated highway ribbons. It makes sense to recentralize around center cities and secondary cities within metropolitan regions. While he focuses on center cities primarily, that is the point of the argument in Cities in Full by Belmont--to recentralize housing, commerce, and transportation.

Leave the freeways be and focus on the cities.

Highway #1 Los Angeles, California, USA, 2003, Edward Burtynsky. From the exhibit Burtynsky: Oil at the Corcoran Gallery of Art--ending December 13th.

In the Washington region, the Vienna Metro is a good example of a subway station on a freeway that is disconnected somewhat from the area around it.
Vienna Metro station in the median of I-66 in Fairfax County, VA. Two pedestrian bridges conenct the station with parking lots. Vienna is the Virginia terminus of the Orange Line. Flickr photo by Andy961

And the difference in the impact of transit in Arlington, which didn't run the subway along I-66 but diverted it to the county, under Wilson Blvd., versus Fairfax County, which has freeway oriented stations, ought to make very clear that freeway-based transit generally isn't a good idea.



Images from a presentation by Chris Zimmerman of Arlington County. The subway stations in Arlington County have a more balanced usage throughout the day.

Transport Politic wrote about this recently in "Portland’s New Light Rail Line is Welcome News, But It’s Not Routed as It Should Be," and "Alternative Alignments for Corridor Cities Transitway Illustrate Importance of Reaching Town Centers " and I mention it all the time.

Let this kind of idea die.

Airports and transit

I was so impressed by the operations at the Phoenix Airport a couple weeks ago, how they have a steward at the bus stop for buses to the rental car center. The steward gets people onto the bus, helps people with baggage, gets the bus filled as much as possible, and then tells the driver to leave, and then the steward starts the process anew on the next bus. This increases throughput speed considerably.

Similarly, there is an elementary school in the Baltimore region with a national best practice program in supporting walking to school where one of the parent volunteer positions is as a kind of valet. The parent ends up treating the line of cars dropping children off just like that steward at Phoenix Airport--opening the car doors to get the kids out quick, making sure the cars move up to the front of the line, and getting them quickly on their way.

Every time I take the subway to National Airport, I always comment to myself that the escalators should be extrawide to better accommodate luggage, and the faregates should be extrawide as well.

I do wonder if that will be considered and worked into the plans for the Silver Line station at Dulles Airport. I tend to doubt it.

I definitely thought at Midway Airport given the long distance from the station to the airport and the voluminous amount of baggage I had (I wasn't expecting to fly back, but to drive and stop off and visit a potential client, but the meeting was rescheduled), that I wished there had been luggage carts available for rent at the transit station.

According to today's Seattle Times, in "Light rail to airport to begin Dec. 19," the light rail station at Sea-Tac Airport will include a luggage cart rental station. From the article:

The walk from the station — which sits between the parking garage and International Boulevard South — is about one-quarter mile, depending on which airline people take.

After getting off the train, passengers will descend one level to the mezzanine and walk across a new skybridge into the garage's fourth floor, where a yellow-trimmed corridor leads to other skybridges at the terminal.

Baggage carts will be available at the station. Also, there will be 32 seats and an arrival/departure screen in the mezzanine, where people can wait for friends flying into Sea-Tac.

Similarly, at National Airport, there could be better information on the station platform about which exit to take, depending on which airline you are flying. I also like the idea of the arrival/departure screen in the station area, as will be installed at the Sea-Tac light rail station.

TV program on manufacturing subway cars for New York City

Christopher lets us know that those of us with cable or satellite television can watch the National Geographic Channel tonight and see a program from the Ultimate Factories series on subway car manufacturing. See "Behind the Scenes: Subway manufacturing" from the New York City blog "Second Avenue Sagas."

Of course, that means not going to either a presentation on Washington regional planning or on DC area cultural heritage, tourism, and interpretation.

From the TV show website:

Join us as we follow the creation of the car that moves millions. The R-160 Subway car is the newest member of the New York City Transit fleet -- bringing 21st Century safety and technological innovations to a mass transit system over 100 years old. These innovations include LCD screen maps, a passenger emergency intercom system, soundproofing and a braking system that actually generates electricity and returns power to the third rail. It starts as sheets of metal in Sao Paulo, Brazil where human skill, fire, and steel come together to build the body shell. After a month-long voyage, the body arrives in Hornell, NY for final assembly, motor installation, and testing. Once assembled the R-160 weighs nearly 85,000 lbs and contains 24 miles of wiring. This car is built to last 40 years, to withstand the force of 1.6 billion riders per year, and survive in one of the worlds toughest environments New York City.

-- Read more
-- New York Times review of the episode, "New Cars for the Subway, Old Ones for the Deep

Regional planning for the Washington Metropolitan Area

From page 4 of the Greater Washington 2050 plan. The biggest idea there is would be linking transportation planning and land use planning into an integrated framework, and requiring intensification of land use across the region, rather than more sprawl.

There is a process for the creation of a Regional Growth Plan, "Greater Washington 2050.)

-- home page
-- report

There is a session on it tonight.

-- Forum: Visions for the Washington Region

Probably your time is better spent reading the report. Comments are being accepted through the end of the month.

St. Louis regional transit planning process as a model for what needs to be done in the DC Metropolitan region

The St. Louis transit planning process underway currently looks to be quite interesting. See the website Moving Transit Forward, as well as "MetroLink Expansion Would Take Many Years, Metro Official Says" from the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Moving Transit Forward Powerpoint presentation.

There is one public meeting still to come, next week, in this first phase of the public process. There are two more sets of public meetings scheduled, for the release of the draft plan and the response, and then for the release of the final plan.

In the section of the website called "What's My Role?," they have posted (in pdfs) the presentation boards from 5 of the 6 stations. (The sixth station is where people vote for their choices.)

- Station #1 – Moving Transit Forward Overview
- Station #2 – Existing Conditions
- Station #3 – Potential System and Service Enhancements
- Station #4 – Funding Transit
- Station #5 – You Be the Transit Planner (concepts for system expansion)
- Station #6 – What Do You Prefer?

Here are a few particularly interesting ones.


This one is particularly good, because it shows how they are breaking out the system improvement (and expansion) plan into three distinct phases:

“Moving Transit Forward” will consist of three elements:

– 5-year plan – service restoration and enhancement,
– 10-year plan – major capital projects, and
– 30-year plan – overall vision for long-term system development.

This slide discusses the purpose of transit and where it works best.


This slide is interesting because in the DC region, the fastest growing transit service is paratransit, and it's breaking the WMATA budget bank. Here it is discussed as a co-equal service. In our region, it's rarely discussed so systematically out in the public sphere.


Two boards on funding explain how the local transit system is funded. (They could have had another board on how highways are funded just so that people could start to understand that all mobility is "subsidized.")

This board, from the "You Be The Transit Planner" exercise links cost of service with ideas for service. (It is what is called a constrained planned, focused on what can be reasonably funded.)


The DC region needs to embark on a wide ranging metropolitan transit (re)planning public process to restore trust in and a common understanding of the WMATA transit system

After the accident in June, which killed 9 people and injured many others, and the continuing problems with safety, financial problems, lack of a regularized funding system, lack of appropriate regulatory oversight, not to mention problems with how the organization is led from the top (both the Board of Directors and top management), it seems reasonable to have a similar kind of regional transit planning exercise here.

Not only would this restore trust in the WMATA system in the DC region, by building a sense that WMATA is accountable to riders, it would also rebuild a regional understanding of what the system is capable of and how it should expand.

It has been 40+ years since the WMATA Metrorail system was first conceived and 33 years since parts of the system began opening. It's time for an assessment/reassessment.

This ought to be preferred over the grab bag of extension proposals in Virginia and Maryland (with little consideration of the impact on the current system) that the system faces currently.

WMATA only sees the world in terms of subway and bus. So the planning process needs to be broader and deeper, focused on transit generally, not just on WMATA operations as they are set up now.

At the same time, such a process should consider truly regional transit planning (which means including railroad service as an option), and the scope of the study should be broad, rather than overly-circumscribed and limited.

WMATA, in conjunction with the Transportation Planning Board of the MWCOG and the local jurisdictions, as well as MARC and VRE and other appropriate state authorities in Maryland and Virginia as well as DC, should launch a planning process similar to that of St. Louis, to come up with a metropolitan transportation plan that allows for transit services to be delivered where they need to be, but one that uses the most appropriate means (heavy rail, light rail, street car, passenger railroad, different types of bus service) to do so.

It should look at funding issues as well as heavy rail expansion where appropriate. That means not just extending transit service outward, but intensifying transit service at the core as well.

Such a planning process should also consider questions of leadership, management, and oversight. As well as funding.

It's the only way to build a truly regional understanding and commitment to transit for the Washington metropolitan region. Without such a planning process, I think we're destined for a lot more of the same incremental and discoordinated transportation planning that we have today.

At the same time, the District of Columbia needs to understand the centrality of transit to the city's economic and competitive advantages, and plan accordingly.

Another example

The Chicago region has a campaign called Moving Beyond Congestion, which could be the model for the St. Louis process.

It's the regional transportation plan normally created by the metropolitan planning organization (tasked by the federal government to coordinate transportation planning in particular metropolitan areas), but in a truly public process, focused on setting the stage for grappling with real needs and hard questions, rather than a more administrative process working between agencies, rather than reaching out to the public.

I tend to believe that these more external planning processes come about when the "s*** has hit the fan" over funding, and the agencies have no choice but to reach out to the public and work to change the political, economic, social, and management frameworks which the transit agencies are currently operating under.

In short, they need a lot more money. And the current setup isn't providing it.

I do think we are at that point in the DC region.

From the Moving Beyond Congestion Strategic Plan:

Our Five Year Investment Lays the Foundation for the Future

Numbers like these are overwhelming until you see what is behind them, so here’s what the five year plan means for you. We divide our capital investments into three categories:

§ Maintain – meaning repairs and upgrades that keep our existing systems in good working order so that there are fewer delays and other problems.
§ Enhance – meaning more and better and faster service without building any major new city or suburban train lines.
§ Expand – meaning new train and bus routes requiring major investments that will cost billions of dollars and take years to complete.

Note that to maintain the transit system in Chicago over five years, $7.3 billion is required. To enhance the system they need $1.1 billion, and to expand, they need at least $2 billion.

But Chicago has a pretty extensive fixed rail transit system already, comprised of extensive El (heavy rail) and railroad passenger service. The DC region lacks as extensive a system, even though compared to many metropolitan regions across the county, our region has a wide ranging heavy rail transit network.

What to do? Planning the next generation of transit in the Washington metropolitan region

The various proposals to extend the Metrorail system in Virginia and Maryland would cost many billions of dollars. And proposals to build the separated blue line in DC, from Arlington, would cost a "few" billion dollars as well.

Polycentric transit service in the DC region, from Belmont, Cities in Full.

At the same time, further deconcentrating the region ("sprawl" versus land use intensification) makes transit less efficient, and proposals to extend the WMATA rail system outward are being made, often in my opinion, without best considering the trip behavior/origin and destination information for subareas (counties) within the region. There are at least six priorities as I see it.

1. Provide more capacity for Metrorail at the core.

Regardless of proposals to extend Metrorail outward, the reality is that the core is freezing up. Regardless of original projections for Metrorail usage that exceed today's projections, the reality is that the system will reach capacity in less than two decades, and even now, station throughput and train capacity needs improvement.

This Washington Post graphic from 2001 shows the proposed separated blue line. This proposal was dropped in 2003 due to financial problems. In a conversation with Matt Johnson (Track Twenty-Nine) he passed on a conversation with WMATA planners talking about "updating" the core capacity study, looking really at "rebuilding" the transit system for new realities and greater use, in thinking about a separated blue line as part of a new transit system being built upon the old. (My words, not his.)

2. Extend Metrorail?

Where Steve Belmont in Cities in Full does criticize the WMATA system as polycentric, designed to support sprawl, it could be that in some situations, it makes sense to extend the heavy rail system further, such as to Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, or even out to Fort Meade in Maryland (recently discussed in "Imagine the Green Line to Fort Meade" in Greater Greater Washington).

But at the same time, this means making the original Purple Line, which as conceived is a circumferential route (the original concept was heavy rail but now it is being planned as a light rail system) connecting all the legs,should be deemed a regional priority, rather than a project pursued by the separate jurisdictions somewhat independently.

Sierra Club image. The current Purple Line light rail plan in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, from Bethesda to New Carrollton, is but a "segment" of the total line as it was originally conceived.

3. Change regional land use development policies now, especially those of the federal government.

Sprawl is happening regardless of WMATA, and to reduce automobile use, land use and transportation planning has to be intertwined. It can't be separate. Obviously, land use generates transportation demand.

Someone wrote a letter to the editor in the Gazette, "Metro funding essential to county growth policy," that Montgomery County shouldn't change its growth policy to a transit-complementary policy from the automobile-connected policy it has without being connected to transit planning and funding. They are absolute right.

But it must be emphasized that allowing major land use development, ranging from the military base relocation process which is moving many installations from transit-rich locations to transit-abysmal locations without having taken that into account in the planning process to the location of National Harbor in Prince George's County without ensuring substantive transit connections stresses the road system to levels that can't be corrected.

At the same time, some of these locations have the potential for significantly improved transit service, but not if you don't plan for it at all.

(The model for how to do this comes from the Netherlands. See "Utrecht: 'ABC' Planning as a planning instrument in urban transport policy.")

4. Isn't it time that counties develop complementary surface rail transit programs of their own?

At the end of the day, the WMATA system is focused on DC (and certain other job centers like Bethesda, Crystal City, Rosslyn, etc.). Getting to and from DC from commuters is the backbone of the system, as well as providing intra-jurisdictional service in densely populated communities, especially within DC and to some extent in Arlington County.

Extending the WMATA system outward lengthens trips, requires more equipment and personnel, but at the cost of trip time and money. It's not clear that such extensions adequately leverage what the system does best.

I think that rather than considering extending Metrorail out to Potomac Mills ("Prince William Democrats Push Proposal to Extend Metro to Traffic-Snarled Area: Lawmakers Push Transit Extension" from the Post) it might make more sense for counties like Fairfax to develop streetcar and light rail plans of their own, complementing WMATA's heavy rail system and railroad stations, but focused on providing transit that actually will be heavily used, and to begin the repatterning of land use and transportation policy and practices in a more focused manner.

This is what is happening with the creation of the Purple Line light rail system in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. But it needs to be extended as a model for other counties in approaching their own transportation needs, but in a manner which leverages and complements the Metrorail system.

See the past blog entry, "Reprint (with editing): The Meta-Regional Transit Network," which discusses the concept of the metropolitan transit network and the various center city and suburban subnetworks within it.

These articles, "Fort Meade proposes Metro extension: Master plan includes adding to rail line to accommodate new jobs" from the Baltimore Sun (2009) and "Plan for Metro to BWI Gaining Momentum" (2006) from the Post, and towards Charles County "Prince George's Sees Andrews As Hub of Development" (2007) from the Post discuss other proposals to extend the Metrorail system.

Note that Arlington's Transit Element in their Transportation Plan is a model for county-specific plans, as is their pursuit, with Fairfax County, of the creation of a streetcar route on Columbia Pike.

5. Expand and extend passenger railroad services.

The farther a location is from the core of the region, the more likely passenger railroad service makes sense. Plus, a passenger railroad system shouldn't be focused on only serving commuters, but the region, and ideally, it should be one seamless service, rather than a collection of services (Maryland and Virginia have separate services) at present.

See the past blog entry "A regional railroad passenger transportation vision for DC, MD, VA, WV and parts of PA (and Delaware)" for more on this topic.

Early ideas for a Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia regional passenger rail system from Beyond DC.

I can't remember which blog suggested having additional railroad stations within DC and Northern Virginia beyond Union Station as a way to improve overall throughput on both the railroad and for those subsequently transferring to the subway, but that is something that needs to be put on the table as well. Models are the three railroad stations in Philadelphia (Market Street, Suburban Station, and 30th Street) which because they were serving either the Pennsylvania Railroad or the Reading Railroad they weren't originally connected--now they are, or railroad service in London and Paris. (Although DC doesn't have the kind of density of population or employment possessed by either London or Paris.)

6. Continued improvements in bus transportation and customer service.

In the blog entry "The revised revised People's Transportation Plan/2008 Transit-Transportation wish list I wrote about this extensively and don't feel it needs to be updated much. There were 8 major recommendations, although some are more specific to DC:

• Improve the bus service. I say do this before thinking about streetcars. We need to make bus service exciting and sexy, in order to boost transit use. I recommend better marketing and wayfinding systems, better bus shelters (coming) and waiting stations, and probably sexier buses, which to my way of thinking, would be double deckers, on routes that could accommodate them. Double deckers are 40 feet long, and more maneuverable than 60 foot articulated buses.

• Create intra-neighborhood transit (bus) services so that people can get to and from local services, commercial districts, schools, libraries, and to and from transit stations without having to drive. (This is a DC specific recommendation)

• making intra-neighborhood transit service free (Tempe's Orbit bus service is an example of how to do it). (This is a DC specific recommendation)

• Dumping what I call political bus service--bus service that ought to be reconfigured because it is not cost effective but isn't because of political posturing. But it wastes money and deserves other segments of the transit market. (This is a semi-DC specific recommendation)

• Improve all "transit waiting environments" (not just for bus service, but on the subway too).

• Significantly improve transit marketing.

• Create a system of regional "Mobility" stores to market walking, bicycling, and transit to residents and commuters, but as a lifestyle, not merely as mode shift for commuters. (Based on what Arlington is already doing.)

• Improve wayfinding and transit information.

Conclusion

In short, it's a pretty big charge for a regional transit plan, but it needs to be done. And the longer one avoids such a process, the harder it is to do, and the more necessary.

Another example of co-located public facilities in Arlington County

Flickr image from Arlington Public Library

Arlington just had the dedication for a new combined library-elementary school. See "Official Launching of Dual Building" from the Connection Newspapers.

I believe that co-location makes a lot of sense, maximizing the use and utility of public assets.

It's something DC does not do.

From the article:

The new $22.5 million facility, which attaches a new community library building to a fully reconstructed elementary school on a key corner location along Washington Boulevard, won praise from speakers at the dedication ceremony in the center’s front plaza.

"We absolutely got the design right," said Sally Baird, chair of the School Board. "This is an outstanding building, and it will serve the community for generations and generations to come."

Arlington Public Library Director Diane Kresh highlighted the new library’s amenities, including 20 public access computer terminals (where the old library had fewer than a half dozen), 10,000 additional items in the collection, and a spacious layout — triple the size of the old building — filled with natural light flooding in from surrounding high windows. The public will also have access to two meeting rooms, and high-quality video projection available for multi-media presentations.

"We’ve created something synergistic and special, an expansion of the village core," Kresh said. She had particularly high regard for the structure’s placement close to the corner of its plot, directly across McKinley from the post office, and a stone’s throw from local businesses, street parking, and the street life of the Westover community along Washington Boulevard. Kresh predicted the building will create a social destination away from the responsibilities of work or home: a "third place," in New Urbanist parlance.

"I see it being a focal point for community life," she said. "The fact that it’s right here on the corner is going to make a huge difference." County Manager Ron Carlee agreed. "This is how you create smart growth in locations where you don’t have a subway stop right on top of you."

When you have limited resources, each dollar the government spends should be spent with an eye towards maximizing the simultaneous achievement of multiple objectives. Oftentimes, single use public facilities do not accomplish this.

- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ARLINGTON COUNTY AND ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS REGARDING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE REED SCHOOL AND THE WESTOVER LIBRARY

It's not just sidewalks and money, spatial form and density influence the propensity to walk

One of the encouragement programs out there is based on the Bogota Ciclovia, when streets are closed to cars for a day on the weekend and programs promoting walking, health, and bicycling are offered.

I find these programs very interesting, even if DC's first version a couple months ago, held in a park miles away from the city's main population center, was quite timid. Britain's SkyRide, sponsored by Sky TV and the Mayor of London, is much more bold. Imagine your Mayor encouraging you to bicycle and walk, rather than being focused on himself.... (see "Fenty uses police escort, clogs traffic on bike rides" from WTOP)

LONDON, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 20: Cyclists take part in The Mayor of London's Skyride, a day of entertainment on traffic-free, city-centre streets on September 20, 2009 in London, England. The free, mass participation event organised by the Mayor of London in partnership with Sky, encouraged people of all ages and abilities back on their bikes this summer. The route took in iconic landmarks including Buckingham Palace, St Paul's Cathedral and The Tower of London and also incorporated St James Park and the river views of The Embankment. Visit www.goskyride.com for details. (Photo by Tom Dulat/Getty Images for Sky)

The 76-year old Darwin Hindman, the Mayor of Columbia, Missouri (Columbia is pretty progressive because it is a college town), is an avid cyclist recently featured in Parade Magazine, "A FreeWheeling City." He rides about 60 miles/week. He was in Columbia, Maryland last week, giving a talk on bicycling and quality of community life. See "Pedal pusher" from the Baltimore Sun. I wish I had a chance to get over and hear him speak.

Yes more "transportation" monies should be spent to support complete streets and placemaking, and promoting walking. See "Path to good health, less pollution is the sidewalk: report" via the Independent. From the article:

Designing towns and cities to make it more appealing and safer to walk or ride a bike would not only help fight the US obesity epidemic and improve health but would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, a report issued by the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership and Transportation for America said.

Currently, no state spends more than five percent of federal transportation funds on projects that could improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, such as building more sidewalks or "zebra crossings," the report said.

-- Dangerous by Design: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Deaths (and Making Great Neighborhoods) report by Transportation for America
---------------
And I forgot to mention a similar report in Canada, "Urban sprawl no fun for kids, say reports," from the Calgary Herald. From the article:

Kids these days: they rarely walk anywhere. They don't ride bikes, they don't play outside — not like they used to, anyway. But can we blame them?

Not according to two new studies released by the Vanier Institute of the Family, a charitable Ottawa-based organization.

"The way that cities have evolved has been rather wrong-headed," said Katherine Scott, director of programs at the institute. "Lots of it has to do with urban sprawl."

The studies, released Tuesday, chronicle a generation of Canadian youngsters reared primarily in spread-out communities outside the urban centre, where they can expect to be driven anywhere they want to go, even if it's just to a friend's house a few blocks away. The data is based both on literature and empirical research, conducted over the past year, said Scott.

The reports:

- Children & Cities: Planning to Grow Together
- Caution! Kids at Play?
------------------

But it's not just a matter of putting sidewalks everywhere. Frankly, I wish it were that simple. This story is also covered in today's Post, "Pedestrian safety study ranks Washington area in the middle."

People's willingness to walk is a function of population and building density, (which in turn influences) the availability of "amenities" within walking distance (for example, Walkscore lists these types of businesses and civic assets as key destinations: Transit; Grocery Stores; Restaurants; Cafes & Bars; Movie Theaters; Schools; Recreation Centers; Libraries; Bookstores; Fitness Services; Pharmacies; Hardware Stores; and Clothing Stores).

The Walkscore where I live is 62. But between walking and transit, both the bus (a stop is 2.5 blocks away) and the subway (Takoma Metro is 0.8 miles away), not to mention bicycling, it is a walkable neighborhood, with schools, parks, and a micro-commercial district (two restaurants, food co-op, barber shop, dry cleaners and two boutiques + a variety of services, mostly daycare) two blocks away.

With some couple exceptions, the entire neighborhood street network is complemented with a complete sidewalk network on both sides of the street.

But few people walk, unless they have dogs or they don't have cars. Virtually every household drives.

But, we have sidewalks...

Appendix A of the DC Pedestrian Master Plan is the "Pedestrian Demand Methodology" which provides a useful tool for and way of thinking about judging the pedestrian potential of an area based on promixity to attractions and transit as well as residential and employment density. Density makes all the difference.

This is fundamental, because you have to prioritize investments in walking (and bicycling and transit) because there are limited funds, whether or not states fund pedestrian and bicycling improvements at a significant level.

To retrofit a typical county (suburban) street network with sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and a network of off-street trails, many hundreds of millions of dollars (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is required due to the need to acquire right of way (land) to extend the width of the roadway (if this is even possible), plus the cost of widening roads for bicycle lanes, and adding sidewalks.

Note the figure. That is for one county. Maryland, a relatively small state, has 24 counties. (The county that I work in is struggling to come up with $500,000/year to dedicate to sidewalk and bicycle improvements--divide $500,000 into "hundreds of millions" and estimate how long it will take to make improvements. Of course, many of the main roads are under the control of the State Highway Administration, which does improve walking and bicycling environments when they rebuild roads.)

See "Md. pedestrian death rate called higher than national average" from the Baltimore Sun on the same story. From the article:

One of the worst states in that regard, according to the report, is Maryland, which the study ranks 49th among the 50 states in per capita spending of federal transportation funds on bicycling and walking projects. The study puts Maryland's per capita spending on such projects at 45 cents - compared with a national average of $1.46 and a high of $9.47 in Alaska. Only Virginia, with per capita spending of 22 cents, was ranked as more stingy toward walkers.

Douglas H. Simmons, deputy state highway administrator, said the report might be understating Maryland's commitment to such projects because the state has traditionally funded some pedestrian programs entirely out of its own Transportation Trust Fund.

But Dan Pontious, executive director of the Citizens Planning and Housing Association, said that in spite of some progress, transportation agencies cling to their old priorities.

"In the big picture, we're still really focused on moving cars, and there's much more progress to make to create vibrant, walkable communities," he said.

Plus, it is necessary to complement infrastructure improvements (what I call hard infrastructure) with other programs (what I call soft infrastructure, but in the trade is called education and encouragement) to get people out of their cars and on the sidewalks and streets.

Pedestrian cross the new diagonal crossing at Oxford Circus in London November 2, 2009. The design of the new 5 million ($8.2 million) pound crossing was inspired by the Shibuya crossing in Tokyo and allows pedestrians to cross diagonally. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth.

Then of course, you get the safety side of the equation. All the safety improvements in the world have limited effect on reckless driving and/or stupid behavior.

Yes, traffic accidents involving bicyclists and/or pedestrians are indicators of problems, often design problems. But the truck driver who doesn't signal and then makes a right, into the path of a bicyclist ("Cycling community rides to honor one of its own" from the Baltimore Sun), killing him, isn't a design problem. It's something else entirely.