Bike Improvements: 9th Ave Cycle Track

Yesterday, I talked about my visit to the remade Madison Square. Also during my visit to New York, I took time to view the bicycle improvements along Ninth Avenue. These improvements have made biking along the major north-south artery safer by separating bikes from auto traffic. This project was another great improvement made by the NYC DOT under the leadership of Janette Sadik-Kahn. 

The Ninth Avenue Cycle Track runs from 31st Street southbound to 16th Street. Along the way, it is along the left curb of the street. It is divided from traffic by parked cars, bollards, and, at intersections, concrete islands. 

Cyclists are protected from left turns by protected left arrows at intersections. Cyclists have their own signals, which are synced with southbound through signals on Ninth Avenue. When left-turning traffic has a green arrow, cyclists are faced with a red "cycle" signal. 

Again, it seems that New York City is taking the lead in providing the street as public space for all users. Here in DC, the District Department of Transportation plans to implement a cycle track on Fifteenth Street NW. Under the reconfiguration proposal, 15th Street will be reconfigured between Massachusetts Avenue and Florida Avenue to include three northbound car lanes, one northbound bike lane (between the right-most northbound lane and the parking lane), a parking lane on each side of the street, and a southbound cycle track between the left-side parking lane and the western sidewalk. It will be separated from parked cars by a raised curb and will include north-facing signals for southbound cyclists.

Policy: It's Like Making a Cake

For some time now, I've been writing a weekly column for an LGBT blog. My column, Dispatches from Left Field appears on Wednesdays on The New Gay. I write on a variety of subjects there and my content is not limited to LGBT issues, although I do try to focus on topics of interest to the gay community. This post was written for TNG, but has been cross-posted here because of its relevance.

A new administration has come to Washington. After eight long years of Republican control of the executive branch, Democrats under the leadership of President Barack Obama are taking over. In that regard I'd like to consider the implications of policymaking.

If you’ve ever baked a cake, you know that a successful recipe depends upon getting all of the ingredients right. If any of the parts are spoiled or if any of the incorrect ingredients are mixed in, the cake won’t turn out the way you intended. Policy is the same way.

There is often a lot of talk about Education Policy or Transportation Policy or Environmental Policy. These are all red herrings. In reality there is only one Policy (capital P). Now I know this sounds strange. I can hear you saying, “of course there is such a thing as Education Policy,” and you’d be right. There is something called Education Policy. It’s how we address schools and curriculum, among other things. But it is often doomed to fail by other policy areas, Transportation and Housing Policies for instance. This is because the way we view policy (lower case p) divides public policies into silos. Essentially, we insist on continuing to think of the egg as an egg, even long after it's become part of the cake.

If for example, we’re baking a cake (Policy) which seeks to further the aims of a chef (administration), it would include ingredients such as eggs (Education), flour (Transportation), sugar (Environment), and much, much more. Even if the eggs are fresh, the cake might turn out badly if we forget to include the flour.

Let’s consider Education in more detail. Our last President pushed for a bill called No Child Left Behind. This act was to improve our education system by doing things like punishing underperforming schools, offering choice, and holding teachers accountable. It placed lots of emphasis on standardized tests and other measures such as attendance and graduation rates. But schools are in largely the same shape they were eight years ago. Why didn’t No Child Left Behind significantly change schools?

For simplicity’s sake, let’s forgo the criticisms of the Act itself. Instead I would like to focus on how other Policy areas affect educational outcomes. Studies show that neighborhood poverty has a huge impact on educational attainment. But because we have “silos” for policy, fixing neighborhoods, while integral to fixing schools, is not considered part of Education Policy. In that regard, we’re leaving out part of the recipe.

When it comes to Education, we’ve been dooming urban schools since the 1930s at least. Many of the same things that created the Gayborhood contributed to the decline of our schools. Housing Policy encouraged suburban housing construction, while covenants limited that development to whites. Transportation Policy, beginning in the 1950s, gave (white, middle-class) Americans the ability to leave the city, while still being able to commute over freeways to work. At the same time the destruction of urban transit systems split many lower income people from their jobs. As policy decisions in other policy areas encouraged the creation of urban ghettos, our schools started a nosedive which they’ve yet to recover from. Just last week, I saw that school segregation is increasing in the United States.

I don’t want to belabor the discussion on education, however. My thinking about this Policy/Cake concept started when the Obama Administration left the Secretary of Transportation off of his Green Team. This group of high-level officials consists of the Energy Czar, Secretary of Energy, Director of the EPA, and the Secretary of the Interior. And while these department heads certainly run agencies which have a large role to play in solving the climate change dilemma; without seriously changing the way we approach transportation, we won’t be able to stop greenhouse gas accumulation.

According to Growing Cooler a report on the relationship between urban development and climate change, "Transportation accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States" (page 2). This report refers to the "Three-legged Stool" of Fuel Economy, Carbon Content of Fuel, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Any policy that fails to address all three legs of the stool will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions far enough to reach targets. Because the Department of Energy projects that increases in VMT will outstrip improvements in fuel economy and carbon content, any emissions savings from those two legs will be outpaced by increases from the third leg, VMT.

So even if we are able to transition cars to cleaner sources of fuel and make them more efficient, we can really only solve the problem by encouraging walkable communities and public transit in addition. Luckily, this reimagining of the urban environment gives us the opportunity to rethink the selfsame policies (like housing) which have resulted in a failing education system and a gridlocked transportation network.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once said:

"The best cure for destructive sprawl is to build cities people don't want to abandon, places where they can live healthy, fulfilling lives in densities that don't devour our landscapes, pave our wilderness and pollute our watersheds, air, and wildlife. To achieve this, we need to invest in urban schools, transportation, parks, health care, police protection, and infrastructure that makes cities great magnets with gravity sufficient to draw back the creeping suburbs."

In other words, in order to save the city, we have to focus on all of the relevant policy areas--from Education to Transportation. We can't confine our Policy to just one silo.

I’m reminded of an example from Atlanta. As the region was building a MARTA (metro) extension to the Northeast, the Georgia DOT was widening the adjacent gridlocked Interstate 85. Not surprisingly, ridership on the Doraville train never reached what planners had hoped. Here in Washington, on the other hand, a series of freeway battles helped ensure that Metro would be successful by limiting freeway construction. So while Mr. Obama has promised transit investment during the next few years, he has also promised road building. And his stimulus gives more money to roads. One wonders if his Policy (capital P) will be end up truly being “green” or if policy silos will leave the frosting off the cake.

Dead Week/Disappointment

It's a busy time of the year for everyone, I suppose, and so the past few days have been light on blogging and blog reading for me. Next week is the last week of the semester at Maryland, meaning that my final classes are this week. When I was at Georgia Tech, we called the week prior to finals "Dead Week." It certainly will be dead for Track Twenty-Nine, although I'll try and get back to blogging more next week as my class obligations end.

But despite my lack of time this week, I want to express some frustration. I'm not the only one around to be doing so, either.

You see, on November 4, I stood in line in the cold and voted for change. While I waited with my neighbors and fellow disenfranchised citizens (in DC), I thought back to the first time I voted for Barack Obama, on a snowy day in March, during the Potomac Primary. It was cold then, too. But I felt that I was casting a ballot which would help to thaw America from the icy clutch of the Republicans. For 8 long years, they stood with the reigns of power, and created public policy in the transportation, energy, and urban policy areas which made me want to vomit.

So on November 4, I was out in the streets cheering when CNN called the election for Obama. It was raining, but we didn't care here in DC. Getting wet that cold November evening didn't matter. We had won! After 8 years of strife, victory was at hand. Change was in the air. In a matter of months, a new era would start in America--an era of growing environmental consciousness, of reinvestment in our cities, of policies for the people--instead of for corporate executives.

Now, I'm not so sure that I got what I voted for. To be certain, Mr. Obama has not yet taken office, and much is still unknown about his policies, but I am worried.

In a speech on Saturday, the President-Elect called for investment. But I did not hear a call for anything remotely like the Second System. Instead I heard a call that hearkens back to the Eisenhower Administration.

"We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in
our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in
the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and
we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to
invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

Granted, Obama did not actually call for investment in the federal highway system. But he did use it as an example. Where are his calls for high speed rail? Where are his examples of the UMTA transit program of the 1970s that gave us BART, Metro, and MARTA? The program that gave us LRT in San Diego, in Pittsburgh, in San Francisco?

In a world where highway building has been the status-quo for over 5 decades, the lack of mention of transit does not bode well. For the last 7 years, Mr. Bush has called for Americans to reduce their dependence on foreign oil in each of his States of the Union. Not once did he ask Americans to try transit--nor did he do much to increase the supply of transit. Do we face another 4 years of the same?

Mr. Obama says that if communities don't invest in roads and bridges, they'll lose federal dollars. I fear that if they don't invest in transit, they'll lose their communities. But where are Mr. Obama's pledges of money to fund transit projects that are in design?

According to today's Washington Post, Maryland and Virginia have new hopes for road projects cancelled by the recent downturn. Excuse me? What about the major cuts to MARC service proposed by MTA? Shouldn't we be hoping for a stimulus that would at least keep transit service at today's levels, especially in the face of vast increases in ridership?

Just yesterday, the Post ran a story about transit ridership across the nation--it's up, way up. In heavy rail, LA leads the pack with a 14.1% increase over last year. Baltimore's light rail leads with an increase of 19.6%. The Railrunner in Albuquerque leads with a huge increase of 35.8%. For the Post's editorial board, the evidence is clear and convincing. They're calling for investment in transit. The Post rightly points out, that any fast-acting stimulus penalizes transit because of the hoops we've created for those projects to jump through. And while Obama might be the likeliest candidate to change that situation, he has so far shown no inclination to fund a transit stimulus.

Even though VMT is dropping and transit ridership is increasing, Mr. Obama wants to give states money to widen highways, like I-66 and I-95, but doesn't see fit to give a few federal dollars to stop the elmination of already-crowded commuter trains running alongide these corridors.

Indeed, with all this talk of infrastructure spending to rival the New Deal, why haven't we heard about his pick for Secretary of Transportation? If we're really going to invest in our transportation infrastructure like Eisenhower did, why isn't Mary Peters' replacement already drawing up plans?

I'm still holding out hope for a Transportation Secretary like Jim Oberstar or Earl Blumenauer, but with Obama's talk of highway spending, I'm afraid we'll get someone more like Robert Moses.

I haven't yet given up hope for change. But I also haven't heard much since November 4 to suggest that change is really coming, at least to transportation policy. And in this time of high ridership and demand for government infrastructure investment, that would be a shame. This is the chance of a generation to change the way our cities are structured--we cannot afford to squander that opportunity just to build more highways. Not if we have any hope for redesigning cities to survive into the 21st century--a century guaranteed not to be the century of cheap oil.

Why so Hurrious?

As I've pointed out before, one of the main reasons for my move back into the city was because I missed biking. As such, my trips to the grocery store are much easier, and my commute to the office is shorter by bike than by Metro (but only by about 5 minutes).

And now that I've once again become a bike commuter, I really have to wonder: why so hurrious?

I used to bike commute between my apartment in the Home Park neighborhood in Atlanta to my office across from Hurt Park downtown, a distance of 3 miles. My new commute takes me from North Columbia Heights to NoMa, a shade over 4 miles.

And while DC is more bike friendly than Atlanta, it's drivers aren't. I love the fact that DC has a network of bike lanes and trails. The city is also flatter and has a great street network. But the drivers here are very aggressive.

I suppose that traffic seemed tamer in Atlanta because the freeway network was mostly completed. So the suburban traffic doesn't have to race through neighborhoods just to get to the I-75/85 Raceway. Also, because Atlanta was never planned to be a grand capital, many streets are narrow and frequently congested.

But what's the rush anyway? It seems to me that people are in far too much of a hurry these days. They can't wait for me to clear an intersection before turning, they whiz by with mere inches to spare, and they gun their engines as they pass--as if to demonstrate their superiority.

Perhaps these motorists are just insecure. They are ashamed of themselves, perhaps? They race out of traffic lights like horses out of the gate at the Kentucky Derby only to have a bicycle--a bicycle--catch them at the next light. Perhaps they regret the expense of their Ford Enormous and wish they too had the ability to cycle to work.

Perhaps they're just rude or ignorant of the law.

They wouldn't be alone in that, though. According to the WashCycle, recently an MPD (DC) officer followed an injured bicyclist to the hospital to give him a ticket for riding on the sidewalk after being struck by a right-turning vehicle on Independence Avenue. Biking on the sidewalk isn't even illegal in the District (except in the CBD).

If the cops don't even know the rules, why should we expect motorists to? And let's not forget that in DC, bicyclists have to know three sets of laws (DC, MD, VA) regarding bicycles.

But education aside, we'd all be a little better off if drivers (and bicyclists) just calmed down and took it easy. We need to respect our fellow road users and remember that we all have a right to use the transportation infrastructure.

And drivers: before you intimidate a bicyclist, remember that that's one less driver to congest your route. And even if we're slow-moving, we're usually at least as fast as you in an urban area, and we'll be out of your way as soon as possible.

A Streetcar Named Anacostia

The Post is reporting that streetcars could be operating in the District by late 2009. Soon, bids will be opened for the construction of track in Southeast DC. The cars have already been built and are awaiting rails on which to run.

If all goes according to plan, in a little over a year, Washington will join the list of cities who have invested in streetcars in the wake of Portland's successful experiment. The project is already behind schedule, however, but this news is a good sign for the eventual completion of the project.

Hopefully, the Anacostia Streetcar project will have the desired affect on the urban fabric. In Portland, the streetcar helped turn run-down neighborhoods into the trendiest parts of the city. While it's too early to predict that sort of change for one of the District's more notorious neighborhoods, the project will have a positive impact on mobility and will introduce light-rail-type
technology to the region.

My Senator Takes the Morning Train

Ok, so I don't know if my Senator takes the morning train, but you can say that if you're from Delaware. In a speech earlier this week, Senator Thomas Carper (D, Delaware), the junior senator from Delaware told his colleagues that he takes the train home, almost every night.

And why shouldn't he? The end of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is only 2500 feet from the Senate Chamber. The Senator needs to walk less than a half mile up (ironically) Delaware Avenue to Burnham's masterpiece, Union Station.

So yesterday, while we bloggers were lamenting the lack of leadership on this issue, Mr. Carper was on the floor of the Senate saying this (excerpt):

I ride the train back and forth most days. I live in Delaware, and I go back and forth. As my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows, I go back and forth almost every night to Delaware. A strange thing is going on with respect to passenger rail ridership in this country.

I used to serve on the Amtrak board when I was Governor of Delaware, and every year we would see ridership go up by a couple of percentage points. We would struggle, try to raise money out of the fare box to pay for the system and the expansion of the system. Well, the first quarter of this fiscal year, ridership at Amtrak is up 15 percent. Revenues are up by 15 percent. People are starting to realize that maybe it makes sense to get out of our cars, trucks, and vans and take the train or take transit. Transit ridership is up again this fiscal year more dramatically than it has been in some time.

Americans are beginning to literally buy homes in places that are closer to opportunities for transit--for rail, for bus, for subways, for the metro systems. As we have seen the drop in home prices across the country--in some cases, very dramatic--among the surprises, at least for me, is to see housing prices stable and in some cases actually going up in places where people can buy a home and live and get to work or wherever they need to go to shop without driving to get there.

I don't know how gullible we think the American voters are to suggest to them that we are going to have this holiday on gas taxes, Federal gas taxes, for 3 months or for 6 months, maybe to get us through the next election, and then when the elections are over we will go ahead and reinstate the gasoline tax to what it has been even though in doing that we might be depleting further the money available for transportation improvements. I don't know how foolish we think the American voters are. They are a lot smarter than that. They are a lot smarter, maybe, than we give them credit for being.

I think in this country people are crying out for leadership. They are calling out for Presidential leadership, whether it is from our side of the aisle or the Republican side. People want leaders who are willing to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune, and I would suggest that the wrong tune is to suspend the Federal gasoline tax and at the same time not replace the dollars that would otherwise go into the transportation trust fund to fix our dilapidated, our decaying transportation system. Voters in this country deserve better leadership from us. I am determined, I am committed to making sure we provide and pay for that.

Before I close, there are a lot of good ideas for things we ought to do. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, that we ought to provide more R&D investment for a new generation of lithium batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles. I say, tongue in cheek, we ought to use the Government purchasing power to commercialize advanced technology vehicles. We are doing that. I said with tongue in cheek we ought to provide tax credits to encourage people to buy highly efficient hybrid vehicles and very low diesel-powered vehicles that are efficient. We are doing that.

There other things we need to do too. We need to invest in rail service. We can send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. I will say that again. We could send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. But we as a government choose not to invest in freight rail and, frankly, to invest very modestly in passenger rail. It is a highly energy-efficient way to move people and goods.

(Emphasis mine)

And just to prove that politicians can do more than pander on energy policy, he closed by saying:

I will have a chance to come back later in the week and talk about this some more. Sometimes we underestimate the wisdom of the voters. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said: If you tell the American people the truth, they won't make a mistake. I will do my dead level best to make sure, during the course of the debate on this notion of waiving the gasoline tax or having a holiday on the gasoline tax until after the election, I am going to make sure, I hope with a number of my colleagues, the American people understand the truth and the full picture and that they will make the right decision. Hopefully, we will too.

(Emphasis mine)

This is the kind of leadership we should get from our elected officials. I wish I could call Mr. Carper my Senator.

Thanks to JW for the heads up on this speech.

Doors Opening, Candidates Please Step On

Earlier this week, I reported that Mr. McCain was calling for a suspension of the gas tax this summer. I also remarked on Senator Clinton's potential support for that policy. She has now followed through, and has also made calls for the suspension of the gas tax.

Many are saying that this will cost America $1 billion that would otherwise go to fix our decaying transportation system. It is likely that gas prices will not be significantly reduced, and this tax break will, in all likelihood, end up benefiting the oil companies.



I am glad to hear that at least one of the candidates is refusing to pander to voters on this most-important issue. Senator Barack Obama, Democratic front-runner, is calling a spade a spade. While I don't necessarily agree that pandering is the natural state of Washington, I can certainly understand where he's coming from, especially with regard to the blatant disregard for good policy that is coming from the Clinton and McCain camps.

Still, Mr. Obama's message leaves a little to be desired. He recently reiterated his support for Amtrak and for building a better high-speed rail network in this country, but he has not yet asked Americans to change modes, nor has he promised to significantly change the way we build transit in America.

In all of President Bush's States of the Union, he called for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not once did he ask Americans to try the bus. Not once did he promise a spending package that would start a wave of new transit construction across the nation. Instead, he called for new fuels (to be delivered sometime in the future) and a switch to biofuels (also to be delivered sometime in the future).

Asking Americans to switch to transit would produce an immediate reduction in oil usage, especially if it was coupled with subsidies to reduce fares and the construction of new lines.

I encourage Senator Obama to continue his fight to reduce America's dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise). I also encourage him to think strongly about a real transit policy. No developed country in the world has so many big cities and so few subways.

With oil supplies being used at an ever-increasing rate, now is the time to change our transportation policy. The next president will preside over the reauthorization (or lack thereof) of the next transportation spending bill. As yet, none of the candidates has satisfied me with a decent transportation/energy plank. It's time for that to change.

The question is, is it a Change Mr. Obama can believe in?

It's Economics, Stupid

On April 15, Senator John McCain called for a suspension of the federal gas tax this summer. Senator Hillary Clinton followed recently on Larry King by suggesting that the idea should be studied. In her message, Clinton said that we need to investigate the price highs that Americans have been seeing at the pump.

This comes in the face of record oil prices. Today's close had crude oil at $119.37 on the NYMEX. For a run down of recent factors, MSNBC has an excellent analysis. Still, I think that oil prices represent something more than a periodic disruptions in supply. Prices have been rising consistently for several years, a factor I attribute to global tensions--at least at the beginning. Now, however, with OPEC blaming the falling dollar on prices and claiming that there is no demand for additional oil (even when many of the chiefs of state in West are calling for it), I am less sure.

Right now, the United States makes up 5% of the world's population, but we use 25% of the world's oil. If everyone on the planet lived like the average American, we would need 5.33 Earths to support us all. Another way of saying that is to say that for every person who uses more than their share of the planet, someone else gets less share. At any rate, the main issue that we are facing right now is that most of the people of the world do want to live like the average American.

India and China comprise over a third of the world's population, and both are rapidly developing. As their countrymen and women start to drive more, as their distribution networks become more auto-intensive, and as their industry becomes more developed, their oil consumption will increase. China is already driving up the cost of construction projects here because of their insatiable demand for building products.

Today is Earth Day. Today we are meant to celebrate the planet that gives us life. Today we celebrate the only habitat of humankind. This year, with the green movement more popular than ever, we must consider the policy implications of a political folly like the one proposed by Senators Clinton and McCain.

All three of America's major presidential candidates have called for environmental protection. Climate scientists tell us that we must reduce greenhouse emissions immediately if we are to avert serious climate damage. Furthermore, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will mean relying less on foreign sources for our energy needs.

A suspension of the gas tax is one of the worst policy decisions that can be made for America, for the simple reason of economics. Even for those people who are totally reliant on automobiles, a reduction in the gas tax will make you worse off.

Very few people argue that Earth's oil resources are infinite. The general consensus is that there is a finite amount of oil inside Earth's nougat center. While it is true that we don't know exactly how much oil is left on the planet, it will take millions of years of natural processes to even begin to replenish what we've used since oil was first successfully drilled at Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859. Therefore, I think it's safe to gloss over the intricacies of geology and just say flat out, they're not making any more of the stuff.

This will come as a shock to many, but there will be a time at which point the last drop of extractable oil will be drawn from the Earth. Therefore, every time you fill up your gas tank, you are bringing us closer to that point. Every time you decide to drive somewhere you could have walked, ridden the bus, or stayed at home, you take oil from your children (or an older version of you). Similarly, every time someone else makes a decision not to drive, they extend that moment.

Mr. McCain's idea to give Americans at least one more tryst with cheap oil is a wasteful bit of public policy which will only make the choices harder for the citizens of Planet Earth on that day (and hasten it) when oil doesn't gush out of the Arabian desert. Inflation (some say stagflation) is hurting the American economy because we transport almost everything on the tide of oil. Even I can feel the pinch, and I don't drive. But every time I walk to the grocery store, I get sticker shock.

Let's ask ourselves which is more important: getting food to grocery stores or getting to the beach (by car) this summer? Fire engines with full gas tanks or 45 mile one-way commutes on Mr. Eisenhower's freeway network? Fuel for the military or free parking at the Sprawl-Mart?

If every person in the world cut their oil consumption by half immediately, we would double the amount of time before the end of oil. Perhaps a cut by half, especially immediately, is too much to ask, but the converse is also true. If every person in the world doubled his or her consumption of oil overnight, we would halve the time to impact.

And that is precisely what cutting the gas tax would do. It might not double the amount that Americans drive, but it would increase the consumption of oil. Families that might have decided to spend the weekend at a local state park might decide to drive to Florida after all (unless they live in Florida, then they'd probably drive to California). Instead of being a responsible Senator, and suggesting that Americans use alternative methods of vacationing (such as taking Amtrak), he has proven that pandering is on his agenda.

If Senators McCain and Clinton truly feel that the United States can do without the $1 billion in transportation improvements around the country, perhaps they could find a way to keep the gas tax and spend that money on social services or buying carbon credits.

Just like free parking and free freeways has led to an overuse of those venues, cheaper gasoline will encourage drivers who could use other modes to drive. Transit agencies around the country have seen huge ridership gains since gas prices started escalating. Whether you take the subway or not, it's good for you. Every person who doesn't use gallon of gas for their commute leaves a gallon of gas for you or for the trucker delivering your supermarket's milk.

I never liked economics courses, but I did learn a few things in them. If supply is constant and demand increases, price goes up. By keeping gas prices high, we encourage those who can to switch to transit or reduce their car trips, which makes gas marginally cheaper for those who live too far from transit or who do have to drive.

In the long run, making Americans pay for the external costs of their oil addiction will reshape society by making transit accessible to more people and creating more walkable communities. If these oil prices are just a periodic upswing, this will better prepare us for the next shock. If this is the actual peak of world oil, which some are saying already, these prices will only go up.

If our presidential candidates are serious about stabilizing the economy, they will support an increase in the gas tax. This will help reduce our dependence on oil, extend the endpoint of the oil era, and ensure that we won't have any silent springs in the near future.

Candidates would also be wise to stop blaming the oil companies. Even they are starting to see the light and diversify. After all, why else would Beyond Petroleum (better known as BP) go beyond petroleum? The lesson learned by OPEC during the disco era is one not easily forgotten in the oil industry. Even in the car-dominant United States, oil consumption didn't recover for years after the 1979 crisis. It took OPEC six years to recover from the drop in demand, and I assure you, they are not eager to repeat that crash course in economics. If our economy is reliant on oil, then their economy is reliant on our reliance on oil.

As proof-positive of the trend to reduce oil consumption, the Post had an article just yesterday on how America's railroads are having a resurgence in popularity. Trains are four times more efficient as tractor-trailers. This is good for our economy and it's good for the consumer--in the longer run. In the near-term, we will face some painful decisions, however. During this time, which is hard for all of us, we need to learn to pull our fair share. And we need policymakers who will leverage the economy to wean of us of our oil fix and at the same time create green jobs.

We only have this one Earth. Let's celebrate her. And remember that every day should be Earth Day.

Happy Earth Day America!

Walking Between the Lines

While much of this blog's writing is devoted to transit, I try to focus on other forms of alternative transportation from time to time, and walking is one strongly correlated to transit use. Earlier this year after being struck by a car while crossing the street in suburban Washington, I penned a post on pedestrian safety. I encourage you to read it as an introduction to the statistics of pedestrian accidents and street design. Today, however, I want to focus more on pedestrian behavior and corresponding planning and policy decisions.

A recent post at the WashCycle reported on a pedestrian and bicycle sting in the U Street neighborhood in the District. Enforcement is a good thing, although I would question the end result of this sting operation. A more productive approach, it seems, would be to inquire as to why pedestrian and bicycle violations are a problem. What role does street design play? What role does urban design play?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports that only 23% of fatal pedestrian crashes occur at intersections--the vast majority occur at mid-block locations. These data suggest that the higher fatality rates occur because drivers are traveling at higher speeds and do not expect to stop.

In a somewhat difficult lesson in public relations, the City of Atlanta Police Department got egg on its face after an officer tackled a renown British historian for jaywalking across a downtown street. No less than 5 police officers were present for the arrest, which made headlines in the UK as well as in Atlanta. After 8 hours in jail, the charges were dropped. The case in and of itself is not important for this discussion, the context is, however. The historian was crossing mid-block between two hotels sharing a conference. Urban design clearly played a role in this because both hotels have their entrances in the middle of the block. In order for people to travel between the buildings, they must walk 200 feet to the nearest intersection, cross Courtland, and walk 200 feet back up the street. The shortest distance is bisected by five lanes of one-way traffic on a freeway-fed urban arterial.

This particular situation could be improved by designing buildings to have entrances on corners or to include pedestrian bridges. Additionally, studies show that converting one-way streets to two-way streets has the effect of slowing traffic and reducing pedestrian crashes. And while Atlanta clearly has a long way to go to become pedestrian friendly, the strict enforcement applied to the Briton reveals the bias reported by Richard Retting, New York City DOT's Chief of Safety in a 1987 publication.

Retting mentions the need to exchange blame (which he claims is often placed on the victim) for pedestrian crashes with design of pedestrian facilities based on human factors. Human Factors Analysis investigates accidents where human error is at fault so as to better design safety systems. Retting reports on one safety initiative on Queens Boulevard which reduced pedestrian deaths by 44% and severe injuries by 77%.

In a 2003 article in the American Journal of Public Health Retting and Ferguson, report on different measures used to reduce pedestrian crashes (Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and McCartt, A.T. 2003. A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. American Journal of Public Health Vol. 93 Issue 9). Their analysis reveals some interesting strategies to address the issue.

The importance of traffic calming as a method of reducing pedestrian crashes is also stated in the report. The findings show that crosswalks alone do not cause drivers to stop for pedestrians when they are in an unsignalized area. In fact, installation of crosswalks without other forms of traffic calming (such as refuge islands or flashing lights) can actually increase crash rates in some cases.

The aforementioned report divides the process of making places safer for pedestrians into three categories. The first is to reduce vehicle speeds. The second method separates pedestrians from automotive traffic. Finally, the last approach calls for increasing the visibility of pedestrians.

Over half of pedestrian fatalities occur at night. One study showed a 59% drop in nighttime crashes after the installation of better lighting at crosswalks (daytime crashes remained the same). Installation of sidewalks also has a major effect on safety, especially in residential neighborhoods, where areas without sidewalks had pedestrian crash rates 2 times higher. Additionally, moving bus stops to the far side of intersections significantly reduced accidents stemming from pedestrians crossing in front of the bus.

Their study also showed that automated pedestrian detection systems reduced jaywalking by 52 to 88%. And while automated pedestrian detection is certainly an improvement over push-button activation (pedestrian actuation), it's not as good as an automatic walk signal. The main function of the pedestrian actuation button is to extend the green cycle to allow pedestrians more time to cross. Unfortunately, in most situations, unless the button is pushed several seconds before the light cycles, pedestrians only see "don't walk."Even if a walker arrives the second the light changes, he or she has to wait for an entire cycle of the light or risk crossing without warning of when the light is about to change to yellow (by a flashing "don't walk"). Since there are only a given number of seconds in the day however, traffic engineers make many traffic signals more efficient by only changing them when cross-traffic or pedestrians are present. In high pedestrian volume areas, however, it makes sense to have an automatic walk every time. After all, imagine if cars had to contend with red lights that were always red (in all directions for 2 minutes before a green light appeared. Push-buttons are often inconvenient, inaccessible (especially to bicyclists and the handicapped), or out of the way.*

*Note: I am not proposing the removal of 'hot-response' buttons at pedestrian crossings. These buttons, when pushed, immediately or quickly change the traffic signal to yellow, then red, giving pedestrians the right of way.

Above, a pedestrian actuated push button
at East-West Highway and Belcrest Road

To investigate the impact of pedestrian actuation on traffic timing, I measured a signal near my 'home' Metro station. One would think that a red light near a metro station (actually in this case the entrance for buses, cars, and pedestrians) would have an automatic walk, but it does not. While my survey is not scientific, I think it represents a good example of how signal timing plays a role in pedestrian safety. The intersection I measured is located in Prince George's County, at East-West Highway and the Metro Entrance. Without the use of the pedestrian actuation button, traffic leaving the Metro station had a green light for about 20 seconds, although that was longer if cars were still behind the stop bar after 20 seconds. With the push button, the green cycle was extended by 5 seconds, and pedestrians were given an advance walk** signal of 5 seconds, effectively lengthening the red time for East-West Highway by only 10 seconds. Since the presence of additional automobiles lengthened the green more than 10 seconds while I was there, it seems unreasonable not to have an automatic walk signal (and a minimum green of 30 seconds) every time, at least at this location.

**An advance walk signal (or Leading Pedestrian Interval, LPI) occurs when the walk signal precedes the green light, during which time all vehicle signals are red. Retting reported on a study showing a 95% reduction in pedestrian crashes at intersections after implementation of the LPI.

Another instance of light timing which I have observed also seemed to increase pedestrian safety. While I am unaware of any studies about this, the City of Atlanta moved the protected and protected-permissive left turn phases of several east-west streets onto northbound one-way streets to the end of the light cycle (lagging left). In this case, it meant that queuing pedestrians didn't inadvertently walk into the path of cars with a green arrow. Instead, by the time cars got a green left-turn arrow, most pedestrians had already cleared the area, and those approaching the intersection were more likely to wait. I don't know if Atlanta's motive was pedestrian safety, but from a pure observational standpoint, it seems to have had that effect.

Studies show that pedestrians are far more likely to be struck by turning vehicles, especially left-turning vehicles. One strategy which I have yet to see implemented, but that I think might have an impact on pedestrian behavior is a protected/permissive left warning. Essentially, a sign above the walk/don't walk signal that is illuminated when cars have a green turning arrow that conflicts with the pedestrian movement in question. This would let pedestrians know that they need to wait. Additionally, push-buttons could serve to illuminate a sign for automobiles when pedestrians are present. Today's automated pedestrian detection technology already allows for the automated extension of a green light for slow pedestrians. That system could be used to warn drivers as well.

Another proven strategy is the refuge island. This allows pedestrians a place to wait while crossing multi-lane streets. Retting's study reported that pedestrian crash rates on streets with medians were half that of streets without medians. In addition to giving pedestrians a place to wait, they also shorten the perceived distance of the crossing, and especially when coupled with curb extensions (bulbouts), reduce traffic speeds. Compare the pictures below from a pedestrian standpoint.

Crossing Route 1 at Hartwick in
downtown College Park, the median
stops shy of protecting pedestrians,
especially from u-turns

Crossing Belcrest at East-West
in Hyattsville, pedestrians can
stop halfway across the street

With gas prices and transit ridership increasing at unheard of rates, it seems pertinent for planners and policy makers to improve the urban/suburban environment to encourage alternative modes of transport. One such mode is walking. Annually in the United States, 6000 pedestrians are killed in car crashes, and design plays a large role. While I have just touched on a few key issues, it is clear that more needs to be done. For far too long, pedestrians have not been considered in the design of our transportation infrastructure and community design. It is high time for that deficiency to end.

I was happy to hear earlier this year that a bill was introduced into the US Senate to "ensure that all users of the transportation system...are able to travel safely and conveniently on streets and highways." Senate Bill 2686 (FAQ) was introduced March 3, 2008 by Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. Thank you Senator.

Bad Carma

I had two near misses with cars today, ironically enough in the same intersection. As such, I was inspired to write a post on pedestrian safety issues. On my way to work today, I was crossing an intersection on the UM campus that I cross every day, Prienkert and Campus Drives. This is the home stretch, my workplace is on the corner, and since I'm on a university campus, pedestrians are often treated with a good bit of respect. Anyway, As I entered the crosswalk, a vehicle on the far side on the intersection came to a stop. The driver, who could have safely made a right turn before I crossed his path, waited until I was in front of his vehicle before proceeding. Although I was trying to make eye-contact, he never looked left or ahead. My yell and hood slap, though, caused him to brake before colliding with me. He did shake his fist at me, presumably for the slap--but I think a full-scale collision would have been a less desirable alternative.

If that had been the end of it, I would probably not given another thought to pedestrian issues today. But as I left my office, bound for the Metro, I crossed the very same crosswalk. Here, left-turning traffic from Prienkert (moving in the same direction as me) has the right of way over oncoming vehicles from Campus Drive. As I entered the crosswalk, I looked to see a left-turning car stop, even though she didn't have a stop sign. I thought, therefore, that she was stopping for me (I had, after all, made it halfway across the street already). She was, however, apparently only stopping to make sure that the oncoming car also stopped. Without checking the crosswalk, she swung left and almost stopped in time. Her bumper did hit me mid-calf though. I was uninjured, thankfully, but I did miss the UM shuttle by 30 seconds.

Anyway while I seem to have gotten off scot free, many people don't. According to the National Safety Council, almost 6,000 pedestrians are killed by cars every year in the United States. Another 84,000 are injured in similar accidents. Indeed, every hour 10 pedestrians are killed or injured in the United States.

Speed is a major factor when it comes to pedestrian fatalities. For a vehicle traveling at 20 miles an hour, the chance that a struck pedestrian will die is only 5%. At 30 miles per hour, the rate climbs to over 40%, and vehicles traveling 40 miles an hour are 85% likely to kill a pedestrian in an accident. This has a lot to do with reaction time in addition to kinetics. Every time speed doubles, stopping time quadruples and so does the kinetic energy absorbed by the object collided with.

The State of Maryland requires that drivers stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk on their half of the roadway or approaching their half from an adjacent lane. Drivers are also prohibited from passing anyone stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the street. This is not a blank check for pedestrians, though. For instance, pedestrians only have the right of way in crosswalks; they must yield it to other vehicles at all other times. Even when a crosswalk is present, though, pedestrians must follow any signals present. And state law prohibits pedestrians from entering a crosswalk if a driver does not have sufficient time to stop. For the safety of all involved, pedestrians and drivers have an obligation to be responsible.

When accidents occur, people are wont to point fingers. And while someone is usually at fault, the perspective of context should be considered, especially for planners. In order to reduce pedestrian-driver conflicts, planners must address street design. For instance, wide lanes encourage higher speeds, reducing the ability of drivers to see or stop for pedestrians. Similarly, wide turning radii (especially for right-hand turns at intersections) encourage drivers to keep moving, which makes it especially difficult for pedestrians to enter intersections. Additionally, a general lack of sidewalks and crosswalks can make getting around without a car difficult. If we restrict pedestrians to crosswalks, we must make sure that adequate crosswalk placements are made.

A large problem with current traffic planning in the United States is that design sends mixed messages. For instance, I have encountered many instances of a sidewalk intersecting a roadway and continuing on the other side, but with no crosswalk present. In this case, pedestrians are often left to fend for themselves. In many cities, while the automobile signals function all the time, the ped signals only operate if a pedestrian pushes a button. Often times this means that pedestrians get to the light a second after it turns green, but have to wait for the full cycle to get a walk sign. Fort Worth, Texas was the first city I encountered where every signal automatically generated a walk signal when a traffic signal turned green.

One of the current efforts of planners focuses on traffic calming. Traffic calming means making context the foundation for infrastructure design. In the realm of pedestrian design, this can include crosswalk treatments like speed tables, islands, or bulbouts. Traffic calming can serve many different interests, like keeping through traffic out of neighborhoods or lowering speeds around congested areas. Another national initiative is the concept of designing streets so that they work for all users, drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. This idea is called Complete Streets. Of course, complete streets are grounded in context, and each instance of is a unique solution tailored to the needs of a particular community.

These efforts are apparently making a difference. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there has been a reduction in pedestrian fatalities of 35% since 1975. Today, pedestrian fatalities represent only 11% of all crash deaths (down from 17% in 1975).

So America is moving in the right direction. The last several years has shown increasing pedestrian warning and safety devices appearing across the country. This region is no different. The District of Columbia leads the nation in its use of pedestrian countdown timers (like the one top left at E Street and 17th NW). Late last year, Montgomery County, Maryland Executive Isiah Leggett announced a pedestrian safety initiative. The initiative hopes to reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle related crashes through a variety of efforts from inclusive planning to physical changes in the (sub)urban environment.