Parking or Transit?

A new study by researchers at USC showed that people who live within half a mile of LA Metro’s new Expo Line were driving significantly less—as much as 40% less than they did prior to the opening of the light rail line.  They also drove less, and had a lower carbon footprint than those who don’t live near transit.  This is excellent news, and most welcome to those of us who understand that driving is not hard-wired into Angelinos, but is a result of an infrastructure that has been built almost entirely around the automobile for the past 80-odd years.  The study showed that infrastructure matters.  If we build it right, we maximize the chances that many more people will leave their cars at home and take transit more often.

The study also contained some important insights about infrastructure around transit stations.  For example, the study found that those who walked to the Expo Line stations showed improvement in health as a result of the approximately 20 minutes of daily moderate physical exercise they got walking to and from the station and their destination.  The study also found that connectivity to bus networks increased use of the Expo Line.  One of the factors that decreased a person’s likelihood of walking to the station was the existence of a large arterial roadway with heavy automobile traffic that had to be crossed in order to reach the station.  Crossing streets with heavy automobile traffic is intimidating for many people, and in such cases, they wind up taking their cars instead.

So, if we want to increase the use of a light rail transit (LRT) facility, the study strongly suggests we should design it to be comfortably and safely accessed by bus, walking, or bicycling.  This means providing easy connections to bus transit, prioritizing safe pedestrian and bicycle access, and reducing heavy automobile traffic on streets around stations.  Improved bus service and a network of bike lanes leading to a station can significantly increase the radius of people who use those means to get to an LRT station.  On the other hand, if we want to decrease the likelihood that people will walk or bike to an LRT station (thus decreasing the health benefits that accrue), design it primarily around automobile access.

What about those people who live beyond the half-mile radius around a light rail station.  Unfortunately, for many Southern Californians the default answer is to promote automobile access.  Take Ms. Leda Shapiro, whose letter to the L.A. Times in response to the study complained that the study didn’t emphasize “the common practice … of parking your car at the station and taking the train.”  Ms. Shapiro apparently misses the point that the study, for good reason, was trying to measure how many people didn’t drive to the station, Ms. Shapiro then reverts to a car-centered default position in her understanding of the role of transit:  

It is time to demand that parking structures be built so we can park and ride and get our cars off the freeways.  Buses … do not run often enough outside normal working hours or are too unreliable.  Many more people could ride the train outside that walkable half a mile if there was parking available (even with a small fee).

While she’s not wrong to bemoan the paucity of good bus service in many areas of our city, I would argue that after a point, more automobile parking is actually counterproductive.  A major problem is that at a certain point plentiful automobile parking and (as the USC study demonstrated) the resulting heavy auto traffic may discourage people from walking or biking to the stations.  

But the problem of prioritizing automobile parking is broader than that.  Large parking lots and parking structures tend to make the approach to the stations more distant and time-consuming for people arriving on foot or bicycle, who have to travel further to reach the platform, and contend with entrances to the station designed for cars.  Moreover, the large physical footprint of a parking lot makes it more difficult to build transit-oriented shops and apartments within convenient walking distance of the station, because the function of the station changes from being one that is comfortably accessible on foot to one that is primarily accessible by car.  Light rail patrons who arrive by car are less likely to patronize small shops nearby, because they’ll get right in their cars and leave.  If they want to shop, they’ll be much more likely to patronize shopping centers with plenty of parking, perpetuating the auto-centered sprawl model of retail development.  Thus, stations with large parking lots don’t lend themselves to the kind of mixed-use development that entices people who live nearby to walk or bike to those local shops.  Let’s not forget that local shopping keeps more dollars in the local economy and creates local jobs, unlike the Wal-Mart style of retail centered around shopping by car.  Build transit for cars and we lose the virtuous cycle of car-light living and replicate some of the worst aspects of the automobile-centered lifestyle, such as sprawl, traffic, parking lot purgatories, and unhealthy sedentary travel habits.

Light rail transit should be designed to gradually shift people away from car dependency, not continue it.  If we want to get more people to use transit and further reduce traffic, our carbon footprint, improve our health, and our local economy, we should not “demand” more car parking, as Ms. Shapiro wants, instead we should demand more frequent and longer running local bus service to transit stations, more bike lanes and low-stress bike routes to those stations, good bike parking, and pedestrian-friendly streets in the surrounding neighborhoods.  The good news is, those pedestrian and bike-friendly infrastructure improvements are much less expensive than the infrastructure that must be built to accommodate significantly more car traffic.  And if we subsidized local bus transit to the same degree that we currently subsidize automobile parking, we could afford more frequent bus service.  And make no mistake, more frequent bus service is essential to make our cities less car-dependent.

So here’s a dilemma: do we build multi-billion dollar parking structures at all LRT stations that significantly raise the cost of building those stations?  As UCLA economist Donald Shoup has demonstrated, there’s no such thing as “free” parking.  What if the additional costs of building a large capacity park-and-ride facility (and they are considerable) make extending our LRT system so much more expensive that it becomes politically difficult to build more light rail?  I guarantee you, Ms. Shapiro and other car-dependent citizens will raise a ruckus if they have to pay parking fees sufficient to recoup the full cost of new parking facilities, so parking costs will likely have to be subsidized to entice them to bring their cars to the station.

I’m not saying new transit stations should lack any automobile parking, but motorists should be required to pay the full cost of providing parking.  Perhaps parking structures could be located away from the station, reducing traffic and the physical footprint of the station itself so that it is more convenient and welcoming for people arriving by bus, bike, or on foot.  Perhaps a few stations (at the end of a line, for example) might provide extensive park-and-ride accommodations while others should be designed primarily around transit, walkable, and bikeable access with a minimal amount of car parking.

We should pay close attention to the USC study’s encouraging results.  It proves that we can design transit and the surrounding infrastructure in a way that has the potential to alter people’s transportation choices.  Designing stations primarily for automobile parking may bring a few more drivers to the station in the short run, but it unfortunately tends to negate the other, more virtuous choices.  It is a trade-off we should carefully consider when building new LRT stations.

Car-Free Weekend

Saturday, my family and I went on a road trip to Santa Barbara for my wife’s birthday.  Instead of driving, we did a multimodal trip with trains and bikes, and rode our bikes along a car-free Cabrillo Blvd. in Santa Barbara’s first “Open Streets / Calles Vivas” event.  It’s a great low-stress way to visit Santa Barbara, and since there are a number of bike shops in SB that rent bikes, a shoreline bike path, and some (relatively) new and improved bike lanes in town, it’s a great way to visit this charming beach city.

Our multimodal commute started with the Gold Line in Pasadena, where we boarded the light rail train Saturday morning and headed to LA Union Station.  Gold Line trains have plenty of space for bikes in the space between the rail cars or in specially designated areas where seats have been removed.  The train ride is a little jerky at times, so it’s a good idea to pack a bungee cord or nylon cargo strap if you have more than one bike to keep them from falling over.  This also allows you to sit and relax instead of standing next to your bike.

We got to Union Station with plenty of time to pick up the Amtrak train to Santa Barbara, and easily loaded our bikes onto the baggage car, which had space for about 8 bikes on it.  Amtrak allows you to take your bike on board, but you must make reservations ahead of time to ensure that the train will have enough space for your bike.  On the return trip, Amtrak expected more bikes, so the train was equipped with a larger baggage car with space to accommodate many more bikes.  On both legs of the trip Amtrak conductors were extremely helpful.  There is no extra charge for taking a standard bike on the Amtrak, though some larger bikes, such as cargo bikes, tandems, and recumbents will have to be disassembled and packed in a cargo box and Amtrak charges a baggage fee for these.  However, for most people, taking your bike on board is no problem if you have a reservation.

During the approximately 2-hour ride to Santa Barbara, we enjoyed the scenery, chatted with each other, got snacks from the snack car, and, with free wi-fi, surfed the web.  There was plenty of legroom and I enjoy being able to get up and walk around on the train (something you can’t do in your car).  The upper deck of the train allows for some magnificent views of the coast along the way, and we saw sights we’d never seen before on the many car trips we’ve taken to SB over the years.

When we got to the Santa Barbara station, we rode our bikes down the new State Street bike lanes to Cabrillo and joined the Open Streets event in progress.  Cabrillo is usually choked with traffic, but we were able to enjoy the scenery, stop along the beach wherever we wanted to, and see Cabrillo as we never had before.  There was a sense of freedom and relaxation that comes over you when you don’t have to worry about cars.  Oh, and despite the thousands of people along the route, it was quiet without the noise of cars.  You could actually hear the soft murmur of the surf as you rode along the boulevard.  It was a wonderful family experience.

How surprising then, when I read some negative comments a few people posted in an online article about the event in a local Santa Barbara newspaper.  These people disapproved of closing Cabrillo to automobile traffic, claiming, among other things, that it hurt local businesses.  These comments were not only short-sighted, they were flat-out wrong as far as I could tell.  We ate at a restaurant on the Santa Barbara pier that was doing a booming business from people walking and bicycling.  Arts and crafts vendors along the route also seemed to be doing a good business as well (I should know, my wife bought some jewelry, too).  We saw people from all walks of life and all ages, smiling, laughing, getting exercise in the beautiful weather, and creating a sense of fun and community that you don’t get when everybody’s in cars.  As for myself, this was the most fun I’ve ever had in Santa Barbara.  Usually I’m stressed after a 2-hour drive from LA, stressed from dealing with traffic in town (caused, needless to say, by too many cars—not too many bikes), and stressed from trying to find a parking space on a weekend.  This time, however, it was a much more enjoyable experience.  Not having to deal with the car and traffic was liberating.

I guess some people are threatened by anything that suggests there’s another way to get around town besides cars.  Every community has people my mother used to call “crabapples” and the internet seems to bring them out of the woodwork.  I hope Santa Barbara doesn’t give in to the cynicism of such narrow thinking and continues to support, and even expand, this wonderful Open Streets event.

Pardon the Interruption

Much has been happening lately, which is one reason I haven’t been posting as regularly as I’d like.  For one, the resumption of the academic year has filled my plate to overflowing with things-to-do.  Second, I’ve been tweeting many of my bike-related thoughts lately, which does not substitute for the longer prose enabled by blogging, but does sometimes allow me to vent, which I have noticed sometimes leaves me less-compelled to vent on my blog.  For example, a recent anti-bike op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that might have sent me a-blogging in frustration, sent me instead to the twitter-verse, where I commiserated with other like-minded tweeters and shared my thoughts there.  The ability to quickly share my thoughts in a time-stressed day and engage in a conversation with others about such issues has its advantages too.  Moreover, the ability of twitter to direct my comments toward a party (in this case to the newspaper) has an advantage over the blog, which, I fear, sometimes goes out into the ether where no one hears it.

All of which is my elaborate way of apologizing for having been absent from the blog for the last few weeks.  It probably won’t be the last time.

As I said, much has been happening lately.  I’m continuing to get to work daily by a multimodal bike-and-bus commute, 22 miles from my home.  As a result, it’s now been almost 5 1/2 months since I filled my car’s gas tank, and I still have about a quarter tank left.  Compared to how much I used to drive, that’s easily 2 tons of GHGs I haven’t pumped into the atmosphere, hundreds of dollars saved, and countless calories not added to my waistline.  I’ve adjusted my schedule to take the bus, and recently purchased a tablet so I can work online while I’m on the bus, making my longer commute time more productive and, since I have many of my books and most of my paperwork on it, lightening the load for the bike portion of my commute considerably.  I’ve become more convinced than ever that we need to promote transit as well as bicycling if we’re going to have a chance of reclaiming our cities and our lives from the tyranny of the automobile, and while these are both daunting challenges, they are definitely doable if we summon the political will.

I’ve been continuing to work in my community to make the streets more bike-friendly.  I recently received a generous mini-grant from my local Rotary club to host a bike safety event for kids with “Walk n’ Rollers” in my hometown next spring, and we’ll be promoting our second annual bike-to-school day as well.  I’ve been working with the PTA and other parents at my daughter’s middle school to purchase some quality new bike racks to make it easier for more kids who bike to school to lock up their bikes safely.  The Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition is up-and-running, and PasCSC is set to have a meeting in a couple of weeks to discuss strategies for getting the city’s DOT to put in more bike lanes, cycletracks and other bike-friendly street treatments.  The university where I teach is also making strides, announcing recently that at least one new bike path is under consideration after last year’s tragic death of a bicycling student on a campus roadway, and a new student bike advocacy group is under formation on the campus that shows lots of positive energy and promise.  Finally, some local advocates in the neighboring city of Monrovia are organizing with Bike SGV to advise the city to install some bike lanes around town as the city prepares to get its very own light rail transit line in 2015.  I’ve been heartened by this energy and enthusiasm to make our streets safer for bicyclists and it makes me hopeful for the future.  As these advocacy efforts begin to bear fruit, I’ll be blogging (and tweeting) about them, so stay tuned.

The Tally

After nearly seven months of going “car-lite” (that is, virtually car-free), I decided to do a year-end tally of the costs and benefits.

For the last 7 months, I have done almost all my commuting to work by a combination of bike and bus.  It takes longer, but fortunately I have a job that allows me to do some of my work while I’m riding the bus (checking email, doing routine paperwork, etc), and thus the time on the bus is not wasted time, as it is in the car.  I found that once I adjusted to the bus schedule, I actually arrived at work less stressed because I already had accomplished several tasks on the bus and I didn’t have to hassle with traffic and parking.  For part of my commute home, I ride my bike, which is necessary because the second leg of my two-bus ride stops running after 7 pm, and I must ride home (the absurdity of stopping bus service after 7 pm is the subject for another day).  The upside is that this bike ride home has become the most enjoyable part of my day.  I have figured out a route for this 10-mile ride that is relatively low stress because part of it is on a dedicated bike path and I’m able to take side streets for the remainder, on which traffic is relatively light during the time I’m riding.  It is a great way to unwind, de-stress, and get my cardio exercise.  This means I no longer have to go to the gym 3 days a week, which not only further reduces my driving but also combines my commute time and my exercise time.

As many of my readers know, I also run most of my errands by bike, and I’ve been using the cargo trailer to do most of my grocery shopping (see photo, above).  Again, once I figured out my route and my routine, it became as easy as taking the car and has the added benefits of reducing my automobile usage and providing me with more exercise.

I’m not superman.  I sometimes have used my car, like the day in October it was raining heavily and I was struggling to get over a nasty head cold.  I drove to work that day.  My arthritic knee gives me problems sometimes, and I might forego a big haul with the trailer on those days.  My wife still uses her car as she always has, and she takes my daughter to school most weekday mornings, and picks her up in the afternoon.  For family outings, we’ll usually all get in my wife’s minivan.  But my son, who goes to the local community college, has been using the bus to get to school, and my daughter and I ride our bikes to her middle school one day a week.  I’m not ready or willing to sell my car … yet.  Last weekend I finally had to fill my tank, but the fact is I’ve cut way down on my driving and I can actually imagine life without a car—something most of my fellow Americans cannot do.

So, what is my tally after 6 months of car-lite living?

Health:  When I embarked on this experiment, I used to work out about 3 days a week at the gym.  Since then, I have biked just about every day.  Sometimes it has been for a short ride to the post office or coffee shop, other days riding home from work, and still others pulling a cargo trailer loaded with groceries or other household supplies.  In that time I have not changed my diet (in fact, I think I eat a little more, because I’m always burning calories), and I’ve dropped 10 lbs, and about an inch in my waist.  Better yet, I feel great.  I no longer get winded as easily as I did before.  All-in-all, in addition to the physical well-being, my cycling has improved my mood, and I’m a much happier person when I ride my bike.

Money:  The last time I put gas into my car was June 7, 2012.  When I used to drive everywhere, I would need to fill my tank an average of about once every  9 days (less in the summer, when my work schedule slows down).  According to my estimation, adjusting for summer, this has saved me about 20 trips to the gas station since June.  The gas tank in my Corrolla holds about 10 gallons.  That means I’ve avoided burning about 200 gallons of gas since June.  If I estimate an average price of about $3.90 per gallon over that time period, that means I have saved about $780 in gas since June 7.  That’s almost $800 that stays in my pocket instead of going to pad the obscene profit margins of the likes of Exxon and BP.  The pleasure of sticking it to the oil companies: priceless.  My Corolla gets approximately 30 mpg, so that means I haven’t driven about 6,000 miles.  That’s an oil change for every 3,000 miles that I haven’t had to pay for.  At about $40.00 each at my local mechanic, that saves me about another $80.  Figure another $20 saved in parking.  My total estimated savings since June: about $880.

Environment:   According to the US EPA, each gallon of gasoline adds about 8887 grams (or a little over 19 lbs) of CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere.  This does not include the greenhouse gas produced by extraction and transportation of the fuel, so this is simply the CO2 coming from my tailpipe.  By not burning 200 gallons since June, I’ve avoided adding approximately 3,800 lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere—nearly 2 tons.  In addition, I’ve also avoided adding a significant amount of smog-producing crap like Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (including brake and rubber dust) to the air we breathe as well.

Costs:  Of course, I had to buy a bike to commute with (about $1,200, when racks, fenders, lights, and pannier are factored in), and my croozer cargo trailer (about $120).  There are cheaper alternatives on the bicycle market, not to mention used bikes, but I am hard to fit and was looking for a particular bike setup, so I paid a bit more than one might expect for a commuter bike.  I have not bought any cycling-specific clothing, though I did buy a good rain shell ($100 on sale), helmet ($80), and cycling gloves ($20).  Total amount spent on commuter bike setup: about $1,500.

From a purely short-term economic standpoint, my bicycle commuting has cost me a little over $600 in 2012.  However, if I continue to commute by bike in 2013 (that is my intention), I should recoup the rest of those costs some time in the spring, depending on how often I drive this winter.  Longer-term, I think the benefits to my health and well-being (not to mention the environment) far outweigh the costs.

It has not been easy, but not because bicycling itself is hard.  The hardest part of my experience has been the time and effort dealing with an infrastructure designed around the automobile.  This necessitates taking time to scout out routes that are safe for bikes when traveling to a new place (nothing like finding yourself on an arterial road with cars whizzing by you at 45 mph and no bike lane) and the frustration of dealing with the lack of something as simple as a secure place to lock your bike at your destination.  Despite these difficulties, I am convinced that it is not only possible, but enjoyable, for the average suburban American to use a bike for at least some basic transportation needs. Even in the short term, it’s worth it.

New El Monte Station

This week transit riders in L.A. got to enjoy the new El Monte Bus Station, under construction since 2010.  Metro boasts that the new station is the largest bus station west of Chicago, and the two-level station certainly has a much larger capacity than any other bus station in Southern California. My first impressions are that the station is attractive and comfortable, with an open, airy design that makes it a model transit hub, second only to L.A.’s classic Union Station.  There are lots of amenities for cyclists, including plenty of bike racks (the good kind that you can lock your frame to, not the cheap, “wheel bender” type of racks) and bicycle tracks along the station’s stairways so you can roll your bike alongside you as you go up or down the stairs.  In the future, El Monte Station will also have a bike station that has indoor storage for bikes, air pumps, and space to make minor repairs or fix a flat.

For the past couple of years, Metro has converted an adjacent parking lot into a makeshift bus terminal while the new station was under construction.  Before that, the old El Monte Bus Station was a dreary, dated structure that was well past its prime.

The new structure, by contrast, offers the commuter a safe, pleasant place to change buses or park-and-ride.  There are easy-to-read LED signs on the bus bays, making it easy to find your bus, and plenty of space to sit.  The top level of the structure has sweeping canopies above the waiting areas, protecting riders from the sun or rain, while providing a pleasant view of the San Gabriel mountains to the north.

The lower level has  been designed with several large atria, so it doesn’t feel closed in and there’s plenty of air circulation, so you never smell bus exhaust.  The restrooms on the lower level have been designed with safety and cleanliness in mind.

Talking to other station users this week, everyone seems to like the new station, including many of the bus drivers.  So far, I can only offer a couple of minor suggestions to Metro officials: the restrooms, though clean and safe, are only located on the lower level, meaning that those with bus stops on the upper level must go downstairs to use the restrooms.  Further, there are only three restrooms for a station Metro says is designed to accommodate 20,000 passengers a day.  During the morning commuter rush on Thursday, for example, I noticed lines of 4-5 people waiting outside each restroom door.  Just hope you’re not in a hurry to catch a bus when you need to use the restroom.  One other minor critique:  the bike tracks have been placed too close to the edge of the stairways, right next to the railings, which means that anything that sticks out from the side of your bike (handlebars, pedals, racks) will catch on the railings, requiring bicyclists to tip their bikes at about a 45-degree angle while negotiating the stairway.  As a bike commuter with a heavy pannier, this makes pushing the bike up the track a more difficult ordeal than it needs to be.  Moreover, at that angle, my bike tires had a tendency to fall out of the track, and I had to wrestle my bike back on the track several times before continuing up the stairs.  After that, I and most other cyclists would simply take our bikes on the escalator or elevator instead.  If Metro could reposition the bike tracks about 6-8 inches away from the railings, it would mitigate this issue.  Otherwise, I’m afraid they’ll rarely be used.

Aside from these small critiques, the new El Monte Station is a clean, comfortable, attractive transit facility that I hope will induce more people to discover the benefits of riding the bus.

Bikes and Transit in San Diego

Last week, I had the opportunity to go car-free in San Diego when I attended a conference at the Joan B. Krok Institute for Peace and Justice at the University of San Diego.  My commute to the conference involved the San Diego Coaster commuter train, the San Diego Trolley, and bicycle.  The trip reinforced for me the way in which well-designed transit can liberate us from the car and its stresses.

The North San Diego county transit authority runs the Coaster, which took me from Carlsbad, where I was staying, to San Diego’s Old Town transit station.  The Coaster is a very comfortable, clean, pleasant commuter train that provides space for bicycles on most of its cars.  You can bring your bike on board and then settle in for a beautiful view of the San Diego coastline as you head south.  The train veers inland for the final part of its journey to downtown San Diego, after it passes the Del Mar racetrack, but the desert views it affords are beautiful in their own way.  Last summer I took my family on the Coaster for an outing to Coronado Island.  That trip, we brought our bikes, got off at the historic San Diego Santa Fe station, boarded the nearby Coronado ferry with our bikes, and spent a beautiful summer day exploring Coronado by bike.  I’d be making this particular trip for work, however.

When I boarded the train in Carlsbad, I found a car with space for my bike and secured my bike with the adjustable straps provided on the train (if you’re traveling with other bicyclists I would suggest bringing a bungee cord to secure several bikes together on the train).  Two other cyclists also boarded my car and that is how I met Matt, who works at Adams Avenue Bike Shop in San Diego, who basically lives car-free and commutes on the Coaster when he’s not riding the 50-odd mile route to San Diego on his bike.  Soon we fell into a friendly conversation about car-free living and the challenges of getting Americans to wean themselves off their car addiction.  To be clear, reader, most of us may still need a car on a regular basis, but there is no reason that many more of us, if not most, can reduce the number of car trips we make by using bikes and transit instead of our cars.  It is not only possible, it is good for our health and necessary for the health of our communities and our planet.

What is more, my trip on the Coaster was much more enjoyable than driving.  I thoroughly enjoyed my conversation with Matt, in which he told me about his upcoming long-distance bike tour next year and I told him about what is happening with bicycle advocacy up north In L.A.  The train ride passed quickly and we exchanged emails and good wishes, and I realized that our conversation would not have happened had we been in cars on the congested 5 Freeway, illustrating another benefit of transit.  Transit, as Taras Grescoe has shown, enhances social life, cars destroy it.

Arriving at the Old Town station in San Diego, I quickly boarded a green line trolley with my bike and took it to the Morena/Linda Vista station, which is about half a mile to the conference on the USD campus.  I could probably have walked it, but the bike made it a quick 5 minute ride, and I locked my bike at one of the conveniently located bike racks on campus, removed my messenger bag from my pannier (no sweaty back), and headed into the conference (I did bring an extra dress shirt in my pannier, just in case I had arrived sweaty, but the ride from the trolley station was so short, it was not necessary).  Several conference attendees were surprised at the ease with which I was able to get to the conference without a car, and others had been unaware how close the trolley station was to campus.

My return trip was every bit as easy, and I not only felt a sense of independence that came from being able to get where I needed to go without the hassle of a car, but felt glad that I’d been able to make a new friend in the process.  With transit and bicycling, initially you’ve got to plan ahead a little bit, coordinate with train schedules, and map out a bike-friendly route (especially if you’re not familiar with the area), but this is fairly easy to do online, and the benefits more than repay the time investment.  I was able to access transit schedules online and google maps provided bike-friendly directions to my destination.  While I did this trip from Carlsbad, my L.A. friends could just as easily make the trip from L.A.’s Union Station, taking the Amtrak Surfliner to San Diego.

Take it from me, formerly a car-dependent Southern Californian, bikes and transit are easier and more fun than you think.  Next time you’re headed to San Diego, give it a try.

Book Review: Straphanger

Taras Grescoe,  Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile (New York: Holt, 2012), 323 pp.

Taras Grescoe proudly declares himself a straphanger, someone “who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile.”  His book of the same name is a fascinating tour of public transit systems throughout the world that demonstrates how efficient, safe, and beneficial such systems can be.  As something of an occasional “straphanger” myself, I was interested in his insights and curious to see if his observations about public transportation were similar to my own.

One of Grescoe’s main points is that cities with good public transit systems are better at moving people efficiently.  He also discovers that the quality of life is improved because public space has not been sacrificed the automobile.  In Paris, he marvels at how easy it is to get around on the Metro, in Portland he discovers how the city’s modern streetcar system enriches downtown, and in Copenhagen, where 55 percent of people make daily trips on a bicycle, he discovers how economical, practical, and healthy it is to get around the city on two wheels.  In a society in which automobile advertising bombards us with the (false) message that cars = freedom, it is refreshing to see the way good public transportation can be liberating.

He also concludes that the best transit networks worldwide are municipally owned, rather than privatized.  Successful transit systems are run as integrated systems, coordinated so that, for example, bus feeder lines and rail connections are timed so that commuters can move from bus to rail and back again with as little delay as possible.  This is most likely to happen when “public agencies with regional scope and unified planning oversight” run public transport. (294)

The journey to transit-oriented cities demonstrates how a well-designed public transportation system not only frees people from environmentally destructive dependence on the automobile (and its evil twin, sprawl), it can revitalize cities, making neighborhoods people-centered, not car-centered.  In cities around the world, in places as diverse as Montreal, New York, and Bogota, Grescoe writes:

There is a revolution going on in the way people travel.  It is rewriting the DNA of formerly car-centered cities, making the streets better places to be, and restoring something cities sorely need: real public space. (9)

According to Grescoe, this revolution is pushing back 70 years of auto-centered urban planning and development.  The 20^th century city, with its no-man’s land of freeways, arterial highways, and parking lots was exemplified by the work of men like New York transportation commissioner Robert Moses, whose post-World War II vision for an automobile city displaced 320,000 people from their New York neighborhoods to make room for expressways that flooded the city with cars and deprived the city’s subway system of operating funds.  Grescoe then highlights the emerging triumph of his nemesis, Jane Jacobs, whose book The Death and Life of American Cities (1961) became a bible for a new generation of urban visionaries.  Jacobs and other activists, Grescoe argues, “had the courage to oppose what people like Robert Moses spent their careers trying to impose: cities built for cars, not people.” (44)

Suburbs can be designed around people and transit, too.  For example, in the suburb of Vauban, outside of Freiburg, Germany, residents live virtually car-free, using streetcars, trains, busses, and bikes to get where they need to go.  Most striking, in contrast to American suburbs, is the amount of space children have to play outdoors in Vauban.  Grescoe observes the beneficial way suburban space opens up when it isn’t monopolized by the car:

Vauban, I realized, is what a suburb looks like when you remove all the land-gobbling driveways, garages, lanes, and cu-de-sacs.  It is also the answer to all those who claim owning a car is essential when you start raising a family. . . .  Vauban may be the closest thing to what suburbia was meant to be before it was overrun by cars: a paradise of unsupervised free play by children. (p. 136)

In the United States it is doubtful that our suburbs will go car-free any time soon, but Grescoe finds that those US cities that have retained some of their pre-World War II urban form, such as Portland, OR and Philadelphia, have blossomed in this dawn of the post-automobile era, creating public space and making it easier to get around without a car.

All this may seem overly optimistic, and, to be sure, Grescoe acknowledges the powerful lure of the car culture and the stranglehold our car-centered infrastructure has on our transportation choices, but he convincingly argues there are realistic, achievable alternatives to car-centered development.  We could expand light rail service and set aside dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit (BRT), making it convenient for more Americans to use transit.  Relatively small but significant changes in our streetscape would make our cities and suburbs more walkable and bikeable, providing people with more space and practical alternatives to the car.

At the same time, he notes that a successful transition to public transit can only happen if we subsidize transit (which, in many US cities must be self-supporting) rather than the automobile, as we currently do (by reducing the subsidization of roadways and parking, for example).

Nowhere is this shift to transit going to be more crucial or necessary than L.A., in some ways the poster child for the car culture.  The average driver in Los Angeles now spends an average of 72 hours a year sitting in traffic jams (up from 44 hours a year in 1982), and if the region continues to depend on the car, its air quality and traffic are only going to get worse as greater L.A.’s population increases by an expected 6.3 million residents in the next 30 years.  “Short of triple-decking the freeways . . . [L.A.’s] best hope lies in transit.” (61)  Fortunately, Grescoe sees exciting things happening with L.A.’s light rail expansion, and, I’d add, the emergence of its nascent urban bike culture.  Work still needs to be done to further expand rail, bus, and BRT lines in LA, but Grescoe reminds us that Southern California once had the best streetcar system in the world, and it has tremendous potential revive mass transit.

My own (admittedly limited) observations about transit in the US cities I’ve visited over the past 7-8 years, and my (more extensive) experience with transit in LA lead me to believe that Grescoe is correct in his contention that transit-oriented cities are preferable to those dominated by the automobile.  To an American who grew up using a car to go places, making the switch to public transit requires a shift in the way you travel.  It requires more preparation at first and requires you to adjust to the bus or train schedule, especially if it does not run as frequently as it should.  But, by and large, riding the bus or train is not an unpleasant experience and riding transit liberates you from the hassles and expense of driving and parking.  In fact, in many ways I feel freer on the bus than I do in a car, where I’m saddled with 2,500 lbs of steel to schlep around.  On the days I commute to work on the bus, I always arrive more refreshed than I do when I drive, and, while the commute takes longer on the bus, I’m able to check email, read, and work on the bus, so it’s not wasted time.  My main complaint with transit in LA is that the buses don’t run frequently enough, and that there aren’t more rapid buses with dedicated bus lanes on the freeways for commuters, and that there isn’t a more extensive light rail system.  That, however, is a political problem, not a problem with transit per se.

Grescoe makes a powerful case that urban transportation in the 21^st century will be measured by its ability to develop transit systems, not by the proliferation of automobiles and concrete wastelands designed for cars.  In the last analysis, Grescoe argues, we in the 21^st century must embrace rail transit as an efficient, green, and humane alternative to the 20^th century automobile system.  “Tracks,” he concludes, “stitch places together; freeways tear them apart.” (296)

Bike Lanes Needed (part 2)

In light of the City of Pasadena’s proposed new bike plan, here is the next in my series of articles on areas of Pasadena that need more protection for bicyclists.

Last month I posted a story calling for bike lanes on the northern approach to the Metro Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line station in Pasadena.  The area south of the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line station is, if anything, even more difficult for cyclists to navigate safely, with high speed traffic and very little room on the shoulder of the road.  Transportation planners often refer to the “last-mile” problem, that is, the problem of how to get people from a transit stop to that last mile to work or home.  Integrating bicycles with transit is an ideal solution, but if the routes around transit centers are not bicycle friendly, that integration cannot occur.  If bicycle infrastructure is properly integrated with mass transit, however, it enables many more people who live or work within a 2-mile radius of light rail stations to leave their cars at home.

As currently configured, the southern approaches to the Sierra Madre Villa Metro station cannot be considered bike-friendly, limiting its usefulness for bike commuters who live to the south of the station.  Moreover, the lack of bike lanes places many of the businesses and shops on nearby Colorado Blvd in east Pasadena out of reach for all but the most intrepid (or desperate) bicyclists.

Looking north on Sierra Madre Villa at entrance to Pasadena Gold Line station.

In the first photo, we see the Sierra Madre Villa entrance to the Metro station, looking north.  A cyclist approaching the entrance from the south (effectively the only direct approach, since the 210 freeway cuts off all other approaches from the south) must either ride in the street dangerously close to heavy traffic moving at 35-40 mph, or ride on the sidewalk.  A cyclist exiting the Metro station here and heading south on Sierra Madre Villa would also have to ride on the sidewalk to avoid crossing 4 lanes of traffic to get to the southbound side of Sierra Madre Villa.

Riding on the sidewalk is not illegal in Pasadena, but neither is it always safe.  First, drivers pulling in or out of driveways are not looking for cyclists on the sidewalk, creating a danger zone at every driveway.  Second, where the 210 freeway overpass crosses Sierra Madre Villa, there are freeway on- and off-ramps that cyclists must cross and, as with driveways, motorists are not looking for cyclists at these crossing points.  Third, intersections are particularly dangerous for cyclists riding the sidewalk, especially from cars making turns across the cyclist’s path.  In 2011, cyclist Alan Deane, was killed in Pasadena when he was riding in the crosswalk at an intersection on Colorado Blvd.  In such cases, cars making turns often do not look for cyclists riding from the sidewalk into the intersection, even though the cyclist may be riding legally.  Fourth, the sidewalks here are relatively narrow, especially under the freeway, and it forces pedestrians and cyclists to share a narrow strip of concrete, making it more dangerous for pedestrians.  Forcing bicyclists to use sidewalks is a poor substitute for bike-friendly infrastructure.

Bicyclists on Colorado Blvd near Pasadena’s Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line station are forced to ride in the danger zone between parked cars and heavy traffic or “take the lane.” All but the bravest retreat to the sidewalk.

In the second photo, we see the view of Colorado Blvd. looking east towards Sierra Madre Villa.  Here, cyclists who ride on the road, as is their legal right, would be pinched between fast-moving, heavy traffic and parked cars along the curb.  Cyclists who want to bike to work or shop along this stretch of Colorado Blvd. face a decision to brave the white-knuckle ride on the street or ride on the sidewalk.  Needless to say, most choose the sidewalk.

Under the city’s proposed bike plan, neither Sierra Madre Villa nor Colorado Blvd. are slated for any bikeway upgrades, without which bicycle access to the Gold Line station from the south will remain problematic.  As a result, bicycle ridership in that part of Pasadena most likely will not increase from its current anemic levels, and transit ridership will not grow as much as it otherwise could.  Colorado Blvd. is wide enough for bike lanes, but it would probably require the elimination of curbside automobile parking to open up space for bike lanes.  Doing so would be politically difficult, but would improve safety and provide much-needed bike access to a key commercial district and the key Metro station in east Pasadena.  When we decide that the safety of bicycle commuters is at least as important as a curbside spot for parked cars, then we will have made real progress.

Bikes on Buses

Taking your bike on the bus is a convenient way to extend the range of commuting options on public transit.

For the past year or so, I’ve been taking the bus to work, and I ride my bike to and from the bus stop and the El Monte bus station.  Combining a bike with the bus is a great way to extend the range of usefulness for commuters—something transportation wonks call “multimodal” commuting—combining two or more modes of commuting.  All Metro, Foothill Transit, and Orange County (OCTA) busses have racks on the front that hold up to two bikes.  They’re easy to use, and Metro has helpful guidelines for using these racks.

On the bus rack, your bike is held securely in place by a spring-loaded arm that clamps down on the bike’s front tire and keeps the bike secure.  The only downside to this design (and it’s a minor one) is that it may not be compatible with a bike’s front cargo rack, such as a porteur rack, or a randonneuring rack, that extends over the top of the front wheel; and if you have a plastic front fender on your bike, it might get bent or cracked by the spring arm.  Since I use fenders on my bike to keep my clothes from getting splashed on my commute, I had the front one trimmed by my bike shop so that it does not extend past the front fork, and, voila, I keep my front fender and secure my bike to the bus rack with no problem.  Because your bike tires sit in a tire slot on the rack, it doesn’t matter what kind of top tube you have, and there is no problem with having a rear rack or rear panniers on your bike.

Another potential issue is that the racks only hold two bikes, and on busier routes, you may be stuck waiting for the next bus if the rack is full.  This is something to consider, especially if you and a friend want to bike together to the bus.  Local bicycle advocates are currently lobbying MTA to install 3-bike racks on their busses, but it may take some time before this lobbying effort achieves results.  However, in the last two years, I’ve always been able to find space on the bus racks on my two bus routes to work (knock on wood), and I appreciate the ability to take my bike on the bus.  I can read, text, talk on the phone, or do work on the bus, and I don’t have to hassle with traffic, parking, or the wasted time behind the wheel.

The bus racks can’t accommodate outsized bikes such as tandems, recumbents, cargo bikes, or trikes, but will accommodate just about any standard two-wheeled bicycle.  The racks make it easy to take your bike on the bus, and, in my experience, the drivers are more than happy to wait while you mount or dismount your bike.

The bus-bike combo is a great way to extend your commuting options and leave your car at home.