Community water use and access: Greater Sacramento

An increasing number of places in the US need to be concerned about access to waterin terms of being able to accommodate current and future population.  Agricultural areas are also concerned about drought, which is a serious problem right now in California, home to the nation's largest agricultural production region.

The Sacramento Bee has an article, "How much water a community gulps varies across the Sacramento region," about water consumption in Greater Sacramento, which uses more water per capita compared to the state average, and drills down and presents the data for different communities.

Speaking of planning, from the article:

Though they share the same climate, Granite Bay residents use almost twice as much water per person as Sacramento residents, state data show. Woodland residents consume more per person than nearby Davis residents. Citrus Heights residents use less water than their neighbors in Orangevale.

The patterns were taken from water use management plans recently submitted to the state that reflect 10-year consumption averages, mostly between 1995 and 2005. They show that water consumption doesn’t just break down along familiar lines: coast vs. inland, north vs. south, water-rich vs. desert. Instead, travel a few miles within the Sacramento region and witness very different approaches to water use.

The patterns also reflect clear correlations: Cities with smaller home lots and smaller yards tend to consume less water per person than those with estates. Cities that long ago installed water meters and invested in programs encouraging water conservation tend to use less water than those that have taken a more passive approach.

The article goes on to discuss different practices by different communities, how denser residential housing patterns end up consuming less water per capita, incentive programs to spur the adoption of low water use appliances and toilets, etc.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/08/6220787/how-much-water-a-community-gulps.html#storylink=cpy

Economist Ed Glaeser follows my lead on suggesting double deck buses as a way to reposition transit use

Buses Line up on Oxford Street in London.  Flickr photo by DJ Fleer.

For many years, culminating in great detail in the 2012 entry "Making bus service sexy and more equitable," I have discussed how to reposition bus service in cities, starting with a conversion to double deck buses, which have been popularized as being cool and fun by their use in London and as seen in movies set in London (I seem to recall the original Mary Poppins movie involving some bus time?).

In the Boston Globe op-ed "Boston needs cooler buses," Ed Glaeser suggests the same thing.  From the article:

For better or worse, the obvious economic benefits of buses won’t win hearts and minds. We need tough medicine on the city streets that reduces stops and competing traffic. But we also need a heavy dose of design — some beauty in our buses. It isn’t free, but costs far less than building miles of rail.

Note that there is some use of double deck buses in US transit systems, but not in any of the major transit cities.

Also see the past blog entries:

-- Transit, stations, and placemaking: stations as entrypoints into neighborhoods
-- Arlington County's bus shelters and a public realm framework of quality
-- Illustration of government and design thinking: Boston's City Hall to Go Truck
-- All the talk of e-government, digital government, and open source government is really about employing the design method

Beyond matter of right: incentivizing preferred types of development

Building approvals are tied to a term, "matter of right," which is based on the zoning classification of the land.  If the project meets the basic requirements (such as a 2-3 story house in an area zoned for 2 to 3 story houses), it doesn't trigger extra-normal review and it can be approved administratively.

A few years ago I wrote a piece ("Land-Use Regulation and Fiscal Sustainability (in Montgomery County, Maryland)") in response to something written by economist and local suburban transit advocate Ben Ross ("Land-Use Regulation and Fiscal Sustainability") where he makes the point that our building regulation paradigm is wrong-footed in that it optimizes approvals of sub-optimal projects and makes it much harder to develop what would be the preferred type of building.

Walmart on Georgia Avenue NW in Washington, DC.  Under construction on November 25th, 2013.

This comes up in areas where the desire for certain types of development, especially multiple story vertical mixed use buildings, is ahead of the market's willingness to finance such development in those places.

Revitalizing areas are the classic example of places where you need "good development" but it is very hard to get it, especially at the earliest  stages when it can have extranormally positive impact.

The 5900 block of Georgia Avenue NW, where we now have a Walmart as a single use building covering close to 4-acres, is a good example of a location that would serve the city much better had it been developed as a multi-story mixed use building with apartments, but that wasn't easy to accomplish at the time that Walmart went to the property owners with an offer.

The Rise development in Vancouver.  Photographer unknown.

The developer wasn't really interested in pursuing anything difficult, so they were happy to take Walmart's offer.

A query on a list I'm on made me think about this again.

Here I am arguing that sometimes, the underutilization of property isn't derived from zoning restrictions but from financing and development practices that are out-of-step with urban market opportunities.

Streamlined approvals aren't much of an incentive.  One incentive especially bandied about by the New Urbanists in association with what are called Smart Codes, would be to make it easier to approve more difficult, but preferred projects, like mixed use development, and harder to approve single use projects in those places.

But streamlined approvals don't save a developer all that much money, and aren't enough to spur the investment of additional millions of dollars that otherwise isn't justified by a financial analysis of the proposal for a bigger, more complicated project.

How about a set of tax incentives and abatements that phase out over time?   In order to build something ahead of the market, a developer needs financing and/or other inducements (free land, etc.).

Perhaps something that would work would be a graduated structure of tax incentives and abatements that would work off over time.

Some cities do a form of this.  Philadelphia encourages construction of housing, especially the conversion of underused office and factory buildings but also new construction, and offers a tax abatement for the first 10 years that the building is used for residential purposes.  Baltimore has a similar kind of program ("Downtown developers in line for the new city tax break," Baltimore Brew).

Offer the best package of tax incentives for the locations and projects that do the most to spur change and additional private investment.  Instead of offering tax incentives on a first-come, first-served basis, without much in the way of criteria or focus, the best set of incentives should be targeted to those locations--anchor projects-- that are determined to have the most potential for spurring additional private investment because of they example of "quality" that they provide, which without the incentives, would not occur for many years, given the current investment climate and perceptions of the submarket.

On the H Street corridor, the redevelopment of the Children's Museum block is the kind of anchor project I mean.

This project didn't receive tax incentives but instead was awarded zoning bonuses, which allowed the construction of taller buildings.

At the time doing a project on the H Street corridor like that--converting a building to condominiums and constructing two high-quality apartment buildings on the block--was unprecedented.

The only similar buildings that had been constructed in the area were subsidized senior housing, which were great for the residents but had limited revitalization benefit to the rest of the corridor.

This project and the entry of that particular firm (Abdo Development) into the H Street real estate submarket repositioned how the H Street neighborhood was perceived by other developers, and in turn spurred the entry of other high quality developers and innovative projects (delayed of course, by the 2008 real estate crash).

One definite impact was immediate, on the next block east.  Whereas BP had proposed a 50,000 s.f. gas station, after many years of opposition and the evident change in the market, instead we now have a multiunit apartment building called 360 H Street (pictured above) with a grocery store on the ground floor.  Talk about a difference to the neighborhood, urban revitalization, and the local economy!

Another example is 501 H Street NE (pictured at right) which is a simple one-story building that was constructed in the 1970s in the place of buildings lost during the 1968 riots.  It's going to be demolished and built in its place will be a stunning (by comparison) building with retail and condominiums.

Only give tax abatements to quality projects.  Similarly, tax incentives should be directed to projects that are special rather than to projects that are ordinary and/or sub-optimal.  In DC, this isn't the way it works.

It's abetted by the fact that there isn't a single point of entry for tax abatement requests.  Instead such requests are channeled through the approval process by individual Councilmembers, as initiated by developer requests.  While there is a review process, it's inadequate.  The process is definitely unsystematic, which is probably intentional, as this makes tax incentive financing harder to track in toto.

Looking south at the intersection of Georgia and New Hampshire Avenues NW, Washington, DC.

A perfect example of this in DC is at the southwest corner of Georgia and New Hampshire Avenues NW, which would have been perfect for a multi-story mixed use building, but instead is a one-story building leased to CVS.

Immediately north and across New Hampshire Avenue lies a relatively new seven story apartment building, which like the Abdo Children's Museum project on H Street, has sparked new and positive development within a few blocks of the site.

The CVS building is owned by a real estate investment trust that specializes in drug stores and received tax incentives from DC for its construction.

You can argue that because this project was an early example of new (chain) retail in that submarket that it was deserving of tax breaks.  Or you can say a higher bar should have been set because of the under-utilization of the site, especially because it is located at one of the most prominent intersections on the corridor.

I would argue that tax incentives should have been provided only if the building would have been multi-story vertical mixed use.

Having a single integrated tax abatement request and approval process would make this more possible and likely instead of the chaotic unfocused system that currently exists.

Tax crappy projects and buildings more highly, to capture the unrealized opportunity represented by minimal development.  Another problem with getting "better projects" is how the financing and ownership regime works for chain retail.

Rendering for a new building at 501 H Street NE, Washington, DC.

Real estate investment trusts are financing and ownership vehicles that develop and/or own and manage properties in multiple locations.  Most of these companies prefer simple investments.

Simple investments do not mean multiple story vertical mixed use, they mean a single use project, something like a fast food restaurant or a pharmacy, etc., on a site that is capable of being developed more intensely.

The above-mentioned CVS store at the southwest corner of Georgia and New Hampshire Avenues NW illustrates this point as well.  As mentioned, the building is owned by a REIT that specializes in drug stores.  Across the street is a seven story apartment building, built above the Metrorail station.

Perhaps one way to get a better building is to set up the tax regime so that better buildings are taxed lower and projects that contribute less are taxed higher.  This idea is a derivation of property tax proposals by Henry George, which focused more on the value of land and less on the value of the building, to encourage positive development.

-- Assessing the Theory and Practice of Land Value Taxation, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

The economic justification, especially in DC which also collects 100% of the "state" income tax, is that mixed use development generates more total revenue to the city than single use projects.  See the past blog entry "Further thoughts on rethinking comprehensive plan theory in terms of city planning and public finance ."

Note that taxing property on the opportunity value is done all the time with land that can be developed as something else, such as farmland being taxed as if it can be housing ("Bill to lower taxes on agricultural land stalls," Kearney Hub).

While I don't usually recommend it, sometimes raising property taxes is done to "run people off their land."  For example, once the area now called Union Market went into play, the city re-appraised much of the property in the district in terms of its opportunity value and taxes tripled.  I would argue that was a punitive measure designed to displace the then tenants, who were mostly small businesses owned by immigrants.

Rather than being capricious or punitive, instead, I propose this be done systematically to encourage better development in the places where you are working to achieve it.  Definitely two examples of where to do this would be the single use Walmart at the 5900 block of Georgia Avenue NW as well as the CVS at New Hampshire and Georgia Avenues.

Note that Matt Yglesias has a piece in Slate, "Land Value Tax Won't Fix San Francisco," that isn't directly related to this argument.  He attributes the loss in development capacity to zoning restrictions and suggests that's where attention should be brought.

DC preservation protest this Saturday and Sunday

This event relates to an issue I've written about before ("Without remedies there's nothing you can do: historic preservation in Chicago and DC") which has to do with the lack of preservation protections in the city outside of areas designated as historic. While DC has many designated historic districts and tends of thousands of buildings are protected, as many as 100,000 buildings that are eligible for designation are not located within designated neighborhoods and therefore have no protection at all.

I wish there had been more notice about the protest.

The house discussed below is pictured on the right and is identical in form to its next door neighbor.  Photo by Mary Rowse.

From the Historic Washington e-list:

Dear fellow preservationists -

The time has come to protest the possible demolition of 3823 Morrison Street, NW in the heart of Chevy Chase DC this Saturday and Sunday from 11 - 3 pm. The property sits half a block from Connecticut Avenue, NW. You may have read that developer Robert Holman purchased the house in November 2013 for $825,000 and wants to tear it down. (See front page story: "Chevy Chase Neighbors Battle Raze Plan").

Various potential buyers have contacted him over and over again and he tries to dissuade each one from buying it. He appears to be unwilling to let buyers who want to save the property inside to evaluate it for themselves. From the outside the house appears to be structurally sound although there are some cracks in the pebble dash exterior.

Please come out Saturday and/or Sunday, March 8 and 9, to stand with members of the community who want to send a message to the developer that throwing a 100-year-old house away is not a sensible solution when it can be restored and put back into productive use.

We have tremendous power as a group of concerned citizens to change the outcome of this story if we protest together in front of the house and down the street at Connecticut Avenue and Morrison Street, NW.

Please meet on the sidewalk in front of the house this Saturday and Sunday, March 8 and 9 from 11 - 3 pm to send a message that we value the neighborhood's architectural resources and the house at 3823 Morrison is emblematic of the dignity and integrity old buildings bring to the Chevy Chase, DC neighborhood and every neighborhood in the city.

Weather will be in the 50's. Bring signs or we can provide them. They could say : "Save 3823 Morrison St", Don't Tear this house down", "Protect Chevy Chase, DC", "Don't Demolish, Restore", "Let buyers inside 3823 Morrison St.", "Demolishing is Environmentally Destructive", etc.

Property owner and developer Robert Holman continues to rebuff those interested in buying the house. It appears he has cut the sewer and electric lines but may have have left the gas and water lines connected. Nearly 100 people have signed a letter asking him not to tear down the house. Various win-win solutions have been suggested.

We must demonstrate to all that this community wants to protect its architectural heritage from developers who seek to maximize the size of buildings on lots. The house at 3823 Morrison Street, NW was built 100 years ago on a 6,300 square foot lot. Developer Robert Holman wants to bulldoze the nearly 3,000 square foot house and build a 5,500 square foot one in its place. He will increase the size and density of what's already there by undoubtedly bringing the new house closer to the front and side yard boundaries. He has written: "The only way to add square footage is in front and the side yard."

Please let us know if you'll be there Saturday and/or Sunday, March 8 and 9 between 11 and 3 pm.

This venerable home has been a fixture in the Chevy Chase, DC community for 100 years and is a defining element in the century-old neighborhood. Bulldozing the house and putting it in a landfill will be environmentally destructive and wasteful. This six-bedroom, three-story house contains highly prized and reusable materials such as 100-year-old bricks and heavy, dense "old-growth" wood.

While it clearly needs repair, 3823 Morrison, and its adjacent twin at 3825 Morrison, represent the kind of architectural gems Chevy Chase, DC is known for and that buyers eagerly seek to purchase. This substantial home deserves to be restored, not torn down and thrown away. Some people look at its neglected appearance and see a “teardown.” But teardowns can be very destructive to a neighborhood when older homes that were compatible with their surroundings are replaced with dramatically larger, out-of-scale structures that project closer to the street and to neighboring properties. Replacing such a prominent house in Chevy Chase, DC with something even larger, will be jarring and will forever alter the character and rhythm of this block.

We must take action immediately to protect what we value today or it will be lost tomorrow. Stable, established, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, DC are under pressure because they are highly desirable to developers. The infrastructure they need is already in place—sidewalks, tree-lined streets, alleys, transportation systems, stores, schools, libraries, parks and interesting and diverse architecture with porches and uniform setbacks. It is far more advantageous for developers to tie into an older community like this one than to start from scratch somewhere less developed. New construction in a community can be desirable. But not if it significantly alters the environment residents value.

Come out for Chevy Chase DC Saturday and Sunday, 11 - 3 pm at 3823 Morrison Street, NW. Together we will make a difference.

Mary Rowse
202-362-9279
202-329-0095

"Chicagoland": special 8-part series on CNN debuts tonight at 10pm (EST)

============
Update:  Very good piece, "Welcome to Chicagoland," by Urbanophile on the issues raised by the show, in terms of it being scripted and showing a particular "reality" that leaves a lot out, attention on the mayor and the city, and the issues faced by the city being somewhat resistant to the star power of any one person, no matter how politically gifted they may be.
===========

On the city under Mayor Emanuel.  Crime, closing schools, economy, public finance, pension crisis, etc.

-- "Rahm Emanuel: Mayor America," Financial Times
-- Chicago Tribune review
-- CNN "Chicagoland" website

An example of differentiating policy in practical ways: crude oil by railroad

In terms of the reality that "one size doesn't fit all" in planning, here is an example of how to plan and apply policy differentially, depending on particular sets of needs.

Cities and residents in cities are very concerned about transportation of chemicals on railroad systems that travel through cities or to urban ports, because spills and accidents can be incredibly dangerous ("Seattle joins debate about limiting oil-by-rail," Seattle Times), as was proven in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, where 47 people died when a train carrying crude oil derailed and touched off an inferno that incinerated portions of the town ("The deadly secret behind the Lac-Mégantic inferno," special report, Toronto Globe and Mail).

While there has been resistance in some sectors of the industry to safety changes to railcars transporting chemicals ("A lot at stake in tank-car design discussions," Progressive Railroading) such as crude oil because of the cost, it turns out that it would be "relatively easy" to create a differentiated policy for the specific requirements of railcars for crude oil and chemical transportation, by focusing higher requirements on more risky items, as measured by the  volatility of the chemicals being shipped.

It turns out that Bakken crude oil is significantly more volatile than other types of crude oil.  See "Bakken Shale Oil Carries High Combustion Risk" from the Wall Street Journal.  From the article:

The Journal analyzed data that had been collected by the Capline Pipeline in Louisiana, which tested crude from 86 locations world-wide for what is known as vapor pressure. Light, sweet oil from the Bakken Shale had a far higher vapor pressure—making it much more likely to throw off combustible gases—than crude from dozens of other locations.

Neither federal law nor industry guidelines require that crude be tested for vapor pressure. ... According to the data, oil from North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas had vapor-pressure readings of over 8 pounds per square inch, although Bakken readings reached as high as 9.7 PSI. U.S. refiner Tesoro Corp., a major transporter of Bakken crude to the West Coast, said it regularly has received oil from North Dakota with even more volatile pressure readings—up to 12 PSI.

By comparison, Louisiana Light Sweet from the Gulf of Mexico, had vapor pressure of 3.33 PSI, according to the Capline data.

Note that Canadian regulators have made a similar determination with regard to the tragic incident in Quebec ("Canadian Regulators Say Oil in Train Accident Was as Volatile as Gasoline," WSJ).

The solution is to require higher transport safety requirements according to the volatility of the product as determined by the vapor pressure content.

What should a US national bike strategy plan look like?

I pissed off some people a couple days ago when I commented that three presenters (from Ontario, UK and Australia) providing guidance to US stakeholders about creating a national bike strategy didn't have much to offer us.

So I have been thinking about what should be included in the introductory components to a US national bike strategy plan.

Sure, some of these places have  more bike commuters than we do nationally, but the US is a lot more suburban and gasoline is taxed much less, which makes a huge difference, which was captured in an article by John Pucher, "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies" from Transport Policy journal:

In spite of their colder climate, Canadians cycle about three times more than Americans. The main reasons for this difference are Canada’s higher urban densities and mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, higher costs of owning, driving and parking a car, safer cycling conditions, and more extensive cycling infrastructure and training programs. Most of these factors result from differences between Canada and the United States in their transport and land-use policies, and not from intrinsic differences in history, culture or resource availability.

It should be no surprise that the US and the UK (e.g., "Britons unmoved by pro-cycling campaigns: Most regard bicycles not as legitimate form of transport but as children's toys or preserve of hobbyists, research finds," Guardian), given the prevalence of the "vehicular cycling" concept, have significantly fewer people cycling for transportation compared to countries where sustainable mobility is actively promoted.

That doesn't mean we can't learn from those places.

For example, Victoria State in Australia is where transportation demand management practices were pioneered.

The UK has a number of great sustainable transportation organizations and best practice initiatives (you can buy a bike through payroll deduction there, the cycle demonstration towns project was pathbreaking but junked once the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition took power ["Not just eco-towns in the UK, but cycle towns too," Evaluation of the Cycling City and Towns Programme: Qualitative Research with Residents], London Cyclist Campaign does amazing things etc.).

Ontario's Share the Road organization has developed strong relationships with the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Automobile Association ("The Share the Road bicycling promotion organization of Ontario") which seems out of the question in the US, where regional chapters are stronger and significantly more pro-auto.

Still, like the point I made about sustainability planning in DC ("Realizing all aspects of Sustainable DC") if you want to be the best, you look to the places that are acting at the forefront of best practice, rather than focusing on those places that lag best practice.  The points I made in that post are relevant to increasing biking as transportation at the national scale:

1.  Setting up differentiated programs more attuned to spatial and density variances across the city's neighborhoods, wards, and commercial districts.

2.  Change how DC Government benchmarks its policies and regulations against the nation's leading cities with the aim of adopting best and leading practices, rather than being content with making changes that still lag best practice.

3.  Think bigger and more creatively -- if you want to be #1 in the U.S. you have to be truly innovative.

4.  Setting up realizable solutions [...].  

Besides certain best practice communities in the US (e.g., Portland, Minneapolis, etc.), that means we need to look to:

-- Quebec ("Is Montreal the number one city for bicycling in North America" and "An interesting element for state-level bike and tourism planning" and the Quebec Transport report, Making cycling a mode of transportation in its own right)

-- British Columbia (regional bike planning in Vancouver is better than any US city)

-- nations like the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany (2020 Plan, Joining forces to evolve cycling, 2002-2012 plan, Ride your bike! Measures to Promote Cycling in Germany); "Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany," Transport Reviews)

-- and Switzerland (but I don't read German, Italian, or French all that well and they don't publish their work in English, except for this, On Track to the Future: Sustainable Transportation--A Challenge for the 21st Century, and a presentation I saw a few years ago).

Bicycle Traffic as a system, diagram, German National Bicycle Plan, 2002-2012.

How I would structure the organizing principles for such a plan:

1.  Urban Form and how it shapes transportation choices.  Include section discussing urban form based on the concepts of Peter Muller (Walking City, Transit City, Recreational Auto Era, Metropolitan City) and how it shapes transportation choices, how we got to where we are today, etc.

2.  Transportation Physics and Mobility Throughput.  This is pretty basic, that you can move more people by walking or transit or biking in the same amount of space used by cars.  E.g.




Mobility efficiency diagram.  Central Washington Transportation and Civic Design Study, 1977.

3.  Other policies that shape mobility choices and current practice.  There was a great piece, "The Petro States of America," in Businessweek recently about how the US is a major petroleum production nation (that should be obvious) and how that shapes economic and other national policy in multiple ways that support oil production and consumption. 

 Sprawl--which militates against sustainable transportation--is intimately linked to oil production because of the necessity to stoke and maintain consumption.

4.  Bicycles as toys/bicycles for recreation vs. bicycling for transportation.  This is a major schism within the field.  Bike shops make a lot more money selling racing bikes than transportation oriented bikes.  E.g., bike shops make more money selling accessories like lights, which makes it difficult for them to support the inclusion of night lighting equipment into urban bikes as standard practice.

But at the same time, people focused on driving motor vehicles have a difficult time taking biking seriously.  On the other hand, there are cities like Portland, Minneapolis, Davis, and Montreal where bicycling as transportation is significantly ahead of the curve compared to other locales.

5. Creating social and behavioral change through structural-systemic change, social marketing and other processes.  Consider how this article, "Gentle Nudges Work to Get People Exercising" (Wall Street Journal) discusses the adoption of positive health behaviors as routine practices and apply it to sustainable transportation practices.

6.  Differentiating sustainable transportation policy and practice according to spatial form, specifically whether the predominate land form is urban, suburban, or rural.  My piece "Ideas for making bicycling irresistible in Washington DC" discusses this with regard to the urban setting, and the work I did in Baltimore County focuses on suburban oriented practices ("Best practice bicycle planning for suburban settings using the action planning method").

Focus where cycling uptake can occur in a substantive fashion.  Develop high visibility demonstration projects for each land form type, not unlike what was intended from the Cycle Towns project in England.

Land Use Contexts for Transportation Planning, from the Smart Transportation Guidebook



Figure on factors that support or constrain the choice of cycling as a mobility mode.  (From the report Evaluation of the Cycling City and Towns Programme: Qualitative Research with Residents.)

Some books to read:
On biking
-- City Cycling | The MIT Press
-- Design manual for bicycle traffic - CROW
-- One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility - Temple University
-- Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists Are Changing American Cities (OSU Press)
-- Reconsidering the Bicycle: An Anthropological Perspective on a New (Old) Thing (Routledge)
-- Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco | University of Massachusetts Press

 On how we got to where we're at in terms of mobility
-- "Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in the Spatial Evolution of the American Metropolis" Peter Muller (this is a book chapter)
-- Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City | The MIT Press
-- Getting There: The Epic Struggle between Road and Rail in the American Century
-- Mass Motorization and Mass Transit: An American History and Policy Analysis

Enrique Peñalosa is running for President of Colombia

Enrique Peñalosa is well-known in pro-urban circles for his efforts as Mayor of Bogotá, the national capital of Colombia, where his accomplishments included the implementation of the TransMilenio bus rapid transit system, which has more than 2 million daily riders, and various public space improvement efforts, including the Ciclovía, where certain streets on closed to automobile traffic on Sundays and they are used for a variety of pedestrian, cycling, and other activities.

Right:  Ciclovía in Bogotá.  Wikipedia photo.

 Since 2009, he has been president of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, which addresses sustainable transportation programming at the global scale.

I didn't realize it, but he is running for President of Colombi as a candidate of the Colombian Green Party. The election is on Sunday, March 9th.

It would be pretty amazing to have a nation's president be as committed to urban quality of life as is Enrique Peñalosa.

-- Campaign website

Decline in economic activity and congestion in Greater Washington

The report "Washington region's fabled traffic jams eased a little last year" (Washington Post) which reports that Inrix, a traffic data analysis firm, found a decline in traffic congestion in Greater Washington in 2013.

Using automobile data about freeways misrepresents the complete mobility picture.  It illustrates the point that I make frequently, that studies of congestion focus on freeways, and thus over-state the amount of "congestion" in urban areas with strong transit systems and a compact urban form with a mixed use land use paradigm. 

That is the case with the current report, according to the Post graphic accompanying the article, which lists 9 different freeway/parkway segments as among the 200 most congested roadways in the U.S.

DC is not Metropolitan Washington and has a significantly different transportation system than the freeway-dominated suburbs.  While there is a great deal of "congestion" in the suburbs, for people who do not rely on automobility, DC proper is not terribly congested, although there is no question that the roads serving primarily as commuterways in and out of the city are an exception.

Reports at the time didn't find a significant drop in automobile congestion during the shutdown.  However, the report stating that congestion in the greater metropolitan area was down in 2013 because of the government shutdown contradicts reporting at the time ("Federal workers off, traffic isn't," Post) which found that traffic didn't vary much, although there was a decrease.

A majority of people working downtown use transit.  It is suggested that this was the case because a majority of government workers use transit to get to work, automobile-based traffic wasn't significantly impacted.  I seem to recall that about 65% of the people working in "Downtown DC" use transit.

From the article:

Thousands of furloughed federal workers are free to sleep in again this week, but the perpetual nightmare of congested traffic continues to haunt the Washington region.

Traffic on the main roads in and around the District has dropped by 5 percent or less during the morning rush hour, according to traffic analysts. It’s held steady or bumped up slightly at midday, with the only real decline — between 10 and 30 percent — coming during the evening trip home. ...

“There’s just a whole lot of people working in this region who are not federal employees. They’re still out there,” he said. “And federal workers are disproportionately higher users of transit. A much smaller percentage of them drive than the region as a whole.”

Graphic depicting the Inrix traffic prediction model from the Gigaom article "Why better traffic data means more than just a faster commute."

Inrix only measures automobile activity, which skews what it reports.  One of the problems relying on a traffic-GPS system for cars on generalizing mobility within an area like Greater Washington is that it only measures automobility, so that its usefulness should be called into question because by definition it doesn't measure other modes.  From the first cited article:

Much has been written about a shift in the region’s urban dynamic, with people who once fled the city or who grew up in suburbia moving to the District. The population is up, but the number of households that own a car and the number of licensed drivers are not. More people are using public transit, rental cars and bicycles to get around town.

But that’s not unique to Washington, nor is it the primary reason that the region saw a decline in congestion.  “That’s what happens when D.C. shuts down for a month and government hiring slows with sequester,” said Jim Bak of Inrix.

Reduced economic activity does lead to reduced automobile use and reductions in congestion.  In any case, it is a good point that a decline in federal economic activity will impact automobile use and rush period traffic, contributing to congestion reduction.

An arena subsidy project I'd probably favor: Sacramento

Spending on sports is a substitute for other forms of entertainment, not additive.  Most of the research on the economic impact of professional sports is pretty clear that the actual spending merely substitutes for other spending on entertainment.  This means if you don't have a sports team event to go watch, you spend roughly the same amount of money on movies or concerts or plays and other media, so that at the scale of a metropolitan area, the spending is about the same with or without a sports team.

DC United soccer team rendering of proposed stadium at Buzzard Point.

BUT there are some subtle issues involved when making decisions about public subsidy for sports facilities.  This is relevant to most every city being asked for money.

For example, in DC now there is a deal brewing to provide support for a new soccer stadium (see "Here are 8 ways DC can get the most out of a new soccer stadium" via GGW for an argument about why the deal being developed doesn't make sense) and even more insane crazy machinations by City Councilmembers for a study about building a super-duper football stadium and entertainment complex to bring the Washington Redskins football team back to the city ("Jack Evans: RFK site ideal for Redskins stadium," Post, "The 5 Strangest Parts of Vincent Orange's RFK Stadium Plan," Washington City Paper).

Next City has an article about this problem more generally, riffing off a $450 million deal for the Detroit Red Wings hockey team

But there is no question that certain types of facilities have better results than others.

It may be worth considering providing public subsidies if the stadiums/arenas are key elements in helping to reshape communities in ways in which transportation and land use projects are intertwined and supports simultaneously the creation of mixed use districts and the attraction of new residents and new commercial activity to the center city versus the suburbs.

If it does that then it is worth considering.  If it doesn't, it's not.

The difference in opinion concerns how much is it worth spending to do so and whether or not to do it, especially given the zero sum game of available funds at the local level and the loss of ability to fund other projects, and the reality that most of the benefits confer to upper income segments.

Some people argue yes, always, give sports teams the money, while others argue no, almost always.

What are the characteristics of sports facility subsidy projects that may be revenue positive for a community?  Where I think we need to focus is on identifying the characteristics--positively or negatively--that shape the success of sports facilities in terms of community economically supportive impact, rather than merely reflexively oppose or support public subsidy of such facilities categorically.

Support what makes sense economically.  Oppose what doesn't make sense.  Have arguments for why particular ways for siting and building facilities matters.

It's hard to measure accurately ancillary real estate development spurred by the presence of a sports facility.   The reason I have argued pretty vociferously about the broader economic impact of baseball and basketball-hockey facilities in DC is because much of the adjacent development proximate to those buildings would have happened anyway, and so it is misleading to argue that the sports team gets all the credit.

BUT, I have come around on the idea that sports teams based in cities attract suburban visitation, and depending on whether or not other things are going well for the city, they can be a kind of recruitment and marketing effort that makes a difference in city branding and positioning in the context of the metropolitan economy.

And when much of the traffic generated by such a facility going to and from games is captured by transit, this minimizes significantly potential negative effects also, increasingly the value.  In-city locations are likely to have better transit connections than suburban locations.

Teams located in cities can help cities rebalance spending vis-a-vis the suburbs--even if at the metropolitan scale spending stays the same.  Depending on the nature of the taxation regime, spending at a stadium-arena absorbs spending from somewhere else.  A facility in the city generates revenues that might have otherwise been spent in the suburbs.  This kind of effect isn't picked up when looking at data at the metropolitan scale.

Depending on urban design and other considerations, center city arenas and stadiums can anchor new real estate and retail activity.  In a metropolitan area, when teams are often based in center cities, and center cities typically have lost out to the suburbs overall in terms of commerce and residential, center city-based teams can attract new economic activity to the city, as part of the reproduction of the city as an entertainment and tourism center and less focused on production.

Characteristics that support successful ancillary development associated with professional sports facilities: 

• isolation or connection: how well is the facility integrated into the urban fabric beyond the stadium site and does it leverage, build upon, and extend the location and the community around it;
• size of the facility (baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer), bigger stadiums--football stadiums specifically--are harder to integrate in the urban fabric;
• frequency of events held by the primary tenant--baseball has 82 home games/year, football about 10 including pre-season, basketball and hockey have 41, soccer about 17--so football stadiums are very rarely used (according to the Chicago Sun-Times article "Emanuel mulling 5,000-seat expansion to Soldier Field," the facility holds about 22 events including annually, 12 non-football events);
• how many teams use the facility, maximizing use and utility of the building--for example, Verizon Center in DC is used by professional men's and women's basketball, hockey, and one college basketball team for more than 100 sports events each year;
• are events scheduled in a manner that facilitates attendee patronage of off-site businesses--a business isn't an anchor if it aims to not share its customers; the earlier events are scheduled, the harder it is to patronize retailers and restaurants located off-site, at night during the week, there is limited post-game spending as well, on the weekends it's a different story with more opportunity to patronize off-site establishments--teams manipulate scheduling to reduce spending outside of their on-site and 100% controlled facilities;
• use of the facility for non-game events drawing additional patrons--such as concerts and other types of programming; and
• how people travel to events: automobiles vs. transit--if automobiles are the primary way people get to events, then large amounts of parking usually in surface lots needs to be provided, making it difficult to foster ancillary development because of lack of land and poor quality of the visual environment, whereas if transit is the primary mode, then more land around a facility can be developed in ways that leverage the proximity of the arena. 

Past entries that complement this listing include "Stadiums and economic effects," "Sports stadiums (and arenas) and local economic development and a DC soccer stadium," and "Stadiums and arenas as the enabling infrastructure for "money-making" platforms ."

In DC, the old RFK Stadium, surrounded by parking lots, never was an economic powerhouse, while the Verizon Center is integrated into downtown and sits on top of three subway lines.

Similarly, in Chicago, New Comiskey Park was specifically designed to disconnect from the surrounding neighborhood and to eliminate businesses that competed with the stadium for attendee expenditures on food, drink and momentos, while Wrigley Field is integrated into its commercial area and the differentiated impact from these choices is glaringly obvious as the neighborhood by Comiskey Park remains forlorn, while Wrigleyville-Lincoln Park is successful.

The Meadowlands football stadium is isolated with limited spillover economic benefit, while Madison Square Garden is in the heart of the city and event attendees are shared with businesses around the arena ('Local Businesses Pay for NHL Lockout," Fox Business).

Transit usage is key.  One way to minimize negative traffic effects is to locate stadiums-arenas proximate to high capacity transit, subway and railroads preferably.

Patrons can be induced to use transit, by reducing available parking and charging high prices for it.  This reduces two of the biggest negative effects of sports arenas and stadiums-- automobile traffic and the obscene amounts of land dedicated to parking.  Both make it hard to spur adjacent development.

For DC proper, when baseball, hockey and basketball games occur, there can be congestion on transit--especially for baseball, which is only served by one subway line, while the Verizon Center has all five lines within 4 blocks, including 3 right at the arena--but not so much on the roads.

But because the professional football team's stadium isn't well-located on the transit system, when there are football games, especially night games that intersect with rush hour, there is terrible road congestion on freeways and arterials.

Note the freeways and parking lots around Atlanta's football and baseball stadiums.

But it's not merely having transit availability, transit has to already have a presence and a willingness to be used, and have high capacity, in order for transit connections to make a difference in terms of mitigating negative impacts from such facilities.

Difficulties finding data on transit use associated with sports event attendance.  I've had a difficult time finding good data on transit ridership associated with facilities proximate to high speed transit with two exceptions.

The Chicago Cubs commissioned a study, Wrigley Field Game Day Traffic and Parking Management Plan, which found that 40% of event-goers rode the Elevated, but minimal bus use.

Another example is how the Long Island Railroad has experienced ridership gains of 400% or more, for events held at Barclays Arena in Brooklyn ("LIRR: Ridership boost from Barclays events," Newsday).  Transit officials argue that subway ridership has increased also, but haven't provided figures, because it is hard to track significant spikes in subway ridership, which is already high.  From the article:

LIRR ridership has surged an average of 334 percent on event nights at Barclays, pushing the transit system's 2012 ridership numbers slightly ahead of the previous year's, according to railroad officials.

While it would seem like data would be more widely available for Madison Square Garden in Manhattan, because the location is so well-connected to subways and suburban railroad service, and because of high usage anyway, it's difficult to sort out spikes associated with sports events and MSG doesn't have data on how attendees get to the facility.

Similarly, I haven't been able to track down data on DC's Verizon Center and transit use, from either the owner of the facility or WMATA.

Bus or limited light rail connections aren't as good as high-capacity transit options--in recent years, transit systems in Seattle, Dallas, and New Jersey ("'Mass-Transit Super Bowl' Hits Some Rough Patches in Moving Fans," New York Times) have failed miserably in providing service to special sporting events that exceeded the capability of their systems to absorb extra-normal crowds.  (Although this isn't a problem unique to the US.  See "World Cup: Transport system lets down fans" from the New Zealand Herald.)

-- Transportation Planning for Planned Special Events, Federal Highway Administration

The new North Shore Connector in Pittsburgh provides light rail connections to the city's baseball and football stadiums.

Special marketing promotions involving transit use.  Some transit authorities or teams promote transit use for patrons.  In DC, the Verizon Center has a contract with WMATA to pay for service for patrons if games end after normal operating hours for Metrorail.  Unfortunately, the Washington Nationals baseball team refuses to sign a similar kind of  contract.  (Such participation should have been required as part of the lease agreement for the stadium, which was built and is owned by the city.)

In Pittsburgh, a light rail extension to serve Northside and its stadiums and a casino provides free transit service, paid for in part by the Pittsburgh Steelers football team and the Pittsburgh Stadium Authority.  See "Trips on North Shore T will be free" from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And Metrolink, the Southern California passenger railroad system, has a variety of programs focused on promoting use of their service to get to professional sports events.  See "Incentives vs. requirements: stadiums/arenas and transportation demand management."

The need to improve transit wayfinding for game-day riders.  Since many event-goers are unfamiliar with transit, to fully leverage transit usage and to limit station congestion and other problems, improvements in wayfinding are often necessary.  See "How to improve CTA traffic flow to Wrigley Field for Cubs games" from Chicago Now as an example.

Suburban benefit from stadium-arena presence seems negligible.  For some reason, it doesn't appear as if locating arenas and stadiums in suburbs has the same positive effect on ancillary economic development.

This is definitely the case in the Detroit area for the suburban basketball arena and the since demolished Pontiac Silverdome, once home to the Detroit Lions football team.

I would argue this is the case in the DC suburbs, where neither the now demolished Cap Centre nor the extant FedEx football stadium have provided much additional economic development to the areas around those facilities.

The same goes for the Meadowlands football stadium in New Jersey, the hockey arena for the New York Islanders in Nassau County, etc.

Left: Sacramento Bee graphic on proposed siting of a new basketball arena in Downtown Sacramento.


A new arena for the Sacramento Kings: can it reposition their Downtown?  Even though some residents are calling for a referendum on whether or not to subsidize a new arena that is being proposed for the Sacramento Kings basketball team, which narrowly missed being moved to Seattle ("No ruling yet in STOP arena lawsuit," Sacramento Bee), the reason that I think it could be worth it for the City of Sacramento to spend heavily on a new arena for the Sacramento Kings basketball team is that it will help to recenter economic development on the city away from the suburbs, when much of the commercial and residential activity has already moved to the suburbs ("Kings’ arena is the only real plan to revitalize downtown Sacramento," Bee).

-- Arena coverage webpage, Sacramento Bee

It took me a long time to concede a similar process with regard to the Verizon Center's impact on Downtown Washington, partly because as developed in the western and center parts of Downtown maxed out a movement east was preordained, but even so there is no question that the building and its activity has contributed positively (it helps that Georgetown U plays its basketball games there too, which is an added benefit) by making a part of Downtown particularly active and populated in the evening and weekend hours, when much of Downtown--especially those districts that are primarily office--are seemingly empty and somewhat forlorn.

When the basketball and hockey teams moved to the city from Suburban Maryland it was a bold step because at the time Washington, DC had real problems economically (the city was in bankruptcy), politically, and in terms of public safety.

Sacramento needs that kind of economic jumpstart. 

The SF Giants baseball stadium is well integrated into the urban fabric and many event-goers get there by transit.  Photo by Mike Kepika of the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Repositioning the value of transit in Sacramento.  As importantly, by locating the arena to take advantage of the metropolitan area's light rail system (38.6-miles of track, three lines, and 48 stations) which isn't heavily used now (just under 50,000 riders daily), the metropolitan transit system could get a significant boost in sampling--use during games--and increases in ridership at other times, because of the better linking of high-demand destinations to the existing system footprint.

Interestingly, the transit authority has suggested that a mandatory 50 cent surcharge be added to tickets, to contribute to increased transit service and public safety.  And in return they would provide free transit to ticket holders, which they estimate would be used by 10% to 20% of patrons.  That's not that high compared to the well connected stadiums and arenas in San Francisco, DC, New York City, Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia maybe, but it is a start.

-- "Light-rail officials: Trains could be key route to downtown arena," Bee
-- "Kings expected to pay $500,000 to support streetcar line," Bee

Note that UTA in Utah treats a University of Utah sports event ticket as a game day all-day transit pass ("Use Your University of Utah Game Day Ticket as Transit Fare") and in Blacksburg, Virginia the transit system charges a $5 flat rate fare for buses on Virginia Tech football game days for three hours before the game and one hour into the game, but after that, transit is free until 90 minutes after the game.

Conclusion.  Rather than being reflexively for or against public subsidy of sports teams and their facilities, it's important to dispassionately analyze why certain facilities are successful at sparking additional development while most are not. 

Factors include whether or not the facility is connected or isolated from the community outside the facility, its size, how many events are held there, whether or not people are discouraged from spending time and money off-premise, and whether people drive or use transit to get there.

As an example, reshaping and repositioning Downtown Sacramento as a place to visit, shop, and live is valuable economically.  Is a publicly subsidized arena better integrated into the Downtown fabric the right way to spur revitalization energy and attention on Sacramento, both in the core and elsewhere?  Maybe the arena + the related proposals for retail and other development is the way to bring about revitalization after more than 30 years of fits and starts, even though it comes at a significant cost.

These are tough questions to answer, but it is easier to do so when an independent and robust evaluative framework is used, rather than relying on the attestations of teams and public officials who are enamored with them.  The following characteristics are the start of such a framework:

• isolation or connection of the facility to the urban fabric beyond the stadium site;
• size of the facility and its ability to be integrated into the urban fabric;
• frequency of events held by the primary tenant;
• the number of teams using the facility, maximizing use and utility of the building;
• whether or not events are scheduled in a manner that facilitates attendee patronage of off-site businesses;
• use of the facility for non-game events drawing additional patrons;
• how people travel to events: automobiles vs. transit. 

Equity as the sixth "E" in bike and pedestrian planning

Bicycle and pedestrian planning is shaped by what is referred to as the "5 'E's" of engineering (facilities), education, encouragement (programming), enforcement, and evaluation (really planning).

I have suggested that the next generation of improvements in bike and pedestrian planning need to more systematically deal with:

(1) a systematic consideration of bicycling needs by demographic--whereas now most bike plans cater to white men, who make up a majority of the riders, abetted by the fact that most plans just do quota sampling--put up a survey and use the results as proffered without addressing under-representation in certain demographic groups;

(2) integrating programming (encouragement) within programs, rather than just focusing mostly on building infrastructure;

(3) taking bike and pedestrian planning down to the next level from city- or county-wide planning to the district/sector and neighborhood scales.

One of the presentations at the National Bike Summit yesterday in the panel on the "Metro Urban Cyclist" was by Nicole Freedman, director of BostonBikes, the branded bicycle program of the City of Boston.

She addressed "Equity"--they have a bunch of great programs including reconditioning bikes and providing them to low-income residents and providing a subsidized membership for their bike sharing system for low-income residents also.

They structure this in terms of defining Equity as the "sixth 'E'" of bike (and pedestrian) planning.

I would argue this is extendable to planning more generally and it is a simple and powerful expression and definition and way to address my point about the necessity of integrating systematic demographic analytical approaches into next generation bike planning.

Just make Equity the "sixth 'E'."

It'simple and effective, in that it allows us to define equity in terms of serving all potential demographics by:

- gender
- age
- race and ethnicity
- income/class
- household type.

That enables (and admonishes) us to address everybody--men and women, young and old, families, rich and poor, by race and ethnicity.

This helps me to better express my concern that while special programs focusing on particular elements of the demographic spread are important (women, African-Americans, families, children, etc.), we must ensure that such initiatives are elements of a broader and complete demographic profile and set of programs. 

Typically a community may have one or more such programs--as advocacy or governmental issues--but not a full spectrum of programming.

One of the ways government regulations foster retail bigness

1.  The rough profit margin for a liquor store is 20% pre-tax.  So why in the world retailers in Washington State agreed to pay a license fee of 17% of gross revenue as part of the legislation-referendum to privatize liquor sales is beyond me.  Is it any wonder that many stores are closing?  See "Squeeze on liquor retailers spurs review of high license fee" from the Seattle Times.

From the article:

Previously, stores were run by the state or through independent contractors. All liquor retailers, including supermarkets and big-box stores, now have to pay a quarterly license-issuance fee equal to 17 percent of all their liquor sales, a provision in the initiative to bring more money back to state and local governments.  Many say the fee is too high and is driving them out of business.

After the industry was privatized, some contractors purchased their stores; other state-owned stores were sold to private business owners through online auctions.

Of the 167 stores purchased from the state, 116 still have licenses, according to the Washington State Liquor Control Board. The Washington Liquor Store Association estimates 60 percent of the former state liquor stores have closed in the past two years.

Only big box stores selling liquor without needing a dedicated sales staff can afford such a provision.

2. Similarly, George Mason University did a study that found that community banks, which are smaller and tend to make more loans to local small businesses, are being weighed down for having to meet the same regulatory reporting requirements of the largest banks.  See "GMU study says community banks need regulatory relief" from the Washington Business Journal.

One size fits all legislation preferences larger organizations at the expense of smaller businesses.

Recent snow and cancellation of bus service

I do find it surprising that Metrobus did not run today and that a goodly portion of Metrobus service will not be running at least at the start of the day tomorrow. There wasn't that much snow.

From "Agenda setting: snow clearance in the walking-biking-transit city":

1. The city needs to develop a plan for "maintenance of way" so that citizens can get to schools, libraries, transit stops, transit stations, and local commercial districts, despite snow conditions. This is especially necessary for the one mile radius areas around subway and train stations.

3. And the city needs to adopt specific policies and practices with regard to snow removal from bus stops as well as from bicycle trails that are also used for transportational purposes.

6. The city needs to prioritize snow removal on bus routes, so that even if the aboveground transit stations are closed, WMATA could still run, safely, bus service on most of the routes.

And WMATA needs to define a snow schedule for buses, based on the amount of snow (in inches).

Granted some routes, because of hills and other conditions, might not be able to run, but more routes should be running than these:

32 and 36 (Wisconsin Avenue), 52 and 54 (14th Street), 70 (Georgia Avenue), 90 and 92 (Florida Avenue/8th Street/Southeast), A6/A8 (Anacostia-Congress Heights-Downtown DC), S2 (16th Street), X2 (Benning Road/H Street).

The horrors of zoning: circa 1965

I like pawing through stacks of old Life, Look, Saturday Evening Post, Colliers, and similar old national magazines dating from the 1920s to the 1970s when I get a chance, for articles on urban and transportation issues, among others, plus the ads.  I came across this issue of Look Magazine recently, and bought it because a call out on the cover mentions zoning.

Given the trials and tribulations of zoning rewrites in DC, Montgomery County, Miami, and elsewhere, I thought it was somewhat ironic that almost 50 years later, things haven't changed.

Some people are calling for a moratorium on the zoning rewrite in DC, which has been going on now for seven years, because the planning director is moving on.  That's an excuse.  For a long time now, the rewrite process has been moving forward under the Development Review section of the agency and nothing has changed even though the planning director has.  (Rosalynn Hughey, longtime Deputy Director for neighborhood planning and revitalization, is serving as Interim Director.)

 

 

 

 

Intercity bus services are typically a gap in transportation planning

NotionsCapital reminded me of the recent coverage ("This Map Shows How To Get Anywhere You Want In America Without Taking A Plane," Fast Company) of the effort by Michael Buiting, operating as the "American Intercity Bus Riders Association," to create a map of the Continental United States showing most of the intercity bus line connections and how it intertwines with Amtrak (but not metropolitan railroad commuter systems), producing a map that shows "how to get around the US without taking a plan," and as importantly showing how to get around to small communities that lack airport or train service.

The map does look like an old style railroad map from 80-100 years ago, showing the various local passenger railroad services operating across the country.

Intercity buses are usually ignored by transportation planning.  While this map has been written up elsewhere already, it's important for us to take the opportunity to consider that inter-city bus service generally isn't actively addressed by transportation planning at national, multi-state, and regional scales, other than at the local level as a matter of regulation and siting.  

Local authorities address issues such as where the buses pick up and drop off passengers, charging fees for charter buses entering the city, making sure that they can be parked (DC DOT Tour Bus Parking webpage) in ways that don't create problems, vehicle safety, etc.--but generally don't take up  transit access and system issues.

I made that mistake too in my discussion of transportation planning here, "Second iteration, idealized national network for high speed rail passenger service,"where a commenter pointed out I left off intercity bus services.

The map also motivates me to separate out and add to the right sidebar a dedicated section of "Dr. Transit's Intercity Bus Links."

Station and stop accommodations are often substandard.  I have been meaning to write about this because last year the Post travel section had an important article, "The Navigator: Greyhound, leaving passengers out in the cold," about the dearth of standards for "station and stop accommodations" for intercity bus services.  From the article:

Singh’s experience offers a glimpse into a corner of the travel industry that receives practically no coverage or concern from the travel media: the conditions faced by hundreds of thousands of people who travel by bus.

After Singh’s motorcoach, which originated in Minneapolis, left them at the station, the passengers huddled together outside the closed building. Singh opened his luggage and added layer upon layer of clothes in an effort to keep warm. ...

“Greyhound terminals and agencies are open when buses are scheduled to arrive or depart,” she said, adding, “We will work with the interline carriers to help ensure that their hours are consistent with the scheduled arrivals and departures.”

Singh has been waiting a while to hear that. In February, he launched a petition on Change.org asking Greyhound to keep its terminals open, and this policy shift seems to address the loophole. It’s one that has existed for a while now, and it’s one that I should have exposed years ago.

This is exacerbated by the fact that most of the new intercity bus services don't use stations but provide service at the curb, and this can be very chaotic.

Megabus bus stop with sign, New York City. A Megabus boarding site on 34th Street in Manhattan. It serves 90 cities, compared with 40 two years ago. Ruby Washington/The New York Times.

Curbside bus services and rising demand for intercity bus service.  While Greyhound and Trailways have been operating as national intercity bus systems for many decades, those systems have tended in recent years to focus on transporting lower income passengers as higher income long haul passengers take planes.

The rebirth of intercity bus service serving different demographics was a response to the so-called "Chinatown" bus services, which originally were created to bus Chinese restaurant workers between Chinatowns (such as between Philadelphia, New York, Washington, and Boston) and casinos.   Non-Chinese started riding the buses as well and ridership grew considerably ("The Indomitable Chinatown Bus," New York Magazine).

The chaos and problems associated with Chinatown bus service ("Federal Officials Shut Down 26 Bus Operators," New York Times), created an opportunity for the major bus companies to step in and offer comparable services, but with more reliability and amenities like wifi access. 

Major bus companies--BoltBus is a nonunion carrier owned by Greyhound and CoachUSA created Megabus--are now leading this market, both in the Northeast corridor and in other parts of the country ("Buses fastest-growing form of intercity travel," USA Today).

Research studies.  The Institute for Public Administration (IPA) at the University of Delaware has been researching the "curbside bus industry," called such because the new services often don't operate out of terminals but pick and drop people off at curbside stops near train stations and subway stations, and they have produced a report and a masters thesis on the subject:

-- Curbside Intercity Bus Industry: Research of Transportation Policy Opportunities and Challenges
-- The Curbside Bus Industry: A New Era of Bus Travel, masters thesis by Eileen Collins

The Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University in Chicago has done a fair amount of research as well, in part focusing on the Midwest.

-- Intercity Bus Research webpage
-- The Return of the Intercity Bus: The Decline and Recovery of Scheduled Service to American Cities, 1960 - 2007

Integrating intercity bus services into local transit infrastructure.  In "the old days," when bus service was more widely used, many communities had bus terminals, most often provided, owned, and managed by Greyhound or Trailways operators.  Back then, with privately operated transit systems, it was rare for transit services--railroad or bus--to coordinated their service from a single station.  (Washington's "Union" Station was an exception for railroad service.)

But as ridership declined, many of these terminals have been closed. Some larger cities like Toronto, Montreal, and New York City do still provide support for intercity bus terminals, but in the US, operators can't be forced to use these facilities.

The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub connects Amtrak, commuter rail, light rail, bus, and intercity bus transit services.  Wikipedia photo.

In some communities, intercity bus lines work with local transit services for access to a main station, which provides for better service for patrons but at the same time, can create problems as intercity bus terminals tend to have some loitering, vagrancy, and crime issues.

That's why in Baltimore relocating the Greyhound terminal next to Penn Station was ultimately unsuccessful ("Mayor vetoes city bus terminal," Baltimore Sun, 2001). In DC, the services have been relocated to Union Station after many years of hoping for it, in large part because the Greyhound terminal--located about 5 blocks from Union Station--was worth more as a redevelopment site.

But many places provide minimal accommodations for people traveling by intercity bus and this should be addressed at the scale of metropolitan, regional, and multi-state transportation planning.

Bus departures screen, Gare D'autocars, Montreal.  Wikipedia photo.

Improving station accommodations.   I have argued that the bus services need to be better integrated into Union Station than they have been ("Union Station bus terminal"), such as with coordination departure and arrival information displays, such as are provided at the intercity bus terminal in Montreal.

Conclusion.  It would be nice to see more support for the efforts of Michael Buiting-American Intercity Bus Riders Association, not just for the creation of a map, as well as greater focus by planners on some of the issues that he and others raise with regard to the quality, breadth, and depth of intercity transit as it relates to buses.